Mark Sanford and Christian Morality

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) I wasn’t going to comment on Governor Mark Sanford and his Argentinean affair because that sort of thing seems to happen all the time in politics. However, there have been a few revelations that have added a bit of eyebrow-raising interest and I found myself thinking that, not only is the guy a scumbag for cheating on his wife, but he seems to be a hypocritical religious zealot as well.

From what I understand, Sanford has been a big proponent of “Christian values, character, and honesty” in South Carolina. Since he’s also a Republican, one can generally assume that he’s onboard with the “morality platform” of the Republican party.

That’s just some of what makes his infidelity a bigger deal than it would be for the average person on the street… or Democrats, for that matter. While Democrats do speak of values, honesty, and faith, they don’t do it in the same heavy-handed, in-your-face kind of way that Republicans do, so to the casual observer, it’s a bigger show of hypocrisy when Republicans have a adultery-related scandal than when Democrats do. That said, Sanford seems to have ratcheted up the negative appearance all by himself.

Not only did he have the affair with the Argentinean woman, which reportedly turned sexual only during the last year of their eight-year relationship, but he’s admitted to having “crossed lines” with other women during his twenty years of marriage.

Sanford also said that he “crossed lines” with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage, but not as far as he did with his mistress.

“There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line,” he said.

He didn’t define the “ultimate line,” but the general assumption is probably that he meant intercourse. Whether he defines it the way Bill Clinton did is another matter.

However you define it, the trouble seems to run deeper than just sex. Sanford repeatedly refers to the woman as his “soul mate,” which seems, to me, like something he wouldn’t say… or feel… if he’s telling people that he’s committed to working things out with his wife.

In emotional interviews with the AP over two days, he said he would die “knowing that I had met my soul mate.”

Sanford insisted his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, whom he met at an open air dance spot in Uruguay eight years ago, was more than just sex.

“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” Sanford said. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”

How is his wife supposed to take him seriously or trust him at all when he says things like that? I’m not suggesting he lie about it. I’m just pointing out that he doesn’t sound like someone who really wants to make nice with his wife. He’s throwing himself a pity party by telling the public that he’s doomed to a life of unrequited love… but, oh yeah… he’ll still try to fall back in love with his wife.

And then, of course…

“I owe it too much to my boys and to the last 20 years with Jenny to not try this larger walk of faith,” he said.

Notice that he doesn’t owe anything to his wife… just to the boys and to a twenty-year timeframe. And what is this “larger walk of faith” to which he refers? Faith in what? Sadly, he doesn’t say.

Perhaps Sanford has faith that he’s just like the biblical King David and will be forgiven by God and allowed to continue on his merry way. Evidently, he’s fond of referring to “moral absolutes” and “God’s law” and other faith-based ideas, regardless of how hypocritical it makes him seem.

He doesn’t seem to be alone in his hypocrisy, either. According to an Associated Press story, Sanford’s “spiritual advisor,” Warren Culbertson knew of the affair, yet in his spiritual “boot camp,” he “passed” Sanford and his wife with flying colors. Defending Sanford, Culbertson said he was simply caught off guard by “the power of darkness.”

Culbertson also thinks that the only thing holding his friends’ marriage together right now is “their vow to God.”

“Because it’s not feelings — it’s not emotions,” Culbertson said, the smile fading from his tanned face. “For most Christians, at some point in your marriage, if you’re married long enough, you do it because that’s what we’re called to do — out of obedience instead of out of passion. And I think that’s where Mark and Jenny are right now.”

Funny how Sanford’s “vow to God” didn’t mean much when he was chatting up his Argentinean mistress… but that’s what’s going to save his marriage now? I find Culbertson’s statement of marriage infuriating and insulting because it implies that only Christians have marital issues and they stay in a marriage out of “obedience” instead of out of love, loyalty, or honor. It’s morally despicable to do what’s “right” because of obedience of the rules in a 2000-year-old religious text rather than doing what’s right simply because it is right… because it’s what you promised to do… because it’s what’s best for your wife and family… because you don’t want to hurt those you love… because you can intellectually overcome your baser nature.

It seems Sanford can’t do that, and despite his spouting biblical statements and comparing himself to King David, he seems to have no grasp on morality… or on decency… or on honesty. The bible doesn’t give him that and it never will… nor will it give it to anyone. While it has some nice things in it, it’s sadly lacking in any meaningful moral guidance, something that is demonstrated over and over and over again, not only in politics, but in everyday life.

Sanford shouldn’t be asking for help from any gods or for forgiveness from anyone other than his wife and kids. They’re the only ones who can grant him any kind of meaningful forgiveness.

Anything else is imaginary.

Book Review: Reason to Believe

Reason to Believe by R. C. SproulIn his book Reason to Believe, originally published in 1978 under the title Objections Answered, R. C. Sproul states in the preface that purpose of the book is not to “provide a technical study in the science of apologetics” but to “offer basic answers to the most common and frequent objections that are raised about Christianity.” He wants the book to lead the reader to further, more detailed investigations of the problems he addresses. The book does give basic answers. It’s relatively short and is very easy reading.

Reason to Believe was recommended to me by a Christian friend who said that Sproul is one of his favorite apologists because he uses logic and reason to answer the questions rather than simply appealing to human emotions. Whether Sproul actually succeeds is something I’ll address as I go along.

There is a foreword by Lee Strobel from 1993, so even though the book is over thirty years old, it has evidently remained relevant and, according to Strobel, is the perfect book to recommend to skeptics, Christians who may be doubting their faith, and Christians who need to be able to respond to questions about their faith. It does date the book somewhat when Sproul, stating that the bible is not a textbook of science,  says that man’s origins “can never be determined by the study of biology. The question of origin is a question of history.” There have been huge leaps in the biological sciences in the past thirty years that have done amazing things to explain and confirm the origins of the human species, so I was content to let that statement slide, though it pains me to know that many of the readers of this book will take that statement at face value.

The book is divided into ten chapters, each chapter addressing a single question or statement. They include the topics of biblical contradiction, people who never hear of Christ, the existence of God, evil, suffering, and death, along with a number of other issues. Sproul does use techniques of logic, but he frequently uses them incorrectly, bases his initial premise on invalid assumptions, or makes imaginary connections from point A to point B. As promised, however, he does give basic answers, and many of his answers would raise the chins and straighten the shoulders of Christians who have some mild doubts about their faith. Those who are more prone to critical analysis, observable evidence, and reason won’t find much here to persuade them about the validity of Sproul’s Christianity.

Sproul makes frequent use of the “let’s suppose” technique throughout the entire book. When discussing miracles, for instance, he says, “On the other hand, if there is a God who is omnipotent, then miracles are possible and accounts of them cannot be gratuitously dismissed as myths.” I don’t disagree with that statement, but it’s really not answering any questions about miracles. It’s merely playing a game of “What if.” He says that the claim about the bible being full of contradictions is a “radical exaggeration” and stems from the misunderstanding of what contradictions are and how the bible is read. A few examples of biblical contradictions are “explained away” in some apologetic hoop-jumping, though not in any real depth.

I mentioned earlier that Sproul’s use of logic leaves something to be desired. A good example is his case for the infallibility of scripture. His opening premise is “The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document.” That’s a flimsy, unsupported premise to begin with other than a few preceeding paragraphs about some historical accuracy, but he then moves to “On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” That’s a pretty huge jump, one that I and anyone else who’s using some critical thinking would thoroughly reject. However, Sproul continues on with four more jumps, leading us to the conclusion that the bible is infallible. His logic resoundingly fails, and frequently does so throughout the rest of the book.

One reason why the book is good for Christians who want a bit of support and not so good for non-believers is that Sproul frequently begins his answers with theistic assertions. When discussing whether the “poor native who never heard of Christ” is doomed, for a large part of his argument, he relies on the biblical notion of original sin, stating that nobody is innocent. So the question, “What happens to the innocent person who’s never heard of Christ?” is dismissed partly by a theistic technicality and partly by semantic games. He plays other semantic games when discussing the existence of God, modifiying definitions of “chance” and “created by” so as to suit his needs.

Sproul also seems to espouse the all-too-common, yet blatantly ignorant and offensive, claims that people reject religion because of mistreatment or abuse, and that atheists reject God to unburden themselves from guilt, to indulge their own desires at the expense of others, or because they don’t like the idea that they are “ultimately accountable to a just and holy God.” While that may be true in some cases, it’s much more likely that atheists reject religion simply because there is no evidence to support its theistic claims. However, Sproul continues his argument for religion for almost an entire chapter based on this faulty premise.

The last tactic that is frequently used throughout the book is the setting up of “straw men” to knock down. Sproul defines the problem in such a way as to make it easy to refute, but by doing so, skirts the actual issue in question. He defines humanism in this way and then proceeds to use biblical quotations to refute it (another reason why the book is better for current Christians than it is for non-believers).

There are so many issues I have with the “reasons to believe” given by the book, that it would take far too long to address them here. Reason to Believe, however, is an easy read, partly due to its small size, but also due in large part to Sproul’s competent writing style. If you’re a non-believer looking to see how Christians tend to address questions about their faith, it’s a quick and interesting read. As Sproul says in his preface, however, if you’re looking for a book on serious apologetics, you won’t find it here.

You will be shaking your head a lot, though.

Positive Atheism

Life, The Universe, and EverythingFrequently, the writings of atheists tend to be critical of religion, theistic beliefs, and dogma rather than positive toward non-belief. It’s a necessary tack to take on a regular basis when confronting religious activism in politics, education, health care, and science. I do it myself. However, sometimes it seems that there isn’t enough written about the positive aspects of atheism… how non-belief is beneficial rather than how theistic beliefs are harmful. Sometimes we’re so busy defending against theistic politicking that we forget about extolling the virtues of atheism.

So here are what I find some of the benefits to be (with occasional criticisms thrown in for reference).

Leaving religion behind lets me actively seek out answers, digging into the world around me to uncover evidence showing how the world works, how it came to be, and where it’s headed. It removes the easy non-answer of “God did it” and opens up the door to a world filled with awe-inspiring explanations based on factual observations… observations untainted and uncheapened by the simple-minded tenants of unfounded faith.

Religion provides an easy way out to the difficult and complex questions about the workings of this world and our surrounding universe. As an atheist, I reject that excuse for intellectual laziness. Searching for real answers provides, for me and many other nonbelievers, far more wonder, awe, and appreciation for nature and our physical world, both visible and invisible, than does the feeble act of claiming supernatural causes.

By allowing me the freedom to discover knowledge about the smallest particles explained by physics, microscopic biological forms, the living, breathing nature around us, our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe, atheism frees me from the dogmatic shackles of religious intellectual bondage and provides me with extraordinary delight in our very existence. I have no need to reconcile observable evidence with ancient texts or untenable beliefs nor do I have a need to reject or explain away evidence if it contradicts the prescribed dogma of theistic organizations.

Leaving religion behind allows me to behave in a way that is truly moral, acting in a way that harms no one and benefits everyone… myself, those around me, and those inhabiting our planet… without being threatened and coerced by a fear of infinite torment. When mistakes are made, I can ask forgiveness from those harmed and then move on without being damned and without obsequious groveling to an invisible master.

Atheism allows me to follow a morality based on reasoning and logic instead of vague, outdated rules and proclamations that were made for a more primitive, unenlightened time. It gives me freedom to treat others with respect regardless of their race, religion, sex, or nationality… freedom, also, to unhypocritically speak out against those who do harm, who espouse bigotry and intolerance, and who promote hatred and violence either through words or deeds.

My mistakes are my own and cannot be dismissed or forgiven except by those whom I have wronged. Therefore, it is always in my best interest to treat others well and do what I can to bring out the best in them. Atheism removes the moral escape hatch provided by religion, making it exponentially more important for me to behave well… now and in the future. I cannot pray and be forgiven. I do not believe there is a benevolent, all-knowing creator who can absolve me of my sins. Only those who have been harmed by my actions can do that.

Since there is no eternal paradise after death, I have this one life to experience as much joy and happiness as I can. My joy and happiness depends, in large part, on my interactions with others. It also depends upon my understanding of the world around me. What makes someone happy varies from person to person, but for me, in addition to the people in my life, it includes a love of the outdoors, animals, science, astronomy, literature, music, food, dancing, writing, and a myriad of other things, none of which have any reliance upon the supernatural (science-fiction and fantasy novels notwithstanding).

Atheism is freedom. Not the freedom to do as I please, but the freedom to act in a way that is globally pleasing… the freedom to act morally… the freedom to see the world as it is… the freedom to wallow in the vastness of the universe… the freedom to be intellectually honest…

…the freedom to think.

Unlocking the Mysteries of Islam

Qur'anA few weekends ago, a friend of mine and I went to a free workshop titled “Unlocking the Mysteries of Islam.” We went not to criticize or confront anyone’s beliefs, but to find out more about Islam from actual Muslims who were willing to put together a workshop open to the public.

There were two presenters who each spoke about 15 minutes at the beginning, giving basic introductory information about Islam, after which they opened the floor to questions. My friend and I were sitting in the front row along with his mother and two other people who, based on their questions, were not Muslims, either. Most of the people sitting behind us seemed to be members of the Muslim community and, on occasion, helped to answer questions.

The whole experience was very educational, but just as importantly, very friendly and open. The two speakers were very personable and answered all our questions, letting us know up front that they didn’t have all the answers, but would tell us what they knew. Most of the questions came from the front row and it was almost as if we were simply having a conversation with the presenters, since they could see if we had puzzled expressions and would stop and let us ask for clarification on certain points.

Our questions ranged through topics such as interpretation of scripture, evolution, Heaven and Hell, sin, comparisons to Christianity, and redemption. We were never confrontational and we learned a lot about Islam that we hadn’t known before. We were there for two and a half hours and could have easily continued if we hadn’t had to leave the community center due to scheduling. My friend and I both agreed that it was a great educational experience.

There were a few points that really struck me as being notably different than Christianity (other than what might seem obvious to the casual observer).

The Nature of God or Allah

Muslims are very, very specific about the nature of Allah. By specific, I mean that they are very clear that the only things you can know about Allah are the things that are expressly spelled out in the Qur’an. They give no human attributes to Allah. If the Qur’an says that Allah has a face or that he created Adam with his hands, it means only that he has a face and hands… but not what they look like. They do not assume that the face of Allah looks like a human face nor that his hands look like human hands. One analogy given was a comparison between our hands and the hands of a clock. They’re both “hands” but don’t look anything alike.

There was no seventh day of rest in their creation story because the need for rest is a human attribute, one that Allah does not have, since it would imply that he was not perfect and all-powerful.

The Authority of the Qur’an

A question arose as to how they know that the Qur’an is the true word of Allah and, related to that, how the scripture was interpreted.

I don’t remember all the reasons, but one that struck me as interesting was that the Qur’an is in Arabic and has been in Arabic from the beginning. There are no multiple versions of it and the original Arabic text has been preserved since its beginning, so there’s no issue, as with the bible, of incorrect translations, lost chapters, or political interference. There are translations, but always from the original Arabic, which is the only true Qur’an.

One of the other reasons was the lyrical, poetic nature of the Qur’an in Arabic. Since Muhammad was an illiterate man, there’s no possible way he could have created it with such eloquence. Therefore, it must have been a divine revelation.

As for interpreting the Qur’an, they were very clear that it is never “interpreted.” It is taken completely literally (hence the “Nature of Allah” section above) and there is no need for any kind of interpretation. If the Qur’an says something, it’s true (literally). End of story.

Heaven and Hell

I believe they referred to Paradise and “The Fire” as what Christians would think of as Heaven and Hell. They were basically the same except for one point that I feel is a huge difference. When someone goes to “The Fire,” it’s not forever as it is with the Christian Hell. The Fire is a cleansing fire that will eventually cleanse someone of sin, after which he can go to Paradise. I found that to be infinitely more humane than Christian doctrine.

They also make no claims about whether someone goes to Paradise or the Fire when they die. In Islam, the final decision is up to Allah and Allah alone. There’s no “magic pill” for Muslims. They do what they can to follow the Qur’an and the laws laid down by Muhammad in hopes of reaching Paradise, but in the end, it’s Allah’s decision.

I found that a somewhat striking difference from Christianity (some versions) where “accepting Jesus” or “repenting your sins” or some other set of dutiful tasks is the sure way to Heaven. With Islam, there is no sure way, but there are things you must do to even qualify from the get-go.

Of course, a lot more information was covered than those three topics, but those three things stand out in my head as things that very clearly distinguish Islam from Christianity.

Don’t get me wrong. There was a lot of what we talked about that had my friend and I shaking our heads in disbelief (pun intended). The theory of evolution isn’t valid (contradicts the Qur’an). Muhammad was a prophet. Muhammad spoke to Allah. Allah exists. The usual stuff.

One item that caught the attention of both my friend and me was something one presenter said about trees in the winter. He seemed to think that trees die in winter and are resurrected in spring. He cited that as one of the bits of evidence for the existence and greatness of Allah. I thought he was speaking metaphorically at first, but had my doubts. A brief conversation at the end which leads me to believe he was being literal.

The presenter was speaking to my friend when I joined the conversation.

“What do you think happens when you die?” he asked.

My friend said, “That’s it. I’m done. I’ll rot in the ground.”

The presenter replied, “What about the trees?” He pointed outside. “A few months ago they were dead. Now they are full of life.”

“They weren’t dead. They were just in hibernation.”

“Well, people refer to them as dead.”

My friend replied, “I’ve never heard anyone say that before.”

The presenter looked at me and asked, “How about you?”

I just smiled and shook my head. My friend said, “He’s an atheist, too.”

The presenter smiled at me and, with a small chuckle, asked “Are you the devil?”

I laughed and said I was not. We then exchanged very pleasent goodbyes and went our separate ways.

So he sort of backpedaled with the “dead tree” idea, but not so much as to make me think that he was being metaphorical when he said the trees died in winter. Whether that was just his belief or a tenant of Islam, I do not know.

We all got free copies of the Qur’an and some other informative literature about Islam which I have yet to read. The Qur’an is on my reading list, though, so I hope to learn a bit more before the end of the summer.

I’ll try to finish it before the trees die again.

Woo by the ton!

Given that folks in the Skeptic, Science, and Atheist communities generally refer to new age healing, astrology, homeopathic “remedies,” and other spiritual-type wackiness as “woo,” I found this sign near my house very, very humorous.

woopellets

Woo for $299 a ton! That sounds like a great deal for the Discovery Institute… although, on second thought, they might be the suppliers.

On a side note, my 8-year-old daughter found the sign really funny, too, after I explained the “woo” bit. Now she laughs every time we drive by it.

I think maybe I’ll buy a $6.00 bag and see if it can do something about this problem I’ve been having with my aura…

More fun with church signs

A recent change to the sign of a local church provides this:

Love, not time, heals all wounds.
God needs your love, too.

I like the sentiment of the first part, though I think time plays a part, too. However, the second part gave me pause and actually got me thinking about something that’s puzzled me about theistic religions.

If their God is perfect, why would he need your love? Actually, why would he need to have created mankind at all? Taking it further, why would he even have bothered to create the universe? No matter what reasons are given, they all attribute human needs and characteristics to God. Needy? Bored? Curious? Jealous?

I would think a perfect god would never have needs… or wants. If he’s perfect, then that’s that.

Has anyone heard any really rational reasons for God’s demands of obedience? …or for his creating everything in the first place? I’ve yet to hear one, even from my religious friends.

Kevin Jennings appointed to education department

Kevin JenningsKevin Jennings will become the assistant deputy secretary of education for the department’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. That’s quite a mouthful. According to this article, “the office oversees financial assistance for drug and violence prevention and is in charge of developing program policy for the Department of Education.”

Among his many distinctions, Mr. Jennings has been the recipient of the Human and Civil Rights Award of the National Education Association, the Distinguished Service Award of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the Diversity Leadership Award of the National Association of Independent Schools. He seems eminently qualified for the position.

So why do I bring this up? Well… Mr. Jennings is gay. Anyone with a finger anywhere near the pulse of the religious right knows that they seem to feel that being gay is equivalent to child molestation, sexual perversion, subversive indoctrination of children into the “gay lifestyle,” and other atrocities offensive to their god. I saw this attitude in full swing in a recent Facebook discussion.

I’ll give some examples of the discussion here, but without names attached to them. I didn’t ask anyone’s permission, so keeping anonymity is important, though the sentiments expressed should see the light of day to expose the homophobia, intolerance, and factual distortions.

Here are the objections raised against Mr. Jennings at the beginning of the discussion.

  1. He is the founder and former executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
  2. GLSEN is infamous for the “Fistgate Scandal,” a conference in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous acts of sexual perversion, including “fisting.”
  3. Mr. Jennings was quoted as saying “Fuck ‘em” to the “Religious Right.”
  4. Jennings wrote the forward for a book called Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling.

The poster (I’ll call him “Poster Alpha”) was careful to say that he feels Mr. Jennings has the right to live his life however he wants… which is usually the kind of thing you hear when there is disapproval of the life being led. But here are some of his additional comments.

This appointment is just another example of the grossly poor choices our President is making. At the minimum it reveals very poor judgment. At worst, it is another example of how he and his administration are waging battle on core American values.

I’ve known about this dude for a while. He’s a despicable person, who has taken out his anger on, and focused his debauched standards on traditional family values – I say that without reservation. No one should defend or empower a person who wants to trump parental rights and inflict (yes I say inflict!) debauched sexual values on children. Where the heck is the defense of their purity?? I’m so glad my kids aren’t in public school.

And I might add, if the roles were swapped, and a Republican president were to have nominated someone with an ecclesiastic background, there would be no end to the caterwauling from the Left about imposing religious values in the public school system. Tell me, who is the real threat?

I’m not sure where Poster Alpha got his information, but I’m going to venture a guess that it was a site along the lines of WorldNetDaily or MassResistance.org or some other right-wing religious site. It certainly was not an impartial (or even factual) source. Sadly, Poster Alpha will not reveal his sources, even after being asked.

His initial objections were blatantly silly. The only one that really required much looking into was number two (the “fistgate scandal”), but that was easily done. Here are my reactions to each.

1. Jennings founded GLSEN

That boils down to “Oh my god! He’s gay!” So what.

2. GLSEN is infamous for the “Fistgate Scandal”

This is about GLSEN, not Jennings. In actuality, it’s not even about GLSEN that much. GLSEN was one of three sponsors of a “Teach Out” conference at Tuft University about teens and sexual behavior issues. The voluntary conference was for students age 14 to 21 and an attending student asked what “fisting” was. The teachers answered the question, but the conference was being (illegally) taped by a religious right group member and the tape was then used to manufacture a controversy. You can read about the issue here and here. A quick Google search of “fistgate” will bring up plenty of links, some more dubious than others. You’ll find self-righteous outrage along with more even-handed responses.

Jennings was not present at the event and was not responsible for the content of the conference… and GLSEN was only a sponsor, anyway. So bringing up the issue is just plain petty… and silly.

3. Jennings is quoted as saying “Fuck ’em” to the religious right

In actuality, he was quoted as saying “I’m trying not to say ‘Fuck ’em'” which is somewhat different. Either way, however… so what. I suppose it’s a matter of the religious right being piously offended. Somehow, I think they’ve probably given a “Fuck ’em” or two to groups they oppose.

4. Jennings wrote the forward for a book

The book in question is called Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Cultures, and (Homo)Sexualities). It’s only got one review at Amazon, but they have a good synopsis of the book. It doesn’t seem to be about what the title implies and seems like a thought-provoking, interesting book. However, because Jennings wrote the forward, the religious right seems to find him objectionable (again… “Oh my god! He’s gay!”).

The intolerance and bigotry were rampant in the Facebook discussion, punctuated every now and then with a rational response by someone not frothing at the mouth with homophobic mania. Poster Alpha himself ramped up the rhetoric when he added “traditional family values” to the “core American values” Jennings was supposedly assaulting… along with childrens’ purity.

Here’s a sampling of some of the other nonsense from the discussion. These are from one person. I call him Mr. Froth.

However, when people try to promote their own lifestyles upon impressionable youth, youth that are not their own children, that is where I draw the line.

If Mr. Jennings wants to have children and teach them how to “fist” or any other perverted and dangerous methods of “affection” that he practices, that is his own business. (although, one would have to wonder whether child services would get involved if this were happening) When he insists that teaching these methods to other’s children is “enlightenment,” all he is doing is trying to justify his lifestyle.

If I tried to enter the schools and teach my lifestyle of Christian living, I would be run out and probably sued.

Has our society degenerated so severely that teaching deviant sexual practices is acceptable while teaching Christian principles is not? Apparently, it has.

These workshops are no different than cult recruitment events. They are designed to increase the “membership” of Mr. Jennings following.

Overlooking this incredible atrocity to appoint the man to lead our nation’s education would be akin to overlooking a child serial murder’s past to appoint him as summer camp director simply because he had written some books […]

[Jennings] has his agenda and that is to force his views on others, starting with the very young. He is, in fact, developing a “cult” by trying to indoctrinate his beliefs in these youths.

Get this crap out of the schools and actually teach these kids reading writing and arithmetic! Why is that so difficult to understand? How’s that for enlightenment?

This poster seems to be so worked up in a frenzied, frothing rage that he creates all kinds of demons to attack. Promoting lifestyles? Teaching children how to fist? Perverted and dangerous? Justifying lifestyles? Cult recruitment events? Deviant sexual practices? Being gay is like being a child serial murderer? Forcing his views on others?

There’s so much misinformed bigotry and hatred here that I’m not sure where (or how) to start. I was actually surprised that a comparison to Hitler didn’t pop up because it seemed that’s where Mr. Froth was headed.

Evidently, Mr. Froth seems to think that teaching Christian principles is not allowed. In public schools, religious dogma cannot be taught, but it certainly can be taught in private schools, in churches, at seminaries, at conventions and at any other private events. He also seems to overlook the fact that Jennings did not teach at the mentioned workshop, nor was this information being taught in public schools.

And then the workshop in question becomes “these workshops” and are likened to cult recruitment events which are designed to increase membership… in the gay community? It’s an absurd notion and, with every word he writes, he displays an astronomical amount of ignorance and clouded thinking.

Another poster, like Mr. Froth, seems to think that the “fistgate” conference was taught in a public school as part of the curriculum.

[Jennings] has supposedly run programs about bullying; do his efforts to make schools safe from bullying include the bullying from the left and from the gay rights activists? I feel pretty bullied when the president appoints someone this divisive to such a powerful position over the education of children.

Please let me make myself clear, my objection to the man has nothing to do with his personal sexual choices.

[Children] are being taught by the popular culture to disdain the leadership and advice of their own parents […]. We are now politicizing the sexual and moral education of children.

I read things like that and wonder whether the religious right creates such clouded thinking or if such clouded thinking leads people down the path to the religious right. Here, an attempt is made to play the victim card… it’s not the gays that are bullied. It’s the straight people who hate the gays. Then to say that a presidential appointment is akin to bullying? That shows a complete lack of understanding and empathy for the victims of bullying.

Again, there is the claim of not objecting to the man’s personal sexual choices… while showing exactly the opposite. The claim of “it’s all about the children” only goes so far to cover up the homophobia and disgust.

There’s so much more of this type of talk that went on in the discussion. It ranged pretty far off topic from the original appointment of Mr. Jennings, but tended to focus on sex. It’s funny how the religious right tends to focus so much of their attention and talk on sex while claiming that they don’t care what people do in their own bedrooms.

Mr. Froth and the others have gotten the notion in their heads that there is some “gay agenda” that is being forced into the public school curriculum which isn’t fair since “Christian values” cannot be taught there. It shows an astronomical amount of ignorance on their part. I suppose they think that gays are trying to recruit more people as gays.

The objections raised by Poster Alpha to the appointment of Mr. Jennings are petty and irrelevant. They all stem from a basic feeling of homophobia and a desire to keep children from knowing about “alternative lifestyles,” as if they might somehow become victims of a gay plot to rule the world.

With all the accolades and awards Mr. Jennings has achieved in his career, it seems to me that he’s a fine choice.

Judging theories on their merits

Darwin's Tree of Life DrawingIn Friday’s The Daily News Online in Batavia, NY, John Cantillion wrote a letter to the editor in response to a piece by Reverend Fred Jensen a few days before. I didn’t read the original piece, but the reply by Mr. Cantillion was just so awash with misinformation and theological chest thumping that it was virtually screaming for a response.

The original topic by Reverend Jensen was “Science and religion should cooperate as well as co-exist.” Jerry Coyne and Chris Mooney are currently having their own debate, but I come down pretty squarely in Coyne’s camp. However, they’re both scientists and (I think) atheists, so they’re not that far apart generally. Cantillion, however, seems to have wandered off into the “science and religion go hand in hand and compliment each other” field, one that I don’t believe Coyne or Mooney endorse.

Cantillion starts off with a bang in the first paragraph, claiming biblical scientific credentials because the book of Job describes the water cycle, something he says was not “scientifically” described until the mid 1500’s. For those of you who are biblically challenged, here are the verses in question from Job chapter 36 (NSRV).

27 For he draws up the drops of water; he distils his mist in rain,
28 which the skies pour down and drop upon mortals abundantly.
29 Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?

I’m pretty sure those verses don’t qualify as being “scientifically” described, either, but that’s Cantillion’s first bit of evidence for biblical science. More quoting from Job, this time from chapter 26, verse 7.

He stretches out Zaphon [or the north] over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

This passage, he states, is “an apt description of the earth in space.”

I’m pretty sure it’s not.

After his first paragraph of proselytizing, Cantillion continues…

There is a legitimate case for fear when a portion of science is eliminated because it does not agree with the worldview of those in power. Science looks at all the views, and based on empirical evidence, chooses the best one. Declaring one theory to be illegitimate and then forcing all evidence to fit the theory that has been declared to be legitimate is not science.

I wholeheartedly agree with that entire paragraph (as long as it remains out of the context of the rest of his letter). Science should be based on empirical evidence and should not be twisted to suit the political agenda of the day. It should be based on observable facts, should be testable, and should be peer reviewed.

What’s the problem with Cantillion’s view, then? The problem is that, after that one paragraph, the rest of his letter is mind-numbingly anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-rationality.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, not scientific fact. It has strengths and weaknesses.
[…]
Creation science is a theory just as evolution is. Let it stand or fall based on its merits, or lack thereof, as demonstrated through empirical evidence, not prejudice.

Here’s where things take a turn into creationist-land. The “just a theory” line is a classic creationist talking point and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific “theory” actually is. When the statement is used in conjunction with evolution, not only does it show a lack of understanding of the definition of the word, but it shows an even greater lack in understanding of evolution… what the theory states, and what the evidence is. When that line is trotted out, it’s a pretty safe bet that it will be followed up with Ray Comfort’esque ramblings… which in this case, is excruciatingly true.

Creation science is not “a theory just as evolution is.” Creation “science” isn’t even “science.” If it was to stand or fall based on its merits, it would have fallen decades ago, as it has with reputable scientists, but that’s not what creationists really want. What they want is for creationism to be what is taught in schools. They want creationism to be taught as fact. They want creationism to be exempt from any sort of real scientific scrutiny so that they can claim it as true.

Cantillion continues with this

If evolution is really so superior to creating, why is every effort being made to eliminate the theory of creation from public awareness so that only the theory of evolution is known and believed? If the theory of evolution is truly so superior over creation, then put them side by side and let evolution destroy creation once and for all.

First, nobody is trying to eliminate the biblical account of creation from public awareness. What rational people are doing is removing it from (or rather keeping it out of) the science curriculum, where it has no business. The science curriculum should be teaching science, a branch of which is biology, a part of which is evolution… by natural selection. Evolution is not a matter of “belief” or “faith.” It’s a matter of scientific evidence processed using the scientific method.

As for the second part, evolution and creationism have been put side by side and evolution has destroyed creationism. Sadly, it hasn’t been “once and for all” because the creationists won’t accept anything but the overwhelming victory of their biblical (or Koranic) version of creation over any scientific, evidence-based alternative. So no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how much “proof” is piled up and presented to a creationist, it makes not a lick of difference because it doesn’t match their beliefs, to which they desparately cling despite the contradictions between the facts and their beliefs.

Cantillion asks…

The strategy being used [to support evolution] is not science, but politics. Why is politics needed to prove and establish the theory of evolution, unless it cannot be established by empirical evidence?

I find Cantillion’s statement strange because what’s actually happening is the exact opposite of what he claims. Evolution is completely supported by science. Creationism is what is desparately seeking political support because that’s the only support it can possibly muster in a scientific world. Cantillion doesn’t seem to get the dependencies correct. Evolution depends on science. Creationism depends on politics.

He goes on to criticize Reverend Jensen for what he seems to think are poorly chosen examples of God’s hand in creation and then really goes off the deep end.

Everyone has a religious faith of some sort. Even an atheist has religious faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore, it takes at least as much faith for an atheist to believe that there is no God as it does for a religious person to believe that there is a God. So then, not mentioning God and not praying is not being neutral regarding religion but is, in fact, promoting atheism. All religious faiths do not get us to the same place, unless atheism is true. Then everyone just winds up dead. Atheism, not science, is at the root of evolution.

I find it difficult to not use profanity here. Lack of a belief in a god is not, in any way, shape, or form, religious faith. It’s true that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist. However, most atheists do not make an irrefutable claim of absolute knowledge regarding the existence of God (as Creationists do), so no proof is necessary. As an atheist, I’m not stating that a god does not exist. I’m stating that I have no evidence for the existence of a god… any god. So, no… it takes no faith to be an atheist.

So, contrary to the absurd conclusion at which Cantillion arrives, not mentioning God and not praying is definitely neutral regarding religion. Leaving out religious actions is neutral to religion. Praying, reading bible verses, singing hymns, and teaching creationism are all actions that are most assuredly not religion-neutral.

As for the last sentence, the claim is just absurd. Evolution is based on evidence… factual, observable, testable evidence. Again, Cantillion gets his cart before the horse. Atheism is not the root of evolution. Evolution is, however, quite a gaping hole in the creationists’ claims.

Cantillion goes off on Reverend Jensen again at this point in his letter, but starts his criticism with this bit.

All the religions of the world cannot be held in equal esteem. Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and other great spiritual leaders are not equal and are in contradiction with one another.

I have to agree that great spiritual leaders contradict one another. I’m not sure what point Cantillion was trying to make here, but he inadvertently (I assume) brought up one of the main arguments atheists use regarding the truth of religion. There are so many religions, all of which claim to be true, that it’s not difficult to conclude that the most likely answer is that none of them are.

Cantillion finished with this…

Jesus claimed to be God. It is Jesus who causes the lame to walk and the blind to see, not religion and not science. Science proves what God has already established.

Unsurprisingly, Cantillion is wrong again. Science has long ago created prosthetic devices allowing the “lame” to walk and, just recently, the blind to see.

Go figure

Church of Scientology banned from editing Wikipedia

Scientology SymbolI’m a big proponent of free speech, so this may seem contradictory, but I’m delighted that the Wikipedia “surpreme court” has decided to ban Wikipedia contributions by any IP address owned or operated by the Church of Scientology.

The “Church” of Scientology is well known for its efforts to remove any Scientology-related materials and criticisms from the internet for years, using tactics ranging from legal threats to “fair gaming” the providers of the criticism. What makes this more insidious than mainstream religions is that Scientology attempts to censor its critics rather than responding to the criticisms.

So rather than let Scientologists continue to edit Wikipedia with bias and censorship, the Wikipedia honchos decided that it would be best just to ban them altogether.

From the article…

Officially, Wikipedia frowns on those who edit “in order to promote their own interests.” The site sees itself as an encyclopedia with a “neutral point of view” – whatever that is. “Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited,” say the Wikipowersthatbe.

They were going to just ban then from Scientology-related articles, but because of the tactics employed by the Scientologists to edit from multiple IP addresses, changing their addresses for different edits. The article calls this “sockpuppeting” and it’s not allowed, according to Wikipedia’s rules.

So… banned. I delight in the irony of an organization known for its censorship getting banned from peddling its tripe.

As the article mentioned, this happens at the same time that a “real” trial is opening in France against the Church of Scientology, charging them with “organized fraud and illegal pharmaceutical activity.” Here’s hoping that the overwhelming financial resources of the Church of Scientology aren’t too much for the French government.

I have high hopes.

Ricky Gervais: Darwin was wrong.

Since I haven’t been posting much lately, I thought I’d toss in a little bit of humor courtesy of Ricky Gervais. I just caught this on Unreasonable Faith and wanted to share because everyone can use some laughter to brighten up their day.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foPL1arjriA