On the "Prophecies" of Atheists, and Other Topics

On the Triablogue post Atheist Eschatology and the False Prophets, Paul Manata criticizes those who have made "prophetic" remarks about the future of religion. Paul is especially concerned with those whose predictions declared a near and present end to religion -- crushed and killed by the power of scientific progress. I actually agree with him on some points. Our comments on that post run over into Dusman's combox. I've pasted the exchanges below.

I initially replied at Tblog (1/12/07, 7AM):

Anyone who claims to have prescience regarding the future state of man, or the overall effect of religion upon man, would have a heavy burden of evidence to bear.

I have long wrestled with the idea that religion is entirely bad for mankind. I am not sure that this proposition is true.

I am sure that fundamentalist dogmatism, and especially that which conflicts with scientific knowledge, is dangerous for the progress of mankind. However, part of that very progress is the peaceful spreading of knowledge through education, and not forcing "conversions" or "deconversions" upon people, or ever erecting a state which enforces any sort of religion or irreligion. Freedom of religion is part of our progress. States like the USSR, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., etc., show us the danger of [tyrannical] fascism that attempts to strip from [by force] people the freedom to express and practice religion.

I've commented more on this at length. I have begun to consider that some sorts of religion, and some of its rituals and beliefs, may serve as a sort of "placeholder" for many people who do not have the interest or rigor to critically and seriously examine (exhaustively) philosophical arguments. At some point, the placeholder may be rightfully usurped by the person's own acquisition of beliefs -- rather than inheriting and swallowing wholesale the prepackaged orthodoxy. However, people must have beliefs about morality, and value. If they cannot be bothered to consider, as one alternative, the existential arguments concerning man's freedom to transcend and determine value, or the arguments of virtue theories of ethics, or of utilitarianism...then what will they consider? Is it possible for humans to exist in a sort of vacuum of beliefs? No.

From whence cometh their beliefs? Parents. Schools. Experience.

Some religions would provide a better set of beliefs than some of these 3 sources. For instance, I think that Buddhism would confer and prescribe a better way to live than a child reared in North Korea and educated (indoctrinated) by its schools and their "Great Leader". Ditto with some religious fundamentalism.

Religions have, by time and necessity, evolved. They have dropped off the more primitive aspects (ie blood sacrifices) and adopted humanistic aspects (ie altruism and charity). Therefore, much good comes in the package. Much that intersects with rational thinking can be found in the box that is orthodox religion.

And therefore, I have a hard time feeling the same sort of impetus to deconvert the masses that, say, Sam Harris or Dawkins do. I find myself too skeptical to paint with so wide a brush. However, I do wish that those persons who hold specific religious beliefs that I consider detrimental to progress [and to the person's own mental health] would give an ear and some credence to the arguments against those beliefs. I am frightened by anti-intellectualism, which runs rampant in some religious circles. And that is what compels me to argue against those topics that I do.

wlotter thoughtfully responded (1/12, 12:25 PM):

Daniel,

You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).

Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)

I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?

And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.

I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?

To which I retorted (as Nelly Furtado, 1/12, 4:21 PM):

You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).

I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant.

I have no vision of utopia. Progress may be an end in itself.

Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)

My meaning can be derived from whatever I find valuable -- from the happiness of my spouse to the rolling of my rock up a hill.

I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?

Perhaps not, in the ultimate sense. Perhaps we are all just shadows and dust, in the cosmic sense, striving against the unstoppable wind which scatters us abroad. But what ought we do? Find no beauty? Find no meaning? Have no values? It is impossible to do otherwise.

And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.

Some. Most of a Christian's meaning is derived from their sense of self and family, much of which is based on experience and reality. So long as the believer thinks that God is happy with them, this equates to their being a good person, and being "on the right path". This gives them the same sort of tranquility that I have in being on that same "right path" and in being "a good person". Myths are not necessarily false, as they can illustrate truths.

I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?

Death is too much for our self-awareness to bear. Futility leads to despair. And that is why every culture throughout history invented religions and religious myths. Neandertals have even been found with the evidence of death rites and rituals at their gravesites.

I have more thoughts along those lines, and some very general ideas on existentialism, and Sisyphus, in this post.

Paul then replied, but obfuscated my words (1/12, 5:24 PM):

"I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant."

So you subjectively assign value to your life, even though there objectively is none.

Thanks for the admission.

Atheists choose to ignore reality and invent stories for themselves.

But then they complain that Christians invent religion and ignore the scientific finding of "the real world."

At any rate, since it's subjective then there's nothing objectively wrong with the child molester who subjectively assigns his life the value and purpose of "lover of children."

I called him on it (as Boy George, 1/12, 6:53 PM):

Paul,

As usual, you commit a non sequitur as you leap from ones sense of self-purpose to the issues surrounding moral duties, obligations, and properties.

I don't feel like chasing off after that red herring. I've had my say.

Paul (1/12, 8:18 PM):

Boy George,

No, I simply said that a child molester could assign the subjective value to his life that he chose to.

You'll note that I said there was nothing objectively wrong with him assigning subjective value to his life.

I never said that the act itself wasn't wrong, just the assignment of value, which the above commenter said in his post.

So, as usual, you forget to even apply critical reading skills to just a few sentences a theist writes, let alone an entire book.

But, to take it further, given the atheist that I responded to, I don't see how any "objective morals" could exist. Remember, he said,

"no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance"

And given this outlook, one would have a defeater for all his beliefs, including his ethical ones. So, even though I'm not guilty if the crime yoiu accuse me of, I wouldn't have been even if I did what you said.

Now, I could go off on a tangent about how careless internet atheists seem to be these days, but I don't feel like chasing that.

I've had my say.

best,

~PM

Me again (as Boy George, 1/13, 3:55 AM)

Paul,

Actually, she said:

"...even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance..."

Very convenient of you to have left off the boldened part.

1/13/2007 3:55 AM

Paul's last response at the Tblog (1/13, 8:47 AM)

I didn't need that part in ther Boy George because my point has to do with there actually being no cosmic value and meaning.

My point was, *given the view* that meaning and value is subjectively assigned, then what's the problem wioth a molester assigning himself the value of "lover of children?"

So, the "even if" did not affect my point.

Now, if you want to say that there possibily *is* cosmic value and meaning, that is objective, well now we're back to the other problem.

Or, if you just want to remain *agnostic* about our origens, our purpose, etc., then as I said above, you have a defeater for all your beliefs.

glad I could help,

~PM

Then things move to Dusman's blog, following his reply to Paul's post, I wrote:

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the two "camps", since one claims supernatural powers of prescience and the other doesn't?

Dusman responded (4:24 PM):

Greetings to our church blog Mr. Morgan!

Now, to answer your question, I'd say no. This is because (1) Paul Manata never claimed to have supernatural powers of prescience, and (2) since he wrote the article with a different intention than that which you've seemingly superimposed upon it, your above comment which was obviously designed to show that he is making a category error is simply unsubstantiated. Take care and I appreciate you taking the time to post.

And Paul rejoined (7:21 PM):

Daniel,

Isn't it a bit silly to be a member of a camp that doesn't claim supernatural powers of prescience, uet still make prophetic predictions? If you have no business predicting future events, then don't do it! So, your post serves to undermine the friends in your "camp."

Anyway, you missed the relevant point of comparison, as Dusman points (literally as well, look at his picture!) out.

I find it odd that you'd be sticking up for a "camp" that has made the predictions I docummented for hundreds of years. I mean, since when does being an atheist give you freedom to just wildly assert things about the future, especially when the assertions consistently fail to come true.

Now, you can think in agreement with the atheists prophets of doom, and predict that Christianity will end once people read a few more science books, but, using induction, it appears that those claims won't be coming true.

To which I replied (6:45 AM):

Dusman,

(1) No, he didn't, but the belief system of Christianity holds within it the intrinsic capability to interpret prophetic, divine, and therefore true accounts of the future. Atheists have no parallel source to go to in order to try to fit the vision of prophecy over the picture of present events.

(2) Paul wanted to point out that people have been wrong about the demise of religion. He's right. It's just silly, though, to compare Christian eschatology [claimed as divinely inspired] to atheist eschatology [admittedly fallible].

Paul,

Every human being bets on the future with each decision they make: you call football games before they're played, you don't enroll in college without the belief that you will complete it, etc., etc. We humans have the capacity to imagine the future, and therefore, we often make predictions.

I mean, since when does being an atheist give you freedom to just wildly assert things about the future, especially when the assertions consistently fail to come true.

I don't quite understand this. Are you claiming that we are not all free to make predictions, if we so choose? Now, the question of taking our predictions seriously, or gaining prestige and authority in the area, is another matter entirely. However, stock market gurus do exist. Certain people seem to be very good at predicting the future (in limited respects). Are you saying that they shouldn't attempt to do so, for their own benefit (and that of others)?

I don't claim to belong to a "camp" of any sort. I certainly share beliefs with other people, just as you do with other people. But I think just as you would distance yourself from, say, the Catholic view of birth control [perhaps], so I would separate myself from anyone who claims to know the future with any degree of certainty.

Was or was not your intent to show that people were wrong in predicting the demise of religion? If so, then you accomplished that, and I agree with you on it. Which leads to the next point:

Now, you can think in agreement with the atheists prophets of doom, and predict that Christianity will end once people read a few more science books, but, using induction, it appears that those claims won't be coming true.

I wrote:
"If people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of."

Do you agree or disagree that the establishment of knowledge via science (or at least, the belief in this knowledge) has diminished, in some respects, people's reliance upon the Bible? I'm not claiming here that some people don't take the Bible's authority (or belief thereof) over that of scientific evidence. But you must admit that science has forever changed the landscape of Christianity.

I don't think Christianity will die off from science. I think it will continue to evolve. Just as it has for thousands of years.

Around 1 billion (or more) Christians accept many scientific theories that you (and many others) reject, for example. That is a huge impact on the body, is it not?

And, the secularization of Europe is something the Pope has candidly admitted as of late. The global trend of secularization is that modern, technologically-advanced societies are trending that way (with the USA as a stubborn slow holdout), while the 3rd world is expanding in religious belief as Communism fell and missionary efforts have redoubled there: esp. Africa and India.

I think modernization and science don't spell "doom" for Xians or religion in general, but spell "change".

Paul shot back (2:57 PM):

Hi Danny,

So when Bertrand Russell, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, et al. predict the end of faith they're just doing the philosophers equivalent of "calling football" games?

Couldn't have said it better myself. And here we thought the atheological minds that the public hears the most from were actually trying to use reason.

Bottom line: My post pointed out that atheists have their own embarrassing prophets to silence. Before you go picking on Christians, clean up your own back yard. from my perspective, it's pretty messy.

My last comment (written 1/17/07, don't know when Dusman will allow it to be posted); Paul words in italics:

So when Bertrand Russell, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, et al. predict the end of faith they're just doing the philosophers equivalent of "calling football" games?

Yes, basically.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And here we thought the atheological minds that the public hears the most from were actually trying to use reason.

They are. Just like you do when you call a football game. And my analogy may be a little better than I thought: when you use your brain to calculate probabilities and compare stats, you use reason in calling the game; but, your evaluation will always be a little skewed towards the team you (identify with) like the most. It's hard to be impartial in matters of football or religion, isn't it?

Bottom line: My post pointed out that atheists have their own embarrassing prophets to silence.

I disagree with the concept of silencing people. I disagree with the concept that people aren't free to predict the future all they want. If they garner support for their "prophecies", I think it's absurd. But, just as they are free to do this, so people are free to take their prescient powers seriously. I do not.

Before you go picking on Christians, clean up your own back yard. from my perspective, it's pretty messy.

Perhaps the better way to put it is to say: "If you're really freethinkers, do you need a shepherd around to tell you what the future will be like, or can you judge her/his words and think for yourselves?" I don't have the right or obligation to "silence" anyone, but I could try to persuade persons whom I think put way way way too much stock in, say, Dawkins.

Anyway, I understand your point, but I still think you're trying to parallel two orthogonal lines: you can't compare religion with non-religion in this way, when there is no meaningful basis for comparison of the two camps' self-styled "prophets". People [stupid ones] really believe that Pat Robertson hears from God; no one thinks that of Dennett. Therefore, no one thinks that Dennett has to be right...contrariwise...

Thanks for the civil exchange.

I thought the conversation worth sharing. I hope you agree. Please feel free to comment if you agree, disagree, or anything in between!

**UPDATE: Paul wanted me to include a comment he left after I had written this post. So let it be done:

Paul's last comment at Dusman's place, 8:49 PM --

Well, Danny, people's hearts get the best of them when they "call" football games. I still like the analogy. In fact, it's even closer than we thought. Here we have a bunch of emotional atheists rooting with their heart and not their head. I did that, but the Chargers still lost! I mean, you may think they're applying reason, but if I picked the wrong team for the past few hundred years, I think you'd say that my emotions are getting the best of me. I mean, would you listen to a Vegas Line on the odds is they had been wrong for hundreds of years. No, he'd get fired. And so ther best thing for you guys to do is fire the emotion driven atheists (Dennett, Bawkins, Harris, et al)., and find a new odds maker.

I can parallel the two because I think atheism is just as religiously driven and motivated as Christianity is. And, two, I'm comparing the goofballs in our camp with the goofballs in your camp. A wrong prediction is a wrong prediction, no matter which way you slice it. If we're getting mocked, you're getting mocked.

Paul basically repeated what I said in a much earlier comment -- that I laugh at people who take anyone's claims to prescience seriously. Thus I can't/don't have to "fire" anyone, since I never employed them to do my thinking or analysis for me. And I'll admit that when it comes to being in a "camp" with others of like mind, it is quite possible to be driven by emotion to defend a fellow camper's position before thinking it through clearly. Thus, I'll admit that many people, me included, may rush to propose something, or defend something, on the basis of emotion alone without considering the merits of the argument. In the case of "predictions/prophecies", this is clearly often the case. But, since I don't typically refer to any of these fellows as idols of mine, and since I have actually distanced myself from two of them (esp. Dawkins), you may not be able to paint me with this broad brush.

If you notice, when I mock Pat Robertson, I don't claim that all Christians are being mocked. When I mock Jerry Falwell, I don't claim all Christians are also theocratic loons. I even specify from time to time that not all are. You ought to consider the same application of selectivity: not all atheists make dumb predictions. Furthermore, some atheists post scientific polling to support their predictions. **END UPDATE**
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy

Who Said It?

Which hugely prominent figure, who supported separation of church and state, said the following? (I'll give you a hint: he was assassinated.)

PLAYBOY: One of the most controversial issues of the past year, apart from civil rights, was the question of school prayer, which has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. Governor Wallace, among others, has denounced the decision. How do you feel about it?

???: I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the efforts that have been made to nullify the decision. They have been motivated, I think, by little more than the wish to embarrass the Supreme Court. When I saw Brother Wallace going up to Washington to testify against the decision at the Congressional hearings, it only strengthened my conviction that the decision was right.

Answer: MLK! He did an interview with Playboy in Jan. 1965 [hilarious, eh?] which can be read here.

HT: RC
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

Mutually Exclusive Ideologies

Two things that can only exterminate one another:

• Scientific progress (a .pdf primer on astrobiology)-- HT: Bad Astronomy



• Theocratic regress (a Harper's article on Fundy-driven historical revisionism by Jeff Sharlet) -- HT: Hallq
  

________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state, Philosophy

UF Campus Preachers -- Part 2 of 2

Since the first installment of this review, replete with a picture index and the emails and webpages of five of our infamous UF campus preachers, I have had phone interviews with Brother Jed and Ruben Israel, and compiled more information to report.

Ruben Israel and Bro. Jed accepted, while Tom Short, Frank Zaccaro** and Mike Siemer declined, phone interviews. (RI, BJ, TS, FW and MS, respectively) FW was even witty enough to reply to my email with a blank email, except for a signature at the bottom: "Sincerely, Frank". I responded and alerted him to the missing body of the email, which turned out to be intentional:

Daniel,
There was nothing in the message because that is all that the Bible has to say to Atheists. If God is not good enough for you then I certainly am not. The only warm regards you'll get from God is your butt burning in hell unless you snap out of it and trust in Jesus.
Saved by grace,
Frank

Hilarious. The "warm regards" he mentioned is from my own email signature: "With warm regards, Daniel".

I will summarize the phone interviews in as concise and interesting a format as possible.

Worst Beating/Heckling:

BJ -- "I had my ankle broken at the U of Wisconsin, my arm at Western Kentucky U." He said he received the ankle injury when, "someone pushed me off a bench," and, "[they] never found out who it was, and the police didn't do anything." He thinks that this was back in 1985. In telling me about the young man responsible for the broken arm, Jed said, "he was charged, given a plea bargain -- had to pay restitution...back in 1998."

RI -- On one of the most memorable backlashes from the audience: "I've been whipped with rosary beads." However, his worst beating was, "Not on college campus, it was with Jews...every May...your large city [sic] has a large 4th of July thing (that's when Israel won its independence [May])...Westwood, 3rd largest Jewish population -- that's where you go if you want to reach Jews...as we were going in, we knew it was going to be hostile. They got me as I was walking back to my car -- I was walking by some Jewish guys and they started to beat on me; if not for one Jewish guy who shielded me, cause they were pounding on me, it would've been pretty bad..."

Comment on success:

BJ -- "Salvations have remained about the same -- typically people who get saved through my ministry don't get saved on the spot...read my letters on the website." Jed thinks that only about 10% of Christians agree with him, because they have been taught friendship evangelism: find an unbeliever, introduce yourself, make yourself friendly, find some common ground, etc. "Initially you don't even say anything about your faith...gradually introduce your faith to them...I find the main approach to evangelism biblically is preaching publicly out where the sinners are and preaching against sin -- [it comes with] different rules for preaching than one-on-one..."

RI -- Despite the obvious lack of support from the audiences, Ruben assures me, "it is growing incredible". He continued, "Many churches will say, 'I disagree with what they're doing,' but behind closed scenes, they pat us on the back...We were just in Georgia, and now there are 5-6 Bible studies from what we did there...we look at this as fruit...we're not just a hatemongering group." He told me that people don't know how large their network is -- Bible Believers has 40 chapters nationwide -- in Atlanta, PA, Columbia. He bragged a bit about their legal support and legal successes in cases where campus preachers have been challenged.

Comment on interacting with our generation [Next]:

BJ -- "I still virtually wherever I go gather good sized crowds...back into the 70s and well into the 80s my crowds were generally larger...I have made some adjustments in my ministry -- I'm probably less provocative than I was in my earlier years...I don't think it is necessarily the hearts of the students...more distractions for the students -- the two main ones are the internet and cell phones. So often now...they're talking to someone over the cell phone...they're more distractions that you have to compete with...sometimes the new technology works in your favor -- for example a cell phone caller telling a friend [that BJ is out there preaching]. I don't think the changes over the years and the reactions of the students are significantly different...same questions, inane comments, not much has changed in 32 years; they think they're coming up with these original brilliant comments or questions, I've heard it literally thousands of times..."

RI -- "We have what I would call a microwave generation...I would say 20 years ago you could actually debate on a college campus for 2 hours, and actually have the students involved in the debate for two hours. Now you only have a quick time with this student before he gets bored...if you're not a little bit provocative and shocking, you're going to lose this student...satellite TV, 300 channels, but they put the remote down and say, 'there's nothing on TV'...you have to be shocking. [Student] attention spans used to be hours, now it's just 20 minutes, if that...we are a little bit entertainers...our motive is to try to make that student stop, miss class, ask questions..."

I asked Ruben how he thought the atmosphere was today versus 20 or 30 years ago: "I think they're a little bit more mellow...Berkeley was radical...professional mockers would wait for guys with a black book with their hand; nowadays it's nothing, usually a younger preacher will call me and say, 'This happened...' and I'll say, 'That's nothing!'"

On finances:

BJ -- On his finances, Jed said, "most of my support is from individuals, not churches, about 15% from churches...from individuals that I have met from speaking in churches...and then there will be a percentage that are people who were influenced during their college years by my ministry...probably about 10% supporters." "We live comfortably, we have a 5BR, 3BA home in a nice subdivision in Columbia MO...when I travel I stay in homes with people or have a nice motel room...the Lord has provided well for us over the years...with my oratorical skills I probably could have made more money in some other type work than I do..."

RI -- Ruben is a businessman out of LA, and his painting business must be doing fairly well -- he reports that he finances his own preaching, spending around $20-25K a year on travel. That is certainly something I respect of him: that he solicits no donations. Of course, you could argue that he is unlikely to receive much from his typical audiences: NOW marchers (he calls them "rebellious women"), Mardi Gras partiers, atheists...even football fans!

Next planned visit:

BJ -- he told me the second week of classes this spring, and his schedule here says the 18th-19th of January.

RI -- no clear date, but he said sometime in February or March.

More information on Ruben:

Ruben Israel Chavez learned much under the tutelage of "Bible Jim" Webber, whose Vegas antics are renowned, as he preaches frequently at the Bellagio Hotel. Now involved in open-air preaching for almost 3 decades, Ruben heads up the Official Street Preachers website, and is an Asst. Director of Street Preachers Fellowship. He tells me he has been doing open-air preaching and has been affiliated with the activity for the past 27 years. His infamy has even landed him a mention on the Glenn Beck website and show.

You can watch video of Ruben preaching in various venues on his media page. Thus, he is an authoritative voice in the arena of street-preaching (or, as they call it, "open air preaching") as administrator, organizer and participant. Ruben told me that Bible Believers, with its 40 chapters nationwide, acts as a sort of umbrella for himself, BJ and other independent ministers.

Part of this organization's major effort is directed at defending the right to conduct their open-air preaching in the "free speech zones" on university campuses. He claimed that recently, at UNO, a campus preacher was kicked off campus, even with a permit. He said he brought in 13 other campus preachers in his organization, returned, and that they got into a small altercation with the university police, which then went all the way up to the dean.

Ruben said there were 12 different teams that traveled the country doing this that he knew of -- all affiliated in some way one of the organizations he's connected to. He said that, "We've had many people who have decided it's not for them; [it's] counting the cost, not for everyone -- confrontational evangelism. Your younger Christian will say, 'this is horrible' but they don't understand...we're all the body, different parts..." While RI believes that some Catholics are saved, he is, "Against religion in general; religion is the worst thing that mankind can make...when the pope comes to town we try to send guys out there with banners: don't pray to Mary; there's no purgatory; we don't find the word 'Pope' in the bible..."

Finally, remarking on the disruptive character of what they do, Ruben called on the Constitution: "Freedom of religion surpasses freedom of speech; not even the laws can surpass you...we have a lot more rights than some guy just walking to class...If I offend the whole campus, I'm not going to miss one meal...I just don't want to offend God."

More information on Bro. Jed:

Jed's campus preaching started in Indiana 32 years ago. He has been on college campuses virtually 5 days a week, from around 12 PM - 5 PM during class days, ever since.

**UPDATE (1/29/07): See 12 videos of BJ at UF here**

I hate to rehash when much has been written about the man already: see the Wikipedia article, Who Will Rise Up? (autobiography which details his life and ministry), and his FAQ from an alt.usenet group. A lot of our phone call involved Radical Bill, longtime friend and somewhat an alter-ego of BJ; Bill and BJ were almost in collusion in the way they would stage their dialogue and debates here at UF, and then Jed would ask Bill to go out and buy dinner for him. I wrote more about Bill about in part 1, and he recently appeared in this recent Alligator article, which features a picture of Radical Bill sitting out in the Plaza of the Americas like the Buddha, debating a campus preacher.

In learning more, it seems Bill stretched the truth about Jed's wife -- Jed claims she never got involved in the drug or alcohol scene, just disco dancing. Some of the most interesting stuff I found was when I located, scanned and uploaded the six page Rolling Stone article on BJ. You can visit the index to download them or right-click and save each page. It's definitely worth your read.

--index-- --page 1-- --page 2-- --page 3-- --page 4-- --page 5-- --page 6--

BJ's comments on the article: "I did not think it to be too bad an article," although Jed believed that it had a "particular slant you would expect...the quotes were accurate, but sometimes taken out of the context in which I said these things..."

Jed told me he also was followed a little by Bill O'Reilly back when Bill was still with ABC News, around 1986, Jed believes. "[A] NPR radio interview [was] probably about the best thing I've had the national media do on me 2003-4, when the interviewer asked me the media coverage I got -- I never noticed Bill being so confrontational and aggressive as he is now, [interviewer said] 'maybe you influenced O'Reilly...I see the value of your confrontational-aggressive approach, I'm reconsidering my style.'"

Jed told me that he did not actually train Tom Short, as Radical Bill informed me, but he did influence Tom's career: TS and Jed are "good friends," but "Tom never really traveled with me...I first met Tom in about '78..." Tom was a student in Ohio at the time, when BJ came to preach, and as a Christian, Tom "...questioned my approach and methods," but Jed turned the tables on him, after asking Tom what he did as a Christian to spread the gospel: after affirming that Tom wasn't very active in ministry, Jed retorted, "I like the way I'm doing it wrong better than the way you're not doing anything at all!" Within a year, Jed said Tom was preaching.

Another interesting little intersection [it's a small world, after all...] is that David Miller, dad of Christine, is often Jed's host when Jed is traveling here to preach at UF. For more on that story, see footnote [2] of part 1.

I'll close out the information on BJ by quoting some of his views on politics. I asked him these questions to see if his views had much changed in the 20-odd years since the Rolling Stone article, when he answered these same questions:

On poverty in the US: "Virtually no one is starving in America...perhaps suffering from malnutrition...I haven't heard of people starving, and I don't see a reason they should have to with all the church programs..."
On disenfranchisement: "If you're on welfare, and not really contributing to the system, then you ought not be allowed to vote."
On welfare: "Robbing from the more productive members of society to redistribute ... I believe in charity...but I don't think they ought to be required by law to help the poor."
On the rise of the Religious Right: "I don't think the religious right has been at all able to implement its agenda in the political realm to any great significance."
On political theory: "My 3 principles of good civil government are based on limited civil government, individual responsibility and private property...Democrats and socialists want to victimize everybody...they fail to make distinctions between public and private property...I oppose anti-smoking legislation in public places...these restaurants and hotels are open to the public but they are privately owned."
On education policy: "I don't believe the state ought to be in the business of handing out scholarships...it should be privately done."
On slavery: "In these tribal societies, the members of the tribe were virtually slaves of the tribal chiefs...I think they often had more freedom in the slave system in America than they did back in Africa...cannibalism was prominent...various tribes found out they could, instead of cannibalizing their POWs, they could sell them to slave traders."

Some UF incidents:

Although both Bro. Jed and Ruben agreed that college campus atmospheres are much less violent in their reactions to them, there is always a little drama, and both admitted to trying to entertain a bit and engage in theatrics in order to procure an audience. Two incidents I witnessed recently include an angry student getting in Tom Short's face and some backlash from Catholics who Michael Siemer condemned.

The most dramatic point I have personally witnessed was during my 3 days interacting with Tom Short when a young man, a skeptic, got in Tom's face and yelled at him not to malign science. He literally screamed right in his face. This was during Tom's tortured attempt to try to argue that science is bad because it doesn't say "God might've done it." The young man was very angry, and I strongly disagreed with his outburst. It actually had me worried for a moment that the young man was going to assault Tom. I booed at him. He looked like a fanatic loon, as if Tom had insulted his mother, rather than stumbling and fumbling his way through a pitiful refutation of science. The young man screamed something along the lines of, "LEAVE SCIENCE ALONE!!!" or "DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT SCIENCE!!!"

Some of the flak comes from other Christians. Michael Siemer, for example, was recently beset by Catholics who surrounded him and were angry that he included them on his giant "surefire goin' to hell list". They began to chant the "Holy Mary, Mother of God..." thing, which Mike later told me was a sort of demonic chant [snicker]. There were probably about four of them, and they continued to pray, with Mike saying, "They're praying to a false god, man."

Conclusion:

Like, love or hate campus/open-air preachers, they aren't going away anytime soon. In part 1 I suggested some methods to use to counter their more offensive and outrageous antics, but I think that rational discourse will always win over dogma and fanaticism. I'll certainly be out in Turlington [see webcam] each time I am able when one of them is out there, and part of my effort here is directed towards the hope that others will join me. We come to a university to broaden our horizons, and these sorts of people present us with another opportunity to do just that -- to learn; and it is always healthy to question what we, and others, take for granted.

• UF Campus Preachers -- Part 1 of 2
• UF Campus Preachers -- Part 2 of 2

**It turns out that Frank Zaccaro is the correct name, not Frank Warner. "frankwarner" was his email, but he told me he meant "warner" as in "to warn".
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Philosophy

Sums Up My Own View

See Kaiser's article on Iraq to hear my own thoughts:

Trapped by Hubris, Again
By Robert G. Kaiser
Article Last Updated: 01/12/2007 08:54:43 PM MST

WASHINGTON - After nearly four years of ineffectual war-fighting, after the collapse of domestic support for President Bush and his policies, after the expenditure of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, it no longer seems possible to avoid the grim conclusion: For the United States, Iraq has become another Vietnam.

Fortunately, the overall death toll in Iraq so far, while high, is still smaller than it was in Vietnam. But tragically, the most important difference between the two conflicts may be that defeat in Iraq is likely to produce catastrophic consequences for that nation, its neighbors and the United States, too.

For a gray-haired journalist whose career included 18 months covering the Vietnam War for The Washington Post, it is amazing that my country has done this again. We twice took a huge risk in the hope that we could predict and dominate events in a nation whose history we did not know, whose language few of us spoke, whose rivalries we didn't understand, whose expectations for life, politics and economics were all foreign to many Americans.

Both times, we put our fate in the hands of local politicians who would not follow U.S. orders, who did not see their country's fate the way we did, and who could not muster the support of enough of their countrymen to produce the outcome Washington wanted. In Vietnam as in Iraq, U.S. military power alone proved unable to achieve the desired political objectives.

How did this happen again? After all, we're Americans - practical, common-sense people who know how to get things done. Or so we'd like to think. In truth, we are ethnocentric to a fault, certain of our own superiority, convinced that others see us as we do, blithely indifferent to cultural, political and historical realties far different than our own. These failings - more than any tactical or strategic errors - help explain the U.S. catastrophes in Vietnam and Iraq.

Future historians trying to understand how the U.S. adventure in Iraq went so badly off track will be grateful for the memorandum that national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley wrote to Bush on Nov. 8, 2006, after a visit to Iraq. The "secret" memo was leaked to The New York Times three weeks later.

Hadley began with a candid evaluation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: "The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests al-Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

Having been frank about the problem, Hadley then entered a dream world to discuss ways it might be solved. He offered his boss an elaborate set of initiatives that should be urged on the hapless al-Maliki. The first one gives a good flavor of the Hadley plan for success: "Maliki should compel his ministers to take small steps - such as providing health services and opening bank branches in Sunni neighborhoods - to demonstrate that his government serves all ethnic communities." Others included compelling al-Maliki to overhaul his personal staff to make it ethnically diverse, shake up his cabinet and bring in competent technocrats, and insist that all ministers renounce violence in all forms.

How would Bush carry out Hadley's correctives? "We can help (him) in a variety of ways," Hadley wrote. If al-Maliki thinks he isn't in a position to follow all of the Americans' good advice, "we will need to work with him to augment his capabilities." Among the steps Hadley proposed:
"Actively support Maliki in helping him develop an alternative political base. We would likely need to use our own political capital to press moderates to align themselves with Maliki's new political bloc. . . . Consider monetary support to moderate groups that have been seeking to break with larger, more sectarian parties, as well as to support Maliki himself. . . . Provide Maliki with more resources to help build a nonsectarian national movement."

In other words, the national security adviser told the president 42 months after this disastrous war began that we can still fix it. Yankee ingenuity - pulling this lever, pushing that button - can make things turn out the way we want them to. There you see the peculiar strain of hubris that led the United States astray four years ago in Iraq - and four decades ago in Vietnam.

Indeed, Hadley's memo is squarely in the tradition of the sublimely arrogant know-it-alls whom journalist David Halberstam memorably dubbed The Best and the Brightest. These were the men around John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson who, along with Kennedy and Johnson, gave us the Vietnam War: Robert S. McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, Walt W. Rostow and the rest. They, too, allowed themselves to believe that the shrewd application of U.S. power - pulling a lever here, pushing a button there - could create and prop up an independent, democratic South Vietnam. This was something that had never existed previously - in that sense, something sadly akin to a multiethnic, democratic Iraq.

Yet in his speech to the nation Wednesday night announcing changes in Iraq policy, the president embraced many of Hadley's proposals. He has extracted promises from al-Maliki to crack down on Shiite militias and has pushed the prime minister to broaden his cabinet. Bush also took Hadley's advice to increase the number of U.S. troops operating in Baghdad, and to broaden the program that embeds Americans with Iraqi units.

Last week, Bush seemed to threaten al-Maliki as well: "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people," the president said. The United States has always been good at telling other nations what they have to do, and what will happen if they don't do it.

When things began to go wrong in Vietnam, we helped stage a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem, whom the United States helped to install as president of South Vietnam. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had once called him Asia's "miracle man." Diem was dumped in 1963. Eight changes in leadership, all involving Washington, ended with Nguyen Van Thieu's ascent to the presidency in 1967; Thieu then held on for eight years before being ousted nine days before North Vietnamese troops marched into Saigon. We never did find "the right guy" for Vietnam, to borrow Bush's recent description of al-Maliki, and there is scant evidence that the man who botched the execution of Saddam Hussein is really the right guy for Iraq, either.

We accomplished a great deal during the 14 years we were engaged in South Vietnam. We created an infrastructure for the country, built roads and schools and hospitals, trained hundreds of thousands of troops, figured out how to "pacify" the countryside. As long as U.S. military power was available to neutralize the fighting force of North Vietnam - whose communist leaders were determined to expel the Americans and reunify their country - South Vietnam could survive, even prosper.

But we could not create a government or an economy in South Vietnam that could survive without our generous help. When I was leaving Vietnam in August 1970, I wrote about how we had made the Vietnamese utterly dependent on us. At the time, the Nixon administration's policy was "Vietnamization" - turning the war over to the South Vietnamese. But the South Vietnamese had not shown that they could cope without us. "Even if the policy succeeds," I wrote, "the United States may well be unable to redeem the lives, money and self-esteem it invested in the war in Vietnam."

The Vietnamese communists had key advantages that the U.S. side couldn't match: a better army, more determined and more competent leaders, and a political legitimacy that they had earned by expelling the French colonizers. And they were fighting for a unified Vietnam.

Iraq is different. The "enemy" there is not a single group of Iraqis, but, weirdly, nearly all Iraqis, because Iraqis do not share a common definition of their state or a common agenda for its future. This disarray has been compounded by the presence of Islamic fanatics from countries that have seized the opportunity to go to Iraq to try to kill Americans. Polls and reporting suggest that, overwhelmingly, Iraqis of all factions want U.S. forces to leave.

In the face of chaos, the United States has no reliable ally - no legitimate political authority that crosses sectarian lines and attracts the loyalty of large numbers of Iraqis. Which Iraqis will risk their lives to promote Washington's idea of Iraq? The army and police defend sectarian, not national, interests, even when they are fighting the same people U.S. troops are fighting.
The Iraqis who would presumably have been most supportive of a modernizing and democratic Iraq - the secular intelligentsia that thrived in Iraq until the Persian Gulf War - is now depleted. Hundreds of thousands of these Iraqis have already fled to other countries, including many doctors, lawyers, academics and other trained professionals. The war has created a vacuum in the upper reaches of Iraqi society.

What's the lesson to be learned? Modesty. Before initiating a war of choice, define the goal with honesty and precision, then analyze what means will be needed to achieve it. Be certain you really understand the society you propose to transform. And never gamble that the political solution to such an adventure will somehow materialize after the military operation has begun. Without a plausible political plan at the outset, military operations alone are unlikely to produce success.

Bush's latest initiatives - like all his earlier ones - will not produce the desired political result, because Americans cannot accomplish political objectives in Iraq. Americans are outsiders, occupiers, foreigners in every sense of the word. Only Iraqis have a chance of finding a political resolution for their divisions. So now we await the fate of this latest gamble like a high roller in Las Vegas watching a roulette ball in a spinning wheel. We have about as much control over the situation as the gambler has of that ball. The outcome is out of our hands, and it would be foolish to bet that we will like the way the conflict ends.
---
Robert G. Kaiser, an associate editor of The Post, covered the Vietnam War in 1969 and 1970. Author email: robertgkaiser@yahoo.com
________________
Technorati tags: Politics, Bush

Blogger Issues Solved

Some of you [hopefully] noticed that the site was down for a few days, and a redirect page had appeared in its place. If you are interested in the fairly boring and convoluted story, you can read how and why this happened below:

In reading about a few problems people had experienced in their update/upgrade from "old" to "new" Blogger, I decided it would be prudent of me to back up all of my posts and archives at a reliable location before attempting the upgrade myself. The easiest way to do this is to switch to FTP publishing, and thus I did.

Once I had backed up everything at my FTP site, I went back into the publishing settings to change "publish to FTP" back to "publish at blogspot.com", and reclaim my URL: danielmorgan.blogspot.com. It told me that the URL was unavailable.

First, I freaked, of course, then [after re-trying several times] I actually checked the status of the URL. A blank blog appeared where mine used to, and the profile was owned by some "RV" [now "NR" -- but still a spambot, I'm sure]. Then, an obviously robot-generated redirect to a search page appeared. I kept flagging it as spam and reporting it as a TOS violation, and sometimes the redirect page was unavailable, presumably fixed by some automated process, and it reverted back to a blank blog. However, the blog spam kept reappearing every few hours, and it appeared the spammers had an upper hand on Blogspot to have bypassed their system so easily.

Then, my friend Matt advised me to take this issue to the Blogger Help group usenets, as he remembered the same thing happening recently there, and the Blogger techs fixing it. I did as he suggested, and they fixed it within 12 hours.

So what's the moral of the story? Well, I suppose I would suggest setting up a new (unused) blog in your dashboard that you can use as a "placeholder" for your URL anytime you want to switch to FTP publishing, or have to leave your URL for any reason. As soon as you leave the URL open, just use the other blog to claim it. Then you can switch back after you're done.

I won't be making this mistake again. If my blog again disappears, then you can find an update on the situation by checking my "old" Blogger profile, which should have an updated link to the location of my blog. If you can't, try my new Blogger profile, my webpage, here or here, and be sure I'll be using one of the new URLs I've saved [just to prevent such a FUBAR-level occurrence as this]:
http://getbusybloggin.blogspot.com/
http://stevendanielmorgan.blogspot.com/
http://danielmorgan2.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your patience, noble reader. Always know you can email me.
________________
Technorati tags: Blog stuff

A Refreshing Reminder

That not all Christians are fundamentalists, or theocratic, or loony...

Conversations with Christian and Atheist Activists: Rev. Robert Chase
by Jeff Nall, 1/10/07

Constantly kept aloft by media reports of their extremist views, the religious right presents a monstrous, theocratic visage that terrorizes many freethinkers. As a result, many of us have the tendency to make generalizations about Christianity as if it were a monolithic religion, when in fact the community contains a diverse range of opinions. I once had this tendency, having grown up in a predominantly atheist family that was constantly insulted and fearful of religious mobs taking away our freedom.

The truth, however, is that many Christians want nothing of the portrait of Christianity painted by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Progressive Christians share not only freethinkers' concerns over the melding of church and state, but they also share the legacy of having established a clear separation. Christian rationalists such as John Locke, Joseph Priestly and others fought hard to for the division of religion and government. In fact, scholar Isaac Kramnick contends that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drew from Priestley's writings on the separation of church and state when the two men planned the 1786 statute guaranteeing religious freedom in Virginia.

Christianity is not at all the one-dimensional religion that well-funded ideologues like Dobson and Falwell would have you believe; the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey identified more than 30 different groups under the banner of Christianity. Unfortunately, the diversity of opinions within the Christian religion are not well represented in the media.

To find out more about what more moderate Christians believe, I spoke to Rev. Robert Chase, Communication Director for the United Church of Christ (UCC). Founded in 1957, the UCC has more than 5,000 congregations across the United States, and has about 1.4 million members.

Though the religious right would have us believe that all Christians think the same way Pat Robertson does, Rev. Chase explained that vigorous debate is taking place within Christianity over issues such as end-of-life decisions, Biblical literalism, the notion of "true religion" and the value of conversion. He specifically singled out the Terry Schiavo case as an example of the mainstream media’s one-sided coverage, presenting the religious right attack as "the" Christian position, when in fact many Christians saw the matter as a private affair.

Interview: Rev. Robert Chase
How has Christianity changed over the years?

I think that there are a whole variety of forces and factors both historical and contemporary that shape the way Christianity is viewed across the culture. The biggest concern that I have as a progressive Christian voice or one with a progressive perspective is that there tends to be the view that Christianity is monolithic, kind of like in the 60's all people thought that all blacks thought the same or there was a women's perspective. Often the media will say "the Christian perspective."

I remember when there was the Terry Schiavo case there were the concerned folks lined up on one side and the Christian groups lined up on the other side. And that implies that there's one way of viewing faith within Christendom and nothing could be further from the truth... So there's a wide variety of expressions of faith within the Christian tradition and as it's expressed in our contemporary culture. And so the first thing we'd want to do is disabuse people of the notion that all Christians are cut from the same cloth or think alike or have the same processes or perspectives on how they interpret what's happening the world today.

Take something like the notion of "true religion" which was largely developed in Rome with the birth of Christianity. From your perspective on the issue of "true religion," do you feel like yours is the only religion that can get you to where people need to go?

My religion is the only religion that can get me to where I need to go. And sometimes it doesn't even do that too well. I think the notion of claiming a "true religion" is one of the greatest idolatries in the world today and leads to some of the unbelievable violence and chaos that we're currently experiencing. You know when you start thinking "God is on my side" as opposed to "I'm on God's side," perhaps, then you run the risk of putting God in a box that's convenient for you and your perspective or your community or your group or your cause or whatever….

On the point of Scripture, to be a good Christian or to be someone -- a part of your church, everyone doesn't necessarily have to read the Bible literally, correct?

I think the biggest split in the Christian church today, that's capital "C" across all denominations, is the split of Biblical literalism as opposed to a contextual understanding of Scripture. Once you start getting a literal interpretation, I mean you could get crazy about this... there's symbolic language... What we believe is that God speaks to each individual in the context of his or her own life.

A group named The Rockridge Institute did a 2005 project speaking with a number of progressive Christians. One question the institute put to the participants was: "How do we reconcile 'spiritual progressivism' with 'separation of church and state'?"...

I'll respond to it two ways, and again using Scripture since that person used Scripture, Jesus' famous saying, "render to Caesar what's Caesar's and to God what's God," I think really calls for a separation of church and state... The old notion of power corrupting, unfortunately, is what occurs frequently and if we are apart of the power elite, we in the religious community, that becomes hard for us to speak truth to power.

I think you're seeing some of that, for example, in the administration today. Some of the justification for some of the policies that the administration has undertaken is on a faith basis or justified as being the way that the president's religion is expressed, and therefore there should be a blurring of the line between faith and civil society. The classic example of how that can be destructive is in the Taliban. I mean there's an example where the civil society and the religious society are one and the same, when there's no check and balance, then extremism is a very real possibility...

Do you feel like the separation of church and state is also necessary to protect groups like yours from the rise of a Protestant orthodoxy that might at some point turn around and say, we'll you know this UCC group, they're really out of line in many of their views, we need to reign them in?

Right. I think that's absolutely true. In many ways that's what's happening. Our not being able to advertise on some of the networks in terms of our television commercials that we tried to air last year as an example of that. Now that's not the government saying that, but it's kind of that government-media, corporate elite that made those decisions...

Back to the church-state separation question. Can you (give an example of) the difference between a progressive Christian influence informing a person to go into the community and struggle for social justice issues, the difference between such a case and an Evangelical going in and trying to restrict gay marriage or stop passage of hate-crime legislation, or gay and lesbian adoption? What's the difference between them pushing their views and the way that progressive Christians like yourself and your group pushes?

There was a time, as a child of the '60s I recall this well, there was a time when conservative religious folks felt -- conservative Fundamentalists, the people who were on what we now call the Religious Right --believed that Christians shouldn't be involved at all in the political machinations of the day. That they should keep themselves separate and that their issues should be solely focused on personal salvation and that kind of thing. It was really the work of the Devil to get involved in the society itself.

Over the past couple decades that's really changed, and its changed radically so that the pendulum has swung to the point where now you have places like in Ohio where you've got conservative churches who are being accused of not complying with IRS statues because of their support for particular candidates and stuff like that. I don't think, in essence, there is a difference, I think that these are individuals with, whether they be left or right, with personal agendas or political agendas or causes that they believe in.

How does a group like yours perceive the rise in alternative religions such as Wicca? And how about working in coalitions with such groups in areas of social justice?

Working in coalitions for social justice would be something that we would be absolutely comfortable with so that I can state categorically. I mean we do that all the time.

Regardless of faith?

Regardless of faith or for those people who do not consider themselves part of an organized faith, or who are atheists or agnostics. We do that kind work in the social justice realm because we believe that there's a call for us to do justice.

You've got to understand, the UCC has a very broad understanding of both personal and congregational autonomy so there is a wide range of belief systems that exist within our denomination... And what we're trying to therefore do is to open our doors, especially to those who have been excluded or hurt by the church.

I mainly meant a certain acceptance.

In terms of coalition building, there's certainly room for other faith perspectives because I think many of us feel that an understanding of those faith perspectives enriches; that doesn't threaten my Christianity, it enriches it. And that's how I think many of our folks feel.

So you're not called to necessarily convert people?

We've had some bad experience with conversion. The Native Americans would be the first to tell you that. What we try to do is live by example. And, again a lot of this is me talking here, but by the fruits of the spirit people will know what my faith is. If I'm a spiritual person, a sensitive person, a loving person, a grace-filled person, then hopefully others will see that example and seek to emulate it. And that's how I think conversion happens. You leave conversion to God, you do your example.

Atheist author Sam Harris recently wrote an article arguing "The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science." Yet Martin Luther King once wrote: "Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism." Do you feel religion stands to benefit from an improved relationship via more rational religion?

For me science is a gift from God. So it doesn't threaten at all... I think that there are fascinating intersections between the world of faith and the world of science. The more I understand science, the deeper my faith because, the bottom line, and scientists will say this too, the bottom line for them is a profound mystery. If we can try to get at the heart of that mystery then we're getting simultaneously at the heart of science and at the heart of God...

It sounds like that's a big part of a group like yours has to fight against, some of these assumptions about Christian belief that these groups are purporting whereas yours is quite different.

That's right. And unfortunately in our society today you don't exist if you're not in the media; the media has dumbed down what it means to be a Christian to the point where there is, as I said at the beginning of this conversation, this kind of monolithic everybody-believes-the-same kind of impression of what it means to be a Christian and that just couldn't be further from the truth, especially as its expressed in the UCC.

Jeff Nall is a community activist and regularly contributes to publications such as Online Journal, Toward Freedom, and the Humanist. Jeff is a board member of the Humanists of Florida Association and has spoken at conferences such as the 2006 American Humanist Association conference. His recent work, “A New Vision for Freethought: Reaching Out to Friends in Faithful Places,” appears in the current issue of the AHA journal, Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism. And his essay, “Illusion of Conversion,” which tackles Catholicism’s supposed spiritual conquest of the Aztecs in the 16th century, appears in the current issue of The Journal of Graduate Liberal Studies:Confluence.

________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state, Politics

Legal Setback

The FFRF filed a suit last April against the Veterans Affairs for incorporating religious beliefs into their treatment of patients. The AP and Capital Times reported yesterday that a 7th District Court upheld the constitutionality of the practice. This is a real legal setback for separationists, and is rather disturbing to me as I read about the judge,

"He just didn't get it. Part of his decision stated that VA chaplains are there to bring healing through God's grace and he said it without putting it in quotes. Does his courtroom operate that way, too?" Gaylor said.

Read the decision here, and notice what she mentioned occurred twice -- on pgs. 13 and 26.

Check out Prof. Friedman's excellent coverage: 1/10/07 & 4/22/06
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state

Buckeyes: Gator Bait!

I asked, and they answered -- meet the 2006 Men's NCAA I-A Basketball and Football national champions: the Florida Gators!

All the smack-talk about the crushing that we were going to receive, besides a little foresight by Lee Corso, made it so very fine. The stats don't lie, we made that little nut (the Buckeye) into Gator Bait and gobbled it down. OSU averaged over 400 yds offense per game, and we held them to 82 yards. They had never given up 41 points under "Mr. Sweater Vest" -- Jim Tressel.

The story in pictures, courtesy Gainesville.com and Gatorsports.com --

-- Leak humiliates Mr. Heisman, going 25/36 for 213 yds, 1TD, and 0 INT, against Smith's 4/14 for 35 yds, 0 TD, and 1 INT:

...and becomes the QB we'd all been waiting, and hoping, for in his very last game

-- the Gator defense crushes Troy Smith:

again...
and again...

-- touchdowns:

...the sole province of UF [almost], as Tebow demonstrates
...and Harvin

...and Baker -- another play-maker with a passing TD
...and don't forget Bubba with another passing TD

Heitland's resurrection from the dead:

...twice breaking his longest season field goal on the night it mattered most.

It was beautiful. I nearly cried myself to sleep with tears of joy. While others in the Gator Nation:

...felt like getting some exercise afterwards
...or just having a good time smack-dab in the middle of University Avenue

Go Gators! Go Gators! Go Gators! Go Gators!

Go Gators! Go Gators! Go Gators! Go Gators!

Go Gators! Go Gators! Go Gators! Go Gators!

"...it's great...to be...a Flor-ida Ga-tor...yes it's great...to be...a Flor-ida Ga-tor...yes it's great..."
________________
Technorati tags: Gators, Football, BCS

New E-book: American Fascists -- The Christian Right and the War On America

**UPDATE: See the Salon interview with the author Chris Hedges here**

A book with a pretty harsh title, which also got a pretty harsh review from the NYT.

It sure sounds scary:

"...the ideological architecture of a Christian fascism is being cemented in place. The movement has roused its followers to a fever pitch of despair and fury. All it will take, Hedges writes, is one more national crisis on the order of September 11 for the Christian Right to make a concerted drive to destroy American democracy."

But the reviewer assures us it is pretty lame at supporting its thesis, and has little original material. Buy Kingdom Coming instead.

(HT: RC)
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state, Politics