It's Time

I have moved on to Word Press and want to focus on my goal of explaining Information Science to the public.

My major paper in graduate school (not really a thesis - I was not required to write one - but nevertheless submitted for peer review at The American Archivist) argued for this social science to be informed by the natural sciences and by information science. I actually corrected a prominent archivist and past president of the Society of American Archivists on facts of evolution and quantum physics as they touched the archives profession!

This is going to take a lot of developing, and so I shall attempt to do so at my new blog, Archive of Babel. I shall also blog about atheism, of course, and hopefully complete A Galapagos Diary and my posts on The Extended Phenotype.

You are welcome there.

Crimes and Misdemeanors, A Discussion

I don't have a lot of time for blogging these days, so until things slow down I'll post this gem from You Tube, the first part of a commentary on one of my favorite films (starring one of my favorite actors, Martin Landau) by one of my not-favorite directors, Woody Allen.

Expelled: PZ, Darwin, and Now, Jackson Pollock

UPDATED: Richard and Greg weigh in. Richard mentions me *shimmy!* and Greg has the equivalent of the Encyclopaedia Britannica of links about Expelledgate (including my characteristically ladylike and demure THOSE FASCIST FUCKS THREW PZ OUT OF THE THEATRE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME! rant.)

I'd like to take this moment to thank those intelligent design theorists who have given me what turned out to be a shitting-bricks-but-ultimately-awesome roller coster ride.
---
Well, now Mark Mathis has backed off of the “PZ Myers was being disruptive” lie and has confessed to Denyse O’Leary – the biggest information leaker since Robert Philip Hanssen – that the real reason that he expelled PZ from Expelled was money, and his own pettiness.

You should know that I invited Michael shermer to a screening at NRB in Nashville. He came and is writing a review for scientific American. I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.

Mark Mathis, did you think that this nitwit Denyse could keep a secret? No, Denyse goes and posts this admission on her blog for us to see. Thank you, Denyse. That is precisely how she ruined the screening of the creationist film “The Privileged Planet” at the Smithsonian, by not staying mum about how this is a stealth “documentary” for the intelligent design camp.

*We pause here for a fit of laughter*

But that’s not all, folks. The story just gets better and better. The writer of the film has weighed in at After the Bar Closes.

As I said on my blog, as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective.

*We pause here to run to the ladies' room to laugh and, er, expel at the same time!*

But that's not all. It looks like Mark Mathis is padding his audiences with his own staff.

The film was just silly, with virtually zero scientific content, which, of course, is not surprising coming from Ben Stein - a comedian, speech writer and game show host . . . but not a scientist.

I'm hopeful that anyone with the least bit of intelligence (no pun intended) will see straight through the film's hokey attempts to distract viewers from the lack of scientific credibility with appeals to their emotions - like the dark lighting, foreboding music and harsh camera angles that set the scene for Stein's interview with - dun dun dun - biologist Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist.

Or worse, the countless images and references to Nazis that culminate in Stein dopily wandering through the Dachau concentration camp pondering the ways in which the "Darwinian gospel" was a "necessary but not sufficient condition" for the atrocities that took place there.

But the real silliness came after the credits rolled, when the audience had a chance to pose questions to Mark Mathis, the film's producer.

One woman said it was morally reprehensible to equate the death of six million Jews with Darwin. I clapped, and was astounded when nearly everyone else remained silent.

I shot my hand up to ask a question. "The intelligent design movement has gone to great lengths to argue that intelligent design is not religion, that it's science. And you made a whole film arguing that it is religious. How do they react to that?"

"Well," Mathis said, "I guess it makes them a little uncomfortable."

Some arguing ensued concerning the scientific merits of ID, and someone asked, "Where's the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers?" to which Mathis proudly proclaimed, "Actually, there are ten peer reviewed papers."

A guy in the front row scoffed. "Ten papers?" he asked sarcastically.

Mathis told the guy not to interrupt, and then mockingly called him "Mr Darwinist." Zing!

He began calling on others in the crowd, who asked friendlier questions. But Maggie and I quickly realised that we'd seen some of these people before - earlier that evening, in fact, working at the movie's registration table. These friendly audience members worked for the film? Had Mathis planted questioners?

People asked what they could do to help the film succeed, and a young woman in the front row inquired: "How can I pray for you and for the movie?" Mathis grew excited. "We need to start a grass roots movement!" he said, encouraging people to tell their "networks" about the movie and to get as many people as they could to go on opening weekend.

Another man in the front row wondered about the film's premise that supporters of ID are being silenced. He pointed out that a recent trial about the teaching of intelligent design held in Dover, Pennsylvania, gave supporters of intelligent design all the time in the world to make their case, but most of the 'leading lights' of ID didn't even show up.

When Mathis was responding, the guy asked another question, and the producer shot back, "How about you let me finish talking?" Then, a security guard for the film approached the calmly seated man and told him, "I may have to ask you to leave."

"Does anyone else see how ironic this is?" the guy asked.

"Shut up!" someone shouted from the back.

Now that’s what I call honesty and integrity – filling a theatre with plants who yell "Shut up!" and "Darwinist!" at anyone who asks real questions (as opposed to “How should we pray for this film’s success?”) at a film that purports to be about "free academic inquiry."

(Now, I thought it was bad when someone screamed, "Read Mein Kampf!" at me during the Q&A. "I have!" I yelled back. And I have. Whom do I sue to get that part of my life back? By the way - do you want me to name a little kampfing film that broadcasts the "news" of its "struggle" in the same manner as Hitler's ponderous, whining book? Do you? Can you guess?)

I saw this film, Expelled. The reviews are out there at Expelled Exposed, and despite my background as a movie critic myself I don’t have much to add to what has already been insightfully articulated about this astonishingly inarticulate film.

Just let me just add this comment: If the intent of Expelled was to draw a line between Darwin and Hitler, the effect was to make a film that was as banal and inartful as Hitler’s attempts to be a portrait artist. (Did you know that Hitler was a frustrated artist?) If you believe in this film and in prayer, you’d better start praying, because its specious message aside, its construction blows goats.

If the intent was for Stein to be the right-wing Michael Moore, the effect is a right-wing version of whatever ends up (mercifully) on Michael Moore’s cutting room floor. Moore is a blowhard but at least someone is keeping his ego (somewhat) in check. Not so with Stein. Expelled is a mess!

Ironically enough, on Sunday I caught the tail end of a debate between atheist Frank Zindler and conservative Jew Dennis Prager. I don’t care for these debates, but I had no idea who Prager was, and wanted to learn about him. Well, at the end he stood up and, like an old time fire-and-brimstone preacher started railing against little girls who play with trucks (moi?) and the “secularist, nihilist, Nazi-Communistist crap, like Jackson Pollock, that passes for art today – go to any gallery and see the effects of secular atheists on our culture! See the crap that passes for art today!” etc.

Well, I wasn't thrown out this time, either. I walked out. I stomped right out of there. I work in a museum dedicated to education, and the art world doesn’t deserve to be insulted by yet another cultural ignoramus who is scandalized by Haydn. (Apparently this dork who refers to evolutionary theory as a nineteenth century throwback thinks that music reached its nadir in the eighteenth century with Mozart!)

If you don’t like Pollock, or Georgia O’Keeffe, or Klimt or whoever, fine. But don’t deign to make global, purportedly “objective” statements on behalf of humanity about how this stuff is “bad” or “nihilistic” or “destructive to our youth” because you won’t take the time to at least understand it.

Don’t tell me that “atheists can’t be artists.” I am an artist. Just watch me, Bub. I’m writing a poem about what you said yesterday, Dennis Prager.

Remember, Adolph Hitler also wanted to be an artist, but wasn’t one – and his vision of National Socialist art was the kind of thing that conservative Christians would like to see: banal, safe, repetitive, derivative. Does anyone besides me see the irony of conservative Jews (Ben Stein, Dennis Prager, et al) echoing the statements of Joseph Goebbels in his speeches against "degenerate art" also known as "modern art?" Anyone? Anyone?

Um, Bueller?

This is the Alexander Calder Flamingo sculpture at the Federal Plaza as seen in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (while Ferris sings in the parade). Ferris run! Run away from the atheist, nihilistic Calder! Think of your salvation!

Have Atheists "Won the Intellectual War"?

The president of Minnesota Atheist writes:

Every time I speak at a Christian college, I become more convinced of several things:

1) The vast majority of these students, while dedicated Christians, are open to hearing and discussing other points of view in a thoughtful manner.

2) They respect our right to be atheists and to not be discriminated against or have religion forced on us.

3) They value the American ideals of separation and state and church and have a "live and let live" attitude that almost always extends to atheists and gays. (We must admit that there are some atheists who do not have a "live and let live" attitude toward religious people.)

4) They are as genuinely concerned about the welfare of the poor and our environment as any of the rest of us flaming liberals.

5) That the percentage of Christians who are good and decent is about the same as the percentage [of] atheists who are good and decent. There are bad apples in both groups, but they are by far the minority.

6) That the Minnesota Atheists' attitude of non-ridiculing, positive, friendly neighborhood atheism works. We need to continue to tear down walls, rather than put up barriers. My attitude is that we have already won the intellectual war, now we just have to spread the good news.

I submit this without comment - I just want to solicit your opinions. Believe me, I have an opinion on this.

UPDATED: Hemant Mehta, "Friendly Atheist," starts off his post soliciting positive atheist stereotypes with a joke about "baby eating." Attaboy! ;-)

Call for Atheist Poetry

Via Friendly Atheist and Incarnate Muse Press.

Incarnate Muse Press is currently accepting submissions for two poetry anthologies forthcoming in 2008. Incarnate Muse Press is seeking poems for its second atheist poetry anthology.

Confront, question, or deny the god of your youth, the sacred text of your culture. Express your disbelief, disapproval, doubt, or dismay. Looking for honest, thought-provoking poetry daring to speak against the social norm of belief and/or attempting to take the stigma from nonbelief. Interested in nontheism expressed positively rather than solely in opposition to theism.

Avoid gratuitous vulgarity and unfocused anger. We feel that atheism is often defined too narrowly and inaccurately. A theos means without god(s). If there is no god you believe in, if you are not a theist, you are, by literal definition, an atheist. These categories fit anthology also: humanist, freethought, agnostic, biblical revisionist, sacrilegious …

Up to 6 poems, SASE. Please write atheist in your cover letter or email subject title. Pays copies. Deadline: July 30, 2008. Need ideas? Send SASE for suggestions.

Incarnate Muse Press is seeking poems from adult survivors of childhood emotional and/or psychological abuse. We are looking for poems of high literary quality rather than poems that are simply cathartic.

We are not wanting to see poems about physical or sexual abuse, but about the other abuse, the one that can be much harder to recognize. Parental bullying, neglect, disinterest, mental illness, personality disorders, etc., interest us. Possible topics: loneliness, self-blame, confusion, deep feelings of worthlessness, anger, recognition, acceptance, healing, forgiveness, distance, the impact on your adult relationships, etc.

Up to 6 poems, SASE. Please write abuse in your cover letter or email subject title. Pays copies. Deadline: June 15, 2008.

Addresses for submissions:
Incarnate Muse
℅ Michelle Rhea
PO BOX 5756
SANTA BARBARA CA 93150-5756
or
IncarnateMuse@yahoo.com

From Mud to MANsions

The events of the past few days brought some passages from E. M. Forster to mind. I guess E. M. Forster had nothing to say, either. Here, in his great novel A Passage to India (does anybody read great novels anymore?), he writes of a western tourists’ experience in the Marabar Caves:

If one had spoken vileness in that place, or quoted lofty poetry, the comment would have been the same—“ou-boum.” If one had spoken with the tongues of angels and pleaded for all the unhappiness and misunderstanding in the world, past, present, and to come, for all the misery men must undergo whatever their opinion and position, and however much they dodge or bluff—it would amount to the same, the serpent would descent and return to the ceiling… But suddenly, at the edge of her mind, Religion appeared, poor little talkative Christianity, and she knew that all its divine words from “Let there be Light” to “It is finished” only amounted to “boum.”

And here, a group of Hindus asks questions of two Anglican missionaries:

All invitations must proceed from heaven, perhaps; perhaps it is futile for men to initiate their own unity, they do but widen the gulfs between them by the attempt. So at all events thought old Mr. Graysford and young Mr. Sorley, the devoted missionaries who lived out beyond the slaughterhouses, always travelled third on the railways, and never came up to the club. In our Father’s house are many mansions, they taught, and there alone will the incompatible multitudes of mankind be welcomed and smoothed. Not one shall be turned away by the servants on that verandah, be he black or white, not one shall be kept standing who approaches with a loving heart. And why should the divine hospitality cease here? Consider, with all reverence, the monkeys. May there not be a mansion for the monkeys also? Old Mr. Graysford said No, but young Mr. Sorley, who was advanced, said Yes; he saw no reason why monkeys should not have their collateral share of bliss, and he had sympathetic discussions about them with his Hindu friends. And the jackals? Jackals were indeed less to Mr. Sorley’s mind, but he admitted that the mercy of God, being infinite, may well embrace all mammals. And the wasps? He became uneasy during the descent to wasps, and was apt to change the conversation. And oranges, cactuses, crystals and mud? and the bacteria inside Mr. Sorley? No, no, this is going too far. We must exclude someone from our gathering, or we shall be left with nothing.

And nothing to say, I guess. ;-)

[No, I'm not a Buddhist.]

"You'll Be Sorry!"

I can't imagine a mentality more degraded than someone marching up to us in a coffee shop and saying, essentially, "You'll be sorry that you're atheists!" and asking a person why they exist.

What this person actually said was, after a long harangue about how "everyone in the world needs an answer to life" and "has to have somebody to talk to" (and that's not true - not if you've studied eastern philosophy and religion. The Asian conception of religion, God (if any), and reality is very different from those of the Abrahamic religions), was "you'll see!"

"When you're on your deathbed, you'll see! What would you say to a child who's dying? You have nothing to say! Everybody needs an answer, and you do, too! You'll see!"

My answer that, 1) this person who’s assuming that I’ve never had trouble in life obviously didn't know anything about me, and 2) in my experience, children are quite irreverent about death and have less fear of it than adults, and 3) each person's death belongs to that person alone and I would be more inclined to listen than to preach, was drowned out by this person then telling me not to speak for everyone, which I wasn't trying to do, since he wouldn’t even let me speak for myself.)

"Why are you alive?" this person blared at us, and kept on his harangue while I asked if he knew about the sperm and the egg. Why am I alive? Is he joking? If he's so offended that I'm alive, holy shit, just wait a while and that will take care of itself. If that's not fast enough for him, because he's a mean old coot, then kill me and STFU.

I didn't initiate this discussion but I left it in tears. Man, I didn't see that coming at all. This from who looks like a kindly old man. (Was that a threat BTW?)

That has got to be the lowest blow ever by someone who is obviously never satisfied with anyone. This person has bitched and bitched about religion. This person asked for a copy of the Minnesota Atheist newsletter. Well, he was obviously looking for a fight, or else he's crazy.

What is this "answer" of which people speak? I don’t get it. Life is almost completely nonverbal. The earth orbiting the sun, the waves crashing on the shore, the wind in the trees, birth, death, eating, sleeping, making love, dance, art, music - all nonverbal. Where is there an "answer" in all this? Where is there meaning in life, except in the living of it? Do people actually want to reduce physical phenomena to a trite fortune cookie blurb? Is that what the word "spiritual," tossed around so much that it now has no meaning, mean to them?

Life is doing. When you do something instead of sitting on your ass watching life pass you by, and when you avoid making mistakes instead of hurling yourself into making bad decisions, or no decisions at all (which is a decision), you're much less inclined to ask "What's it all about?"

"What's is all about?" In my opinion, that has to be the stupidest question the human race ever came up with. We learn by doing, and we find purpose by doing. But that kind of purpose cannot be explicitly verbalized to someone who is so profoundly unhappy as to ask someone why he or she exists. Life is what happens to you while you're asking other people what it's all "about." As the Chinese say - "Westerners are always getting ready to live."

Personally, I think our ability to speak and engage in abstract thought is overrated if it culminates in this inexplicable sense of despair, which gives rise to this perverse desire to hurt someone else's feelings to the point of slamming into a coffee shop and informing someone that "you'll see in the future, when you're under stress and cry out to God," just so they can proclaim, “I told you so!” Yeah, and if I were waterboarded for a sufficient amount of time I'd probably betray my family, my friends, and everything that I hold dear, too. Should that define who I am? If I were starving and the only alternative was to rob someone, I suppose under certain circumstances I'd do it. Should that define who I am?

The behavior or a person reduced to an extreme state of misery should not be the basis of human morality, unless you think the rich and the middle class should be regularly stealing bread to feed their families, or driving away from gas pumps without paying, or holding someone's Jesus statue hostage even if the neighbor doesn’t have a dog pooping all over one’s yard.

As I said before, I think the problem is that too many people are cut off from nature. There’s no “meaning” or “meaninglessness” in nature, nor does there have to be. Nature is necessity and necessity is relentless, but never deliberately cruel. I realized this in the Galapagos.

Nature will eventually kill you, but it will never mock you, call you fat, make you feel ugly, call you stupid, humiliate you in front of others, scare you with hell-talk, engage in emotional blackmail, or make you feel like you can never be perfect enough. Nature just is, as I just am, in all our glorious imperfections. Screw the people who are always looking for perfection, an answer, or "meaning." They are more hurtful and incomprehensible than the so-called "meaninglessness" of life could ever be.

UPDATED: Scott to the rescue!

Well, Something Was On Fire, Anyway

I really didn't want to wade into the sewage of some so-called Christians selfishly blaming atheists for the tragic and sad Colorado shootings by an obviously mentally ill individual...

I live in Arvada, Colorado, and for many years I attended the church associated with the YWAM shooting on Sunday. Earlier this year I befriended two of the young men going through the training program there, one from New Zealand and the other from England. I am numb with sorrow, and my prayers go up for the families of the victims.

The media is reporting that Matthew Murray posted the following on the web: ”I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. …God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”

Look at the last part of that quote closely. One wonders if Murray has been reading Dawkins or Dennett. By blaming the world’s ills on religious people do Dawkins and Dennett incite to hatred and make it more likely that tragedies of this sort can occur? I don’t know, but it is an interesting question.
-BarryA, Uncommon Descent


...but this just broke at the Star Tribune:

Guard Who Shot Colorado Gunman Had Been Fired From Minneapolis Police.

For lying.

The security guard credited with bravery for shooting a gunman at a Colorado church was fired from her job as a Minneapolis police officer in the 1990s for lying, Minneapolis police officials said today.

Investigators in Colorado said Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, shot 24-year-old Matthew Murray when he entered the church on Sunday and began firing. Murray killed two sisters - Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16 - before he was stopped.

Authorities said Murray may have died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but police and church leaders credited Assam for her bravery and say she averted a greater tragedy [emphasis mine].
...
On Tuesday, authorities in Minneapolis revealed more about Assam's past.

Sgt. Jesse Garcia, a Minneapolis police spokesman, said Assam worked at the department from March 1993 to November 1997, when she was fired for lying during an internal investigation.
Sgt. John Delmonico, president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, said police were investigating a complaint that Assam swore at a bus driver while she was handling an incident on a city bus.

Delmonico said Assam was dealing with an incident on the bus and for some reason she swore at the bus driver as she exited the bus. The bus driver became angry and filed a complaint.
"In giving a statement about the incident, she was untruthful and she was fired," Delmonico said. The swearing was caught on tape, he said. "The union arbitrated the case and the arbitrator upheld the termination."

Assam's home phone number is unlisted and she couldn't be reached for comment.

I'm just putting this out there. I guess we'll see how this develops.

I really don't think the relatives of the victims need or want to hear "The shooter was an atheist! It's those evil atheists!" right now. And I don't think the relatives of the shooter appreciate it, either. At any rate, the shooter said, "See you on the other side" - not exactly an atheist's statement.

I'm sick of this crap. Is anyone else?

UPDATED: Coroner reports that gunman killed himself by gunshot to own head.

Gunman heard voices as early as five years ago. What I would like to know is, did he get mental health counseling? It does seem like he sat and stewed on an unreasonable grievance. Unfortunately, all too often the parents or relatives of someone with a mental illness have few resources to turn to.

Stephen Pinker on "A Brief History of Violence." Shimmies to Midwest Atheist.

Creationism: The Denigration of Democracy

Matthew Chapman, the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin, spoke at the Atheist Alliance International Conference, which I attended.

First, speaking of Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, in which intelligent design was ruled a religious intrusion into the Dover-area public schools, he voiced my own thoughts:

As I said in the beginning as a sort of joke, the battle is won. But the battle is won intellectually by any reasonable standard, and has been won for years. Furthermore, if the pursuit of truth through reason brings happiness, as I believe it does [and as I believe it does], why then with all this going for it, is atheism so unsuccessful compared to religious belief?

Last night, Sam Harris suggested that we dump the word atheist altogether, and maybe he’s right. Once you see the light, so to speak, it is [as] embarrassing to declare oneself an atheist as it would be to constantly advertise one’s lack of belief in fairies. On the other hand there is the idea of advertising our ideas, and “branding,” and so on–“God forgive me” for saying that word… And we’re not really talking about fairies, we’re talking about Al Qaeda, and a Catholic Church discouraging the use of condoms in Africa. Sam spoke of racism, and said that there was no group named anti-racist, but when racism was at its most severe, there was—there were the Abolitionists. And I can imagine that it was somewhat embarrassing to declare oneself an Abolitionist, that is, “Of course I’m against slavery,” one would say in civilized society…

But here, at 25:44, he voices exactly what I have been thinking lately, and it's creepy how spot-on he is.

I would like to say a few things that are perhaps worth saying:

Obviously, religion provides something which atheism doesn’t…and for the people I met in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, who I got to know very well and whom I’m very fond of, religious people, young Christians, I like them a lot—and for the older ones, many of them, it provides friendship and connection, it provides a place where you can meet people who would otherwise spurn you quite often. It provides a “purpose to life,” “beauty,” “meaning.” If a church works well, a member can get help when he or she is sick or hungry, and eventually the church will bury you and honor you. The church “takes care” of people. And how does atheism compete with that?

I don’t think it can. [emphasis mine] I don’t believe that atheism can ever succeed in isolation, but only as a result of a much larger political change.

One small example: If a person is terrified of going to the doctor because if they do, they may go bankrupt, but on the other hand if they don’t, they may die, what other recourse do you have than God?

It’s quite clear that the better a country takes care of its citizens, the less religion there is. (And I come from a country where the national health system, when I was a child, worked beautifully. That was a level of fear that one just didn’t have in one’s life.) And I don’t believe that atheism can succeed in a country as primitive as this one now is. [emphasis mine]

A country where politicians deride their own profession, sneering at politics as if the political process was the problem, not the solution;

who deride the idea that government should help, protect, and raise up its weaker citizens;

where the current government has turned over the delivery of basic needs to religion, and made them a matter of charity;

a country where the corporate structure almost forces the employee to ignore morality and then celebrates those who are most rapacious. [Hence our being buried with mountains of "Bring Jesus to the workplace" trendiness.]

Without gigantic social change, the church will have to remain the only place where ordinary people can go to find community, and equality, albeit under the eye of a very stern God, the only place where they can advocate for helping their weaker neighbors without feeling like, “God forbid,” socialists, or liberals.

Well said! Further, I believe that this was the goal of the right wing all along, to bring this country to this point, a point at which we, like Russia being unable to rescue sailors from the sunken Kirsk, cannot rescue buried miners but can only "pray" for them (whatever that does, since they're still buried). This has been the goal all along of the Republican wonks, to turn this nation into the Christian Soviet Union, and who now publish astonished critiques of the current situation as if they themselves were not to blame.

If atheism, if reason, is to flourish, it will only do so when people feel protected by a rational system in which they have involvement, and which is run on principles of compassion, not profit. I think we have all been scammed into accepting as a matter of principle something that is in fact a matter of greed and profit, and that perhaps, incidentally, creates all of the conditions—fear, sickness, hunger, insecurity, and so on—that enables religious power to grow.

All this shit about being against “big government”!

It’s all part of the same scam, as far as I’m concerned, which is the denigration of democracy. [emphasis mine]

And that, my friends, is what I stated a year ago. Those who rewrite the past control the future - and creationism is about doing both. It seems that people like to be told what to do. Well, not me.

As Chapman says toward the end of his speech, we need politicians who are skeptics, who make decisions based upon reason, not faith. I agree - the last thing we need is another President who is a "person of faith"! In addition, "atheism should be the next cause of feminism, for a feminist to still believes in God is like a freed slave who's still living on the plantation." I did not say that, and I wish I had.



And meanwhile, the theory of evolution messes with Texas:

In Texas, where the cotton industry is plagued by a moth in which an immunity to pesticides has evolved, a frustrated entomologist commented, "It's amazing that cotton growers are having to deal with these pests in the very states whose legislatures are so hostile to the theory of evolution. Because it is evolution they are struggling against in their fields every season." Meanwhile, the bigger message--depressingly reminiscent of our imperial predecessors--is that science in the United States is already in trouble. Irving Weissman, a stem-cell researcher, told the Boston Globe, "You are going to start picking up Nature and Science and all the great [research] journals, and you are going to read about how South Koreans and Chinese and Singaporeans are making advances that the rest of us can't even study." [emphasis mine]

The teaching of evolution in our schools is a public health issue. It is an academic freedom issue. It is essential to our republic - assuming, of course, we can keep it.

UPDATED: I suppose I could say that the bizarro chatter at Uncommon Descent (as parodied by AtBC) is a figment of my imagination, and none of it is real - but you just can't make this stuff up!

Bibleroom Brawl!

UPDATED: Hitchens below is being my favorite bad boy, but Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars shows the sensitive and eloquent side of Hitchens as he reflects upon the death of a soldier in Iraq. I have been opposed (often reluctantly) to this war, but I also cannot stomach the thought of a humiliating defeat - which could already be inevitable. And I am sympathetic to those who offer sincere and thoughtful reasons for supporting this war.

Therefore I offered my own conflicting thoughts about Hitchens and his support for the Iraq War. Undoubtedly some people are going to be shocked and appalled that I do not oppose every war for any reason at all - I think that's unrealistic, and naive.
---
Let's have some fun.

I came across this site while trying to find His Creepiness, Father George Rutler, that elusive priest with the robes and the officious accent, who used to be on EWTN. I never forgot him; and I could not remember his name; all I remember was his pinched voice and haughty demeanor, and that costume! You don't see that on EWTN anymore. (Now, due to the Catholic church's desperate drive to stave off the forces of the evangelical movement that's bleeding it of members, EWTN is all happy, good-looking young priests who pose laughing in front of the Dome of the Rock.)

Father George Rutler versus Christopher Hitchens! And check out this blog; check out the comments (around the internet, not so much on this site). I didn't grow up Catholic, so I was completely unprepared for the near-orgasmic response of these bloggers (kids?) who gush, "Oh, Father, you're so awesome...you really gave it to Hitchens...you're incredible...blah, blah." Yuck! Do Catholics worship priests? What are they, rock stars?

FATHER RUTLER: I have met saints. You cannot explain the existence of saints without God. I was nine years chaplain with Mother Teresa [inaudible]. You have called her a whore, a demagogue. She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. [Didn't we just find out about Mother Theresa's doubts about God?] If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink. [emphasis mine]

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Excuse me?

FATHER RUTLER: That’s why you drink. God has offered us happiness, all of us. And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference. [emphasis mine]

And secondly, I’m an officer with this club. And this conversation has been beneath the dignity of this club. . . .

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, it is now. . . . It is now.

FATHER RUTLER: And I’d just say that…

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Fine host you turned out to be.

FATHER RUTLER: …this club, we’ve had very open discussion. But we’ve never heard such vulgarity and bigotry.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Till now.

FATHER RUTLER: And I am, I don’t want to see this in this club again. And I think I represent the officers of this noble…

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Your claim to know what a [saint] is or what heaven is is as absurd as your [inaudible] arrogance, your unkindness and your lack of hospitality. . . . You should be ashamed. . . . And you are supposed to represent a church of charity and kindness?

Ooh! Torch 'em, Hitchie! This is the man who flipped off the audience on Bill Maher. And now he's being mean to the man who heard the confessions of firefighters dying on September 11!

(Heard the confessions. Holy crap, I need to repeat that. Heard the confessions! Confessions? From firefighters on 9/11? Holy fuck, firefighters have "sins" to "confess" after saving people's lives on 9/11? Like what? That one stole a piece of cheese from another's lunch box? That they may have had some mean thoughts about the totally fucked bastards who rammed planes into the World Trade Center towers? And believers wonder why religion sets off atheists! "Heard the confessions," good grief.)

My goodness, Hitchens is not out to convinced society that atheists are all nice, family-oriented (though he has a wife and kid), suburban, mainstream Americans. Hitchens is not the man to make that argument, and I am not the woman to make it, either.



I have disagreed with Hitchens' stance on the war but I love a good scrapper, I must admit. Certainly, I prefer him to a man who has no need of physical intimacy with any woman (or man/boy, although one never knows these days). Hitchens is the Earnest Hemingway of atheism. And yes, I met him - very charming he is, with a self-depreciating sense of humor (you know - humor?), even after having tied a few on. Yeah, I'd love to see Father Rutler after a few drinks.

Hitchie can handle it! ;-)

Who's Going to the AAI Conference?

Rev. Barky and I are. (Well, I'm going to the conference; he's just coming along to feed me breakfast burritos.) ;-)

Who else out there is going? PiGuy? Rev. Chimpy? Shalini? Raise your blog hand if you're going!

I got into deep political discussions in the jacuzzi along with Pina Coladas while on my Galapagos trip, and wish to continue them this September! (The Crowne has a jacuzzi, right? Please tell me that it does.)

We're a Happy Bunch

Photo: Grant Hermanson

;-) But don't worry, my ebullient spirit reasserted itself on Atheist Talk when I started yakking about Dawkins' books.

Kristine: Blah blah, blahblahblah! Blah! Blahblahblahblahblah...

Host: Thank you, Kristine, now I only have 20 seconds to report on my book. Blah! Thank you, everyone!

Just kidding. We have a fun time at Atheist Talk. (This particular podcast is not up yet.)

No Right To Be An Atheist

In the Christian Soviet Union, formerly known as the United States of America, your school can get involved in your having loaned a friend, upon his request, a copy of Dawkins The God Delusion. The friend's father has the right to threaten you, and the principal of your school, who let the trashy Gideons hand out Bibles in the parking lot in violation of the separation of church and state, gets to keep your book and "sleep on" the decision whether or not to punish you.

For loaning a book.

When you're eighteen years old.

Because you don't believe in something that doesn't exist. And why is this controversial?

Apparently, the First Amendment doesn’t mean shit if the majority doesn’t agree with your free speech. Can forced deprogramming for atheists and re-education camps be far behind in our shiny new theocracy?

Shimmies to Pharyngula, and to Reed Braden, and to deprogramming survivor Jim Dew.

UPDATE: The book was eventually returned.

SECOND UPDATE: Well, Legion didn't take the bait regarding my crack about reeducation camps. Hey, Legion! I mentioned your favorite subject! Where are you, you coward? You owe me a post (plus an apology, Honey).

Our Man Buck, Left Behind

UPDATED: Left Behind can't hold a candle to The Rapture, a daring film about a convert to Christianity who believes in God, but cannot bring herself to love Him. As far as I'm concerned, The Rapture is the ultimate apocalypse film because the end of the world takes place inside the main character, and I would be extremely interested in what believers think of this film.
----
I just watched the Kirk Cameron version of Left Behind and I have a few questions.

1. I thought "all dogs go to heaven"? ;-) No dogs went to heaven in this film! They were all sitting by their disappeared owners' clothes. I don't get it. Did the dogs do something wrong? (Ditto for the gerbils, but we won't talk about what they may have done.)

2. Why does the guy playing the Antichrist look so much like Kent Hovind? ;-)

3. In how many films do I have to see someone pray in a public restroom?

4. Do Christian Dispensationalists, like Cameron, understand that atheists are people who live without a belief in God, not people who merely ignore God, then start spouting scripture when the plot calls for it as if they completely believed it all along?

5. How can ten people sit in a room with an armed Antichrist without rushing the asshole? Especially since he repeatedly turns his back on people? And why didn't the guards standing right outside the antechamber, who heard the staged shots, hear the real shots fired by the Antichrist?

6. Is there some commandment against having an intelligible plot? Maybe even some action, instead of people yakking the plot for the audience, as if this were a radio play?

7. Does Kirk Cameron honestly believe that anyone at the UN can keep a secret for more than 10 seconds?

8. Next time, could Cameron find a suit that fits him, or is he into Men's Gangsta Warehouse wear?

9. Why doesn't Cameron tell the story of the people who were raptured? Why tell the story of the people who were Left Behind? If the incentive is to get people to believe in Cameron's message, then surely showing how wonderful our reward in heaven is would be a more effective conversion tool than detailing the adventures of a bunch of womanizing, blow-dried, wealthy, selfish, oblivious, and tie-dye wearing (nice touch, that!) atheists, or at least what Cameron thinks is an atheist. (Oh, and the name "Buck," coupled with the repeated exhortations to "follow the money!" Subtle, man. Cameron's a real Checkhov, for sure.)

After all, if God didn't care about these twits, why is the audience supposed to? Why make a movie about them, instead of one about what happens in heaven?

Could it be that such a movie, with such characters, would not be, uh, very interesting? Because it wouldn't have an, um, plot? (Not that this one did. No, I don't care about the car expoding - I saw that coming.) And does that say something about what Sidney J. Harris courageously called the "necessity of evil"?

Just a Closer Walk With Theocracy

The Supreme Court sides with the White House on doling out funds that could have gone to the Boys and Girls Club to faith-based amateurs instead. Ed's take on this.

Okay, let's hear it now from the supposed mainstream churches who aren't fundamentalist and don't want theocratic rule, and wish the atheists would just shut up. Let's hear their voices for legislation against this madness, instead of their attacks on Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris for writing best-selling books about atheism. (How dare they!)

I'm listening.

Shimmies to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

(P.S. Someone yelled "Thank God for you!" at the Minnesota Atheists contingent during the Pride Parade yesterday. Whatever.) :-)

More Stupidity about Atheists from Newsweek

Yeah, we've never built anything. Right.

How about the Enlightenment?

How about evolutionary theory? (Now evolution's predicted "demise" is the year 2025. Naturally, I have my own ideas about that.)

How about women's rights?

Bad atheists, bad, bad! You don't believe in something that doesn't exist - it's an outrage! I'd rather vote for Paris Hilton or the JFK terrorist plotters than you. They should take your citizenship away!

And we can see by watching this video the kind of company that atheists keep!
Isaac Asimov
Carl Sagan
Richard Dawkins
Francis Crick
Marie Curie
Katherine Hepburn
Marlon Brando
Noam Chomsky
Susan B. Anthony
etc., etc., etc...

UPDATED: Yeah, it's not like this nation has its hands full with religious fanatics or anything...

SECOND UPDATE: Rev. Barking Nonsequitor takes on Chuck Norris! Rev. Barky is my hero! And did I mention that Rev. Barky is teh sexeh...? :-) (Sorry, Barky, is that okay?)

Atheism, Virginia Tech, and Meaning

UPDATED: I just had to tell some moron over at Classmates.com to quit visiting my profile with ugly, obviously fake photos (one of them being Phil Specter! Is that some kind of threat?) uploaded to his profile - and no bio, no info, no message, nothing. That's why the photo of me in costume got taken down over there, too. What charm. You'd think people would grow up.
-----
The perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shootings was bullied, or at least he claimed to be. And because I also was bullied, severely bullied, all through school in that small town that I hated so much, I paid attention to what this kid had to say for himself with the thought that perhaps I, if anyone, could understand why he did what he did. And you know what?

I don’t get this kid at all. I can’t understand why he reacted as he did. I have no idea what made him tick. Because it never occurred to me to blow away my classmates!

Never. Not once. Not one time did I even think of it! And you know, in a way I’m surprised by that, because looking back at what absolute shits some of my classmates were, and the horrible things they did (enabled by some of the teachers, who were abusive and should not have been teaching) you’d think I would have at least thought of it, fantasized about it! I don’t mean to be flip about this, but when I realized this about myself I had a “duh” moment, but only for a moment, because, of course, I’m glad, too. In fact, I’m proud that it never occurred to me. No matter what happened I never even once entertained the idea!

Oh, I thought of other forms of revenge: finally growing up to be pretty (I think I managed that well enough); going to college (like most social misfits in high school I had a blast in college); becoming a famous writer (well, nix that for now); becoming an actress (I had a few triumphs); becoming a belly dancer (done!); and making a fashion statement at my twenty year high school reunion. Well, I did it—I took a deep breath and went—and the bullies didn’t show. Go figure. And by then, I was having too much fun to care, anyway. A lot of my other classmates were really quite nice—I just didn’t know them that well in high school, where social class and the income level of one’s parents created a sort of apartheid amongst the kids, an apartheid that doesn’t exist for us now that we are adults making our own way. So, let the past go. Actually, once I went to my reunion, I found that I could forgive the bullies because I realized that they were probably just as disliked by my other classmates as by me.

So I don’t get this Cho Seung-Hui character. He strikes me as a bully himself, not a victim of bullying. He strikes me as an insular, aggressive, self-pitying, self-absorbed, and inordinately selfish human being. Mentally ill, definitely, but a victim? Frankly, I just don’t know about that. I can’t identify with him; his motives are opaque to me. I identify with the victims that he attacked, not with him at all.

There must have been something deep inside of him that allowed him to do what he did; and there must be something deep inside of me that would never allow it in a million years. I don’t know why that’s so, but I do know that it is so. When I was in school and going through that peer pressure and that intimidation, I tended to take my anger out on myself rather than on others, and I don't know why. And I don't know why Cho Seung-Hui took his anger out on others, rather than himself.

Which is why, once again, I don’t understand the anger, the naked menacing hatred, that I see from the folks at Uncommon Descent. Here is UD commentator Denyse O'Leary at her blog:

Since I am here anyway, here is some advice for Christians troubled in faith: Stay away from all Darwinists of whatever type, whether they claim to be Christians, "from a Christian background," or "from a fundamentalist background." Do not concern yourself at present about the age of the Earth. You are immortal; the Earth is not.

Wow.

"Stay away from her. She's not one of us." Boy, does that sound familiar! What is this, junior high school?

Perhaps I have not lived up to the adage, “Nothing human is alien to me,” certainly not in Cho Seung-Hui’s case, but never have I told anyone to shun other people because of their religion, beliefs, creed, or conscience. We need to talk to each other, if we are going to get along with each other. True, Denyse O’Leary is my least favorite person at UD, but I really don’t hate her and I’ve tried very hard to see her point of view. She'll never give me credit for it, but I have tried.

The problem is, what she says pushes my emotional buttons because it sounds so much like everything that my nasty classmates, or that the few horrid teachers that I had, said to me, and for no reason that I could see. "Stay away from her." "Why can't you be like the other children?"


Yes, I admit I wasn't very good at "being like the other children." The real tragedy is, the other children were. The other children tried very hard to "be like the other children." That's how the girl voted most likely to succeed ended up at my high school reunion telling me that she "could never" go to Europe by herself, as I had. What crap. Anyone can do anything that they want. If a social disaster like me can handle Europe, she could. But she had learned to be "like the other children."

The problem is, Denyse, this kind of language makes me feel exactly as I felt when I was small, and being pressured by peers to “not be so smart” in class or raise my hand with the answer, to quit my piano lessons or to sneak cigarettes, to dress differently, act differently, and be somebody else than who I was. I know you don't intend, Denyse, to sound like the kind of person who would lead others into temptation, but paradoxically that is exactly what you're doing with your exhortation of Christian purity. You make "darwinists" sound like horrible people, just as my peers and some of my teachers made me sound like some kind of freak, and I wasn’t that much trouble—I never did drugs, I didn't smoke, I was on the honor roll all the time, I never got pregnant like so many of the girls around me did. I had dreams and goals and was determined to fulfill them, and yet even some of my teachers encouraged the kids in their ridicule of me—and as I look back on it now, these were the teachers whose classrooms were constantly in disarray, just like your thinking, Denyse.

And now here’s you, Denyse O’Leary, at your blog, telling your audience that it’s okay to believe whatever you want about the age of the earth, as long as you don’t associate with the people who use the methodology that gave us the actual age of the earth, along with the germ theory of disease, the laws of heredity, countless numbers of cures, and the discovery of DNA. I don’t get it. Here’s WinglesS at Uncommon Descent, saying that atheists have no sense of purpose in life and are not charitable. Well, perhaps I don’t have a million dollars to donate, but I do try to give 100% of myself to everything that I do, and while I have worked some pretty hard and low-paying jobs I have managed to avoid doing any morally unsavory ones. I live without a car; I put my money where my mouth is, even though that entails a lot of sacrifice, being car-free in a city like Minneapolis. I volunteer my time to many charitable efforts, and I just do it—it makes me feel good, without having an explicit reason that I can rattle off to you in so many words. I don’t need to form “atheist charities” when I’m willing to contribute to charities both religious and secular, as long as they help all people—why duplicate efforts? Why form another administration and pool of employees to be paid from charitable contributions that could go to existing organizations?

And as for purpose, for life’s meaning—hey Denyse, WinglesS, Levi, and the rest of you at UD, you remind me of the people who were down on me for wanting good grades, for having goals, for being a basically well-behaved kid, people who were angry at me for no reason that I could see, and you would ask me to “prove” that I have a sense of meaning in life? I'm beginning to wonder if you have a sense of purpose yourselves. All I want to do in life is write, dance, learn, and explore, and make some kind of contribution to humanity, and yet you have identified me and people like me as some kind of dangerous enemy, and you are talking about “meaninglessness”?

Jonathan Wells, the Moonie and HIV denialist is okay by you, but anyone who is not a religious believer, or who is yet accepts evolution the way he or she accepts mathematics and physics, is evil, no matter what contributions they make to science or social justice, and is to be shunned, and you ask me about life not making sense? It is your thinking that does not make sense.

I’ve thought about your question a lot, Levi. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I don’t have an answer that will ever satisfy you, because I have decided that I have no concept of meaninglessness. Not at all. None. It’s a word that you guys use; I never use it. I don’t know what it means. I don’t know what meaninglessness feels like. I don’t understand it, any more than I understand blowing someone away with a gun.

No matter what happened to me, no matter how bad it got for me, I have never felt that my life was without purpose. I don’t know why, but it’s true. Perhaps if I understood what you mean by “meaninglessness,” of life “having no purpose,” then I could understand you better.

And then I would also understand Cho Seung-Hui better.

And suddenly, that idea frightens me—because I think that could have been his problem. He could have had this same sense of "meaninglessness" that you apparently do, whereas I do not.

Maybe you need to consider the idea that the charges you level against “darwinists” are actually faults that you have found within yourself?

And Denyse, here's a Bible verse that I think you've forgotten, a verse I think you need to reacquaint yourself with, from Ecclesiastes 1:4 - "A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. "

Where are Atheists When Bad Things Happen?

I am an atheist. Here I am. Does someone out there need me? Contact me, and I will do what I can. Please, I am very serious!

Unlike Mr. D’Souza, I don’t have a national platform to get out my message. I have a day job, a job in a public institution where I just advised the safety committee in light of the Virginia Tech shooting, and I have other duties that can’t be put off no matter what, but if Mr. D’Souza thinks that I should be doing something else for my fellow Americans, and if my fellow Americans need something of me, I am here. I am not medical personnel, but I am a good listener. I am a very good and supportive and sympathetic listener. Even those close to me who are appalled that I am an atheist will attest to that, and anybody, no matter what you believe, can say anything to me. You can talk about anything.

Dinesh D'Souza would have you believe that atheists are monsters. I don’t know what purpose that serves other than to whip up some new movement to cleanse America of enemies that do not exist. He probably doesn’t realize that he already knows some who have never told him, because atheists fear other people’s fear. So I make this offer – contact me, if you need help. I am just one person but I will do what I can.

That’s all we can do anyway. Atheists help America every day. We are behind the scenes most of the time, working in hospitals, working in labs to find cures, working in offices to make institutions work; we choose to be respectfully silent when others pray or speak of God in times like this; but if someone needs me to articulate my beliefs at this time I am happy to do so.

In a way, Mr. D’Souza, I am grateful to you. In a backhanded way you are letting me know that America needs to hear from me, too. I didn’t know anybody wanted to listen to me. Most people react with horror to me and I don’t understand why.

UPDATED: Rev. BigDumbChimp pointed me to this - Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech:

We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.

D'Souza harps in reply to yesterday's comments on his piece:

One clever writer informs me that atheists don't deny meaning, they simply insist that meaning is not inherent in the universe, it is created by us. Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.

To which I reply, YOU MEAN LIKE YOU, DINESH D'SOUZA? Or like the Westboro Church? They're theists, too.

Lead by example, man. After all, you once said that "America should be destroyed."

Shimmies to Rev. BigDumbChimp.

The "Red Pill"

Shelley at Retrospectable has added my blogs to her page and is a welcome new friend to my blogroll. Her current post is a short bio on her own journey from small-town religious orthodoxy to making that big scary leap.

Shimmies to Shelley!

Advice from that "Atheist Mom"...

...to a struggling young person. What a great read.

Although this bundles the undies of the poor folks at Uncommon Descent, ultimately an atheist must define herself by what she does believe in.

Someday the fundies will understand that.

Shimmies to AtBC and Possummomma...and to the UDudes at Uncommon Descent, because they need 'em. Therapy, don't you know. Only for medicinal purposes! (Who just said, "Yeah, right"?)