www.freethoughtperspective.net

Opinion: Reflections on Crackergate

Max Jackson

(Campus Freethought Alliance at UCF)

This is a reprint originally published in the newsletter, Center for Inquiry,On Campus, with permission of the author.

One Sunday, Webster Cook found himself under attack, verbally and physically, during a Mass hosted by Campus Catholic Ministries at the University of Central Florida. Why? For walking away with the Eucharist wafer rather than putting it in his mouth. He would tell you that he just wanted to show it to his friend. The Florida media would tell you that he was just an immature, destructive troublemaker (or according to Fox News, committing a hate crime).

Regardless of his intent, there resulted a violent altercation. Webster was verbally and physically coerced towards either returning the Eucharist or swallowing it. He stubbornly refused to do either, confused and indignant at the startling and unexpected violence. He walked away with the Eucharist, keeping it in a drawer in his home until he could speak with the bishop about the use of violence in its attempted reclamation.

This is when the sensationalism started. “BODY OF CHRIST HELD HOSTAGE” wailed one over-dramatized headline, with videos of teary-eyed priests begging Webster to return its most precious artifacts. Webster was portrayed as an immature, attention-craving rogue, and the Catholic world tore into him.

There are some dark, bitter ironies to all this, foremost being the acronym “WWJD?” that was more likely than not in that room somewhere on that day. What would Jesus have done? I might be ignorant about it, but my shallow understanding of Christianity indicates that Jesus would more closely resemble Webster here than the Catholics—which isn’t to give him messianic implications. Webster acted very stubbornly, and the entire incident could easily have been avoided had he acquiesced to their demands and returned the cracker during the service. His actions, however stubborn, were nevertheless in the right.

There are some even worse implications here, and if you are reading this then you and I probably share some views on them. There were legions of people who would have proudly murdered Webster and his family, the promised heavenly reward fueling their defiance of man’s mortal law. Ironic that many of those who craved Webster’s blood on their hands were likely the same people who wept for the innocent lives tragically lost on September 11th. Ask yourself this: how would America have reacted had Webster stepped on Muslim toes?

We cannot afford to ignore the implications here. Religion has its good and its bad, but its worst evils are far from gone. It is important for the faithful and skeptical alike to recognize the need for reform, for compassion, for a rational approach to life. The West is not immune from evil, and an unfortunate many of those who point the finger at the Muslim world for being backwards are guilty of the same faults.

The incident is largely behind us, but the lessons remain: promoting free inquiry in a world that craves emotional satisfaction over truth will prove difficult and highly challenging. Ours is a battle not just against religion and superstition, but against human nature itself. However, progress continues, and with hard work and dedicated effort, we can all make a difference.

If readers would like to subscribe to Free Inquiry, the publication of CFI, send your request to: Center For Inquiry, 3965 Rensch Rd., Amherst, NY 14228

————————————————————————————————————-

Miracles Do Not Exist—Period!

James A. Worrell

“The supernatural does not esist.” — Camille Flammarion (1843-1925) French Astronomer—

“Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles, and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men  know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is why their authority is preserved.” —Baruch Spinoza, Ethics (1677)—

“The figures are shocking. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that—it’s astonishing. These numbers aren’t duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You’d have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population.” —Noam Chomsky (1928-) American Linguist, MIT Professor —

A miracle is an event believed to be caused by interposition of divine intervention by a supernatural being in the universe by which the ordinary operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or even modified. The term is derived from the Latin word miraculum meaning “something wonderful”. (Definition from Wikipedia)

There are events that happen in the world that are unexplainable because our wealth of knowledge is at present insufficient to explain the causes. Because we are unable to explain the cause or the process, some people are quick to call it a miracle. This simple solution gives credence to the belief in a supernatural power or god.

Most people are uneducated about the forces, laws and dynamics of nature. If we drive our car, the engine pistons are pushed by expanding gas, and it is propelled forward by sending power to a gearbox that turns the wheels. The car is held to the earth by gravity and speed is a compromise between force and resistance. We don’t usually think of these natural things in the way they affect our everyday lives. Because most of us are not scientifically inclined, or have had our brains hijacked by an ignoramus or a religious quack when we were about five-years old, we tend to cop out to things we don’t understand instead of reserving judgment until further investigation is made.

The mystery (read miracle) of how the Universe and life were created also gives cause for insecurity and uncertainty, yet religious people solve this complex mystery by creating another mystery. They say that God created everything from nothing (ex nihilo). This is a cop-out because there is absolutely no credible evidence to prove there is a god, much less that a god created life and the Universe.

When an event happens the cause of which is unexplainable, it is impossible to prove that it did not happen by natural means. Those who believe in miracles are willing to accept the impossible and ignore the possible.

Today, most people know that rain is a natural phenomena. However, in a drought stricken area, a preacher prays for rain, and within 30 minutes it begins to rain. How can anyone prove that the rain happened due to a supernatural cause? It is interesting to see religious, god-fearing farmers pay to seed the clouds with silver nitrate in hopes of making it rain. I’d say that was abandoning God and relying on science.

A recent drought in the state of Georgia brought about a public prayer by the governor. Within 24 hours it began to rain. It usually rains after a drought, but forget the natural. The gullible and those seeking evidence to prove their belief in a higher power will immediately label the rain as a miracle.

The best way to confront miracle nonsense is to ask the miracle believer to define a miracle. Their definition must not include any natural causes for a so-called miraculous event. If they do include any natural causes, then it cannot be deemed a miracle. Next, ask them to prove why it is impossible for the event (miracle) to have occurred naturally. They cannot do this. If they cannot explain or distinguish between rainfall that occurred naturally and rainfall that occurred due to supernatural intervention, then their logic and reason are defective.

As an aside here, I marvel at the audacious egos of those who believe in God, and then pray for God to intervene in the workings of nature, and asking God to suspend the laws of physics or meddle in human affairs, just to give them what they ask for in prayer. People like that think they are really special.

Belief (or faith) without facts proves nothing. Always keep in mind that proof is the result of evidence, and that the cause of events labeled as miracles is usually not knowable. Simply stated, there is absolutely no evidence of a supernatural power, whether you call it God, Allah, Yahweh or something else.

Certainly there are many events that are unexplainable, but that, in and of itself, does not mean or prove the event was caused by a supernatural power.

Here is a paradox for religious miracle believers. Since all religions claim their god can cause miraculous events, it would follow that the Christian god was causing the so-called miraculous healing at Lourdes, France. The paradox is how does a Christian explain the miracles caused by the gods of other religions?

Among the more idiotic miracles in the Bible is the story of the flood. It rained so much; it covered the whole earth in forty days and nights. Since Mount Everest is the highest place in the world and is 29,000 feet high, it would have to rain 750 feet a day; or 30.2 feet an hour; or five feet every ten minutes; or six-inches a minute. Just imagine it pouring six inches of rain every minute for forty straight days and nights. No person on earth has ever experienced such a deluge. Do you believe it happened? Well, just one simple question will throw the whole Noah and his Ark story into the lie box. The question is, “Just how did Noah find penguins, polar bears and kangaroos in Palestine? “The story is pure fiction as are the other miracle stories in the Bible.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES The following is only a small example of the alleged miracles.

OLD TESTAMENT

Creation (Gen.1)

Lot’s wife turning  to salt (Gen. 19:26)

Opening of Rachael’s womb (Gen. 30:22)

Flaming bush (Ex. 3:2)

Transformation of Moses’ rod into a serpent (Ex. 4;3, 4, 30;7 10, 12)

God turns the Nile river into blood (Ex. 7:17)

Passage of the Red Sea (Ex. 14:22)

Manna from heaven ( Ex. 16:4-31)

Quails (Ex. 16:13)

Scourge of serpents (Num. 21: 6-9)

Balaam’s ass speaks (Num. 22:23-30)

Sun and moon stand still (Josh. 10:12-14)

Elijah fed by ravens (1 Kings 17:6)

Elijah’s translation to heaven on a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11)

Dead man restored to life (2 Kings 13-21)

The sun goes backwards 10 degrees as a sign to Hezekiah (2 Kings 2-:11)

NEW TESTAMENT

The incarnation of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-25)

Water made into wine (St. John 4:46-54

Draught of fishes (Luke 5:1-11)

Heals Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14)

Cleanses the leper (Mark 1:40)

Heals the paralytic (Luke 5:17-16)

Healing of the impotent man (St. John 5; 1-16)

Restoring the withered hand (Mark 3:1-5)

Restores the centurion’s servant (Matt. 8:5-13)

Raises the widow’s son to life (Luke:7:11-16)

Stills the tempest (Matt. 8:23-27)

Casts devils out of two men of Gadara (Matt. 8:28-34)

Raises Jarius’ daughter from the dead (Mark 5:22-24)

Cures the woman with the issue of blood (Luke 8:43-48)

Restores two blind men to sight (Matt. 9:27-31)

Feeds five thousand people (Matt. 14:15-21)

Walks on the sea (Mark 7:15-21)

Heals daughter of Syrosphenician woman (Matt. 15:21-28)

Feeds four thousand people (Mark 8:1-9)

Restores one deaf and dumb (Mark 7:31-27)

Restores a blind man (Mark 8:22-26)

Restores a lunatic child (Matt. 17:14-21)

Tribute money obtained from a fish’s mouth (Matt.16:24-27)

Restores ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)

Opens eyes of man born blind (St. John 11:1-36)

Raises Lazarus from the dead (St. John 11:1-36)

Heals woman with spirit of infirmity (Luke (13:10-17)

Cures a man with dropsy (Luke 14:1-6)

Restores two blind men near Jericho (Matt. 20:29-34)

Heals ear of Malchus (Luke 22:49-51)

Second draught of fishes (St. John 21:6)

There were also many alleged miracles performed by the disciples including raising people from the dead. Interestingly, there is no proof of any of the above alleged miracles simply because there is no evidence that they happened.

When confronted with a report of a miracle, we must first question the credibility and reliability of the source. I cannot emphasize this too much. Next we review any evidence of the miracle. Also the alleged miracle can be compared with the possibility of such an event happening in the course of human experience.

First, take the alleged miracle of creation. The only source of this information is the Bible’s Book of Genesis. That is the source. Next we check the credibility of Genesis. Since no one knows who wrote the Book of Genesis, it is not possible to check the writer’s credibility, nor is it possible to check the writer’s reliability. Credibility deals with the source’s truthfulness. Reliability deals with how the reporter of the miracle got his information; whether he was in a position to observe the purported miracle; his physical ability to observe; whether there were other witnesses; whether there was any corroborating evidence of the miracle; whether the source recorded the event in some manner or relied solely on his or her memory. Reliability simply is asking the question of the source, “How do you know?” Those are only a few of the questions we must determine about the source, but if you check these questions, chances are great that you will be able to determine the credibility and reliability of the source.

In the alleged miracle of the creation, there were no witnesses and no evidence that God created the Universe and mankind; therefore the proof fails as the credibility and reliability of the reporter is unknown.

Oh, you say, God was there and he was the witness. Again, I say to you, “How do you know God was there?” Because you say, “The Bible says so in the Book of Genesis.” Well, your proof fails because you (1) cannot prove there is a God, and (2) your information comes from the writer of Genesis who, like you, was not there and has already been proven to be unreliable. Your argument is like “circular reasoning.” Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than the restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.To say, “you should exercise because it’s good for you,” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.” Or in your case, “God created the Universe because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because the Bible says it is inspired by God.”

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person or writing so much that we often accept his or its claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles. By citing the Book of Genesis as your proof that God created the Universe and mankind is the use of a false authority for your argument.

Now, how does the creation miracle comport with modern day knowledge? We know for a fact that the Universe is expanding and that it is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Rather than take space showing what modern science has discovered, I suggest the reader go to Wikipedia and read “Formation and Evolution of the Solar System.” There you will find a wealth of scientific investigation based on empirical evidence rather the simplification of the first eight words of Genesis, to-wit: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That is nothing more than a self-serving statement lacking any evidence whatsoever. If you say the “Big Bang” is a theory, then I say the biblical story of creation is a myth.

The biblical reports of the miracles of Jesus are equally false. Since all of the reported miracles are not something done by anyone in this day and time, they require examination.

First, what is the source of the reports? Allegedly they are reported by eyewitnesses, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Even though the gospels were written by them, we have no positive proof of that. Just because a gospel is named “Matthew” does not prove that it was written by Matthew or not re-written by many authors later on. Further, the gospels were written decades after the alleged miracles. So how good is the memory after 50-60 years?

We must examine the fact that these alleged miracles were impossible for anyone to perform unless he was a god or had supernatural powers. All the said miracles defy the laws of nature. With so many miracles one must ask why they were not recorded by any historian or any other person. There is no independent corroboration for these so-called miracles.

Proof of the Jesus miracles fails because the reporters are unknown, and there is no other independent corroboration of the events. The disciples were followers and had every reason to promote their beliefs. They were advocates for Jesus and when one has a personal interest in a story, it colors their judgment. They could hardy be said to be neutral as Jesus had promised them an eternity of bliss.

A word about probabilities, when a person is confronted with a report of miraculous events, the person uses his own experience to determine whether the story is probably true or not. This is the method of our jury system. When you have 12 jurors, they weigh the veracity of the evidence in light of their personal lifetime experiences. If a witness starts to lie, the jurors are quick to catch it. As an example, if a man is on trial for assault and battery, and he swears that demons made him do it, the jury will not believe him. This is simply because no juror has ever seen a demon. Yet, Christians believe in demons because the Bible says so. Nutty, absolutely nutty!

Probabilities are simply weighing the facts on what we know to be true in our own minds. If we are religious, we have been raised to believe in many absurdities. Religion teaches its followers that we live after death—no evidence of such; that there exist creatures as angels, devils, demons and other heavenly beings—no evidence of such; that there is a god who counts the hairs in our heads and is concerned every time we touch our sex organs—no such evidence exists; and on and on. Religious people have had their minds polluted by religion to the point that they believe very ridiculous things, things that a rational person can easily determine are not true.

As Sam Harris says in his book, The End of Faith, “The spirit of mutual inquiry is the very antithesis of religious faith.” Religious dogma does not allow for dissent, free inquiry or rationality, it demands strict mental and physical adherence. Religion is mind control. This is a fact and don’t forget it.

An illustration of this is also in Sam’s book. If a friend told you your wife was cheating on you, you would demand evidence, yet, on the night-stand beside your bed is a copy of the Bible, and you accept its preposterous claims without demanding any proof whatsoever.

A point being made here is that we are not perfect judges of evidence. Because of our imperfect judgment, that is why courts have rules of evidence. The rules are designed to make sure only relevant, competent and material evidence is considered by a jury.

David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher, stated that miracles are never believable because the possibility of a miracle having actually happened is always lower than the possibility either that the reporter is mistaken or is lying. We should always assume that one of the two later options is more likely true.

In a church in the country of Mexico, a statue of the Virgin Mary began to bleed fresh blood. The outcry from the Catholic parishioners was that it was a miracle—a sign from the Virgin Mary. The so-called miracle was easily vanquished when someone discovered a pigeon that had been wounded by a hunter. The poor pigeon had landed in the belfry and its blood had seeped down and was dripping on the statue of Mary. That was the end of that miracle.

Recently in Chicago, the El, and elevated train that runs on rails supported by concrete forms was the site of a miracle. Naturally, the rails and iron bolts had rusted over the years. Rain and moisture had washed the rust down the side of the concrete leaving a rust-stained image. Passersby thought the rust stain looked like the face of Jesus. It wasn’t long before the gullible and unthinking were lighting candles and praying before the rusty image.

What is wrong with this miracle? Rust makes stains; that is natural. No person on earth has ever seen Jesus. There are no photographs or paintings made of Jesus while alive. So how could anyone say this rust stain resembled the face of Jesus? There have been artistic renditions of Jesus, but they are just guesses. Ironically, most of the painted faces of Jesus make him look like an Anglo-Saxon with blue eyes.  Jesus, if he ever existed, was a Jew, and in all probability had brown eyes. There we go  again with probabilities. It is easy to see that the religiously trained dummies don’t use their minds and are quick to see a miracle in everything they don’t understand. It is sad, but true.

There is no supernatural (and no god). There is only our natural world. What we can’t explain may be explained in the future as our knowledge increases. Here are a couple of examples:

In the Dark Ages, the plague killed a large portion of the European population. The Catholic Church proclaimed it the will of God because we were sinners. However, science discovered the germ theory, viruses, etc., and we learned how to vaccinate ourselves against disease. Score one for science and one against religion.

Faith healers are preachers that claim they can heal people as they are endowed the power of Jesus. Having watched television shows of those claiming miraculous cures by faith healers and prayer, I have never seen the healing of a lost arm or leg, or the replacement of a lost eyeball. If these fakers are for real, why aren’t they at a Veterans’ Administration hospitals healing the many wounded veterans of the Iraq war?

On what scriptural basis do the fakers claim to heal? It is because of what Jesus said in St. John 14:12, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do because I go unto  my Father.”

Words have meaning. Clearly stated words don’t need interpretation or apologetics to explain them. Jesus was very clear. All you have to do is believe on (in) Jesus and you can perform greater miracles than Jesus did. You don’t ever have to pray. Can any rational or sane person believe these words? Jesus lied. Show me a person that believes these words spoken by Jesus and I’ll show you an idiot.

This is one of the leading lies in the Bible, because (1), it can be verified that it doesn’t work, and (2) believers cannot perform any of the miracles Jesus allegedly did. So why are the faithful still believing the false promises of Jesus? It is because people have a fear of death and are filled with wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is nothing more than hoping for the impossible—because miracles are impossible.

Presumed miracles are favored by religious leaders because it preserves the awe of the unknown and incidentally keeps them in riches. The laity loves believing in miracles because the miracles give them hope that there is a supernatural power (God) and that earthly death is not permanent.

© All rights Reserved by the writer.

————————————————————————————————————–

The Impossible Faith, James Patrick Holding

2007, Xulon Press, 2180 West State Road 434, Suite 2140, Longwood, FL 32779, ISBN 978-1-60266-084-7, 122 pp, ppb, $10.99, reviewed by

William Harwood

“The arguments made in this book are so powerful that one atheist reader paid another atheist over five thousand dollars to write a response to them” (p. viii). There is only one explanation why even a self-confessed apologist would expect his readers to believe such an outrageous falsehood: He is projecting onto his readers the same intellectual bankruptcy he sees in the mirror. And he may be right. Certainly only a reader who is himself braindead could take Holding’s unlearned drivel seriously.

James Patrick Holding is now the legal name of Robert Turkel, a brain amputee whom Farrell Till described as, “a cartoon character who came to life by some as-yet-unexplained mechanism.” Apparently the name change was triggered by Turkel/Holding’s recognition that his previously  published work was such a source of embarrassment, that adopting a new name was the logical way to disown it.

B. F. Skinner placed some pigeons in a cage with a blue spot on one wall and a red spot on another wall. Whenever a pigeon pecked the blue spot, it received a supply of pigeon food. When it pecked on the red spot, it received an electric shock. After one or two shocks, no pigeon ever again pecked the red spot. Pigeons are teachable. James Holding is not. No matter how many times he is shot down in flames, he continues to spout the same unmodified pre-kindergarten ignorance. He could learn much from those pigeons.

Untouchables like Holding take all the fun out of the analysis of religion, by making the task of proving that godworship is a form of insanity far too easy. The one thing the Soviet Union ever got right was its recognition that proselytizers of the god psychosis belong in asylums for the dangerously insane, where they cannot pass on their mind-AIDS to the uninfected. I seldom review books by lightweights, but when a book is this bad I am willing to make an exception. While Xulon  Press is a Christian publisher, it is also a facilitator for self-publishing. That would explain why Holding was forced to resort to Xulon after, as he acknowledges, his book was rejected by commercial Christian publishers. Apparently the publishers of such other blockheads as Alister McGrath, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Frank Tipler, and C. S. Lewis recognized Holding as too much of an embarrassment to the god delusion even for them. To his credit, Holding does recognize the Left Behind series as “crap,” a far more polite term than he uses in his vicious attacks on everyone who is sufficiently sane, intelligent and educated to commit the ultimate crime of disagreeing with him.

John Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist (Prometheus, 2008) wrote a particularly detailed and accurate demolition of Holding’s incompetent drivel for Amazon.com, to which Holding responded, “We’re all having a lot of laughs at his expense.” Presumably that “all” means Holding’s fellow vegetables. Since Loftus was excruciatingly polite, I can only wonder how the fatuous, unlearned, unteachable, rationally challenged poseur he demolished will respond to someone who believes that a brain amputee should be exposed for what he is.

Holding takes a lesson from Tertullian, who argued that the myth of an undying god dying and coming back to life should be believed precisely because it was an oxymoronic absurdity. Holding’s position is that the Jesus myth was such an absurdity that it would not have been believed unless its first preachers offered incontestable proof that the definitively impossible had indeed happened. I do not dispute that the earliest Christian preachers were able to narrate their fairy tales with a straight face, and those who made no pretence to be eyewitnesses would have believed they were parroting a “reliable source.” By that criterion, Holding should be  arguing that, when Ron Hubbard decided to invent a religion because, “that’s where the money is,” he would not have been believed unless he was telling the truth. Sure he was. And Santa Claus comes down the chimney on Mithra’s birthday. As to why whole populations came to believe that Atthis, Tammuz, Dionysus, Osiris, and fifty other virgin-born savior gods rose from the dead on the third day centuries before Jesus, that is a point Holding does not mention, probably because he is totally ignorant of facts known even to theologians.

Holding, like Ann Coulter, aims his books at the most mindless, bigoted, intolerant, fatuous, hatemongering, scientifically illiterate evolutionary throwbacks ever seen on earth. But while the role model for Coulter’s calculated self-aggrandizement was Elmer Gantry, Holding is more akin to the kindergarten-dropout preacher of Erskine Caldwell’s Journeyman. Coulter’s books have sold millions, while Holding has not sold enough for a single greasy spoon to wrap one day’s serving of fish and chips. Why? One relevant factor is that, while Coulter boasts of being a Christian, she makes no pretence of knowing anything about the mythology she professes to believe. Holding in contrast claims that he does have expertise in the fairy tales of the Jesus hoax—and then turns around and writes such inane drivel that he shows himself to be every bit as ignorant as the True Believers of the Flat Earth Society.

Large numbers have suggested that Ann Coulter does not exist, that her publications are really written by liberal humanists for the purpose of ridiculing the entire philosophy she pretends to espouse. For any significant number of readers to raise such a possibility about Holding, they would first have to be able to answer the question, “James Patrick Who?” That is not going to happen in this lifetime. Those apologists for the god delusion whom the ignoranti (and no one else) do take seriously (William Dembski, Michael Behe) must be asking themselves: With a friend like Holding, who needs enemies?

All religion is mind pablum for the braindead. Anyone who was not braindead before he started believing that mass murder was evil when Hitler did it with gas chambers, but is not evil when his imaginary Sky Führer does it with an Indian Ocean tsunami, a Burmese cyclone, and a Chinese earthquake, is certifiably so once he does acquire such a belief. But even the moderate believers who constitute an overwhelming majority of theists recognize creationists, unteachables who reject evolution and Big Bang theory simply because they falsify biblical fairy tales written in a prescientific age, as intellectually handicapped. If Holding’s book is truly illustrative of the extent of his doublethink, there is a bed waiting for him at Bellevue—or, more appropriately, Bedlam, since he is still living in the nineteenth century.

To describe Holding’s ramblings as eight chapters of trivia would be unduly flattering. A more accurate description is eight chapters of contentless doubletalk. Consider the following (p.18), “The shame of the cross, Christianity’s most enormous stumbling block, turns out to be one of its most introvertible proofs. Without solid evidence of the vindication of Jesus, Christianity would have been an ‘impossible faith’ for anyone to believe.” Circular reasoning like that would have made Tertullian proud.

As for the few points Holding makes that have sufficient face validity to warrant a response, they have already been fully rebutted, falsified and demolished at the site of their original publication. Nonetheless, Holding repeats them in this book with neither an attempted rebuttal nor even an acknowledgment of the objections. Is Holding unaware that repeating claims that have been fully disproven is LYING? Or is he intentionally writing for marks he knows can only be persuaded by lies? Humbug or crank? Does it really matter?

Anyone who wishes to verify that my evaluation of Holding’s competence and mental equilibrium is, if anything, too charitable, but is not sufficiently masochistic to read his book for such a trivial purpose, need only read his review of Dennis McKinsey’s excellent Enyclopedia of Biblical Errancy at www.tectonics.org/af/ebestart.html Holding should try to learn from the dictum that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open his mouth and remove all doubt. I seriously doubt that there is a biblical scholar on this planet who would be willing to debate Holding’s delusions, because the educated tend to regard it as ethically questionable to engage in a battle of wits with an opponent who is unarmed. Robert Turkel/James Holding is an embarrassment to primates.

Let me echo Martin Gardner’s evaluation of another book that, like The Impossible Faith, could only have been written by someone who thinks that Disney’s Alice in Wonderland was a documentary: “I am, dear reader, trying to keep a straight face while I summarize [his] convictions.” Gardner concluded, as do I, “For a few moments after reading [this book], I began to wonder if the book could be a subtle, hilarious hoax. Sadly, it is not.”

Behe and Dembski are self-inflicted brain amputees. Turkel/Holding was born that way.

———————————————————————————————

Dear George W. Bush

Leland W. Ruble

Dear George,

You’ve demonstrated in your current employment as President of the USA, that you have a remarkable lack (or inability) of not comprehending exactly what a president under a constitutional republic is or isn’t supposed to do. Either that, or you and your brain—as identified by many in the media—as Dick Cheney’s, have deliberately set about to govern this country as an imperialistic twosome acting with total disregard for both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Below are some questionable activities proposed with the intention of asking you and Dick why you’ve governed as you have for the past seven plus years.

Why Mr. Bush, did some of your most zealous supporters, during the dubious election of 2000, act like hysterical gestapo, and attempt to interrupt the recount of the votes during the highly questionable electoral process in Florida? Did this gang of gung-ho right-wing supporters, and evangelical born-again fanatics, panic at the thought that you and Dick might not legally win the election for president, if there was an accurate vote count? Was there the dreaded apprehension that your rival Al Gore might actually win, and if that was so, you and Dick would be denied the plot to carry out the bold plans you envisioned for turning America into a plutocratic autocracy? One could also say, that your vision of an autocracy has evolved into something that closely resembles a theofascist autocracy. More on that later.

Just think for a moment, if you can think, if you had lost the 2000 election, than neither you nor your religious and corporate sponsors (including the oil cabal) could go forward with your imperialistic agenda to set about, not only suppressing the civil liberties of the citizens, but also to create by “executive order” numerous other non-democratic, unconstitutional orders that have made America resemble a nation on steroids.

With five hard-right Supreme Court Judges, you were, because of the voting improprieties in Florida, selected president, by five judges who obviously were politically inclined to the extent that they, and not the American public, decided you deserved the office of president rather than the more qualified nominee Al Gore.

Believe me, when I say, that future historians will discuss, write, and decide (if not biased) whether or not you were legally elected to be president, or as many have observed, selected to be president.

Ditto for the election of 2004. Your most infatuated supporter in the state of Ohio, was Kenneth Blackwell, a notoriously hardcore religious fundamentalist, who was both honorary co-chair of the “Committee to re-elect you,” during the election of 2004, and Secretary of State. In this dual role, it is likely that Ken did everything possible to make sure your re-election was successful in this state. It’s also interesting to note that after the election, 16 lawsuits were filed against Blackwell for vote disenfranchisement etc. Did you really win Ohio’s electoral votes or was there a deliberate and obvious manipulation on Ken’s part to make sure you would succeed to win this state? I don’t expect either Dick, you, or Blackwell to honestly answer this question.

So, here we are in the last dismal months of your employment as “selected” president. I’d like to state, that I never—not even Dick Nixon—wished for a president to exit the White House, as I have you and Dick. You two guys, along with your hardcore religious, political advisers, have made such a mess of this country, that I sincerely believe millions of other citizens also, can barely wait for you to exit the White House, and have a new president who does not make policy that borders on the ludicrous and inhumane. The last few years, especially after taking this country to war based on deceptive intelligence is one of your worst, most inhumane acts.

Future historians will have no choice other than to view your two terms as president, as the worst  in American history. The blackest eye on your presidency, will be you and Dick’s devious attempts to mislead the American public and congressional representatives into thinking that the invasion of Iraq, was based on legitimate intelligence. As the years pass, more and more contrary evidence reveals that, indeed, the public was duped into wrongly believing  you possessed legitimate, not phony evidence of Iraq’s military possessing a huge stockpile of extremely dangerous weapons that could reach the shores of the USA.

As a majority of the public—with the exception of die hard conservatives who worship your majesty—and those insidious, delusional fundamentalist Christians who believe you are assisting them in bringing about “The End Times,” you have few supporters in the days left in your employment as (selected) president of this nation.

By the way, here’s something that’s bothered me, and that is your well-publicized  role as a born-again Christian. Didn’t anyone ever advise you that if you sincerely believe you’re “born-again,” that does not give you, in your employment as president, the right to do things that are unconstitutional? Those Christians who claim they are born-again, are a minority in this country, and many, unfortunately, are fanatic bible thumpers. Have you ever read the Constitution? You did not take an oath to defend your god, your bible, the Holy Ghost, and other related religious demagoguery associated with your born-again status. A president is a president of all the people regardless of their personal belief. You and Dick seem to have the weird notion that you need to convince the population that your god can, without the aid of congressional representatives, solve this nation’s problems with a simple or complex prayer to your invisible commander in the sky. Saying you were advised by your god to invade Iraq, makes unbelievers like me, wonder how you got this advice, when as yet there has never been any concrete evidence to prove your god is a scientific reality. If you still haven’t, maybe you’ll take some time and read the Constitution. It will inform you just what a president can and can’t do.

When New Orleans was flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, were you so convinced that prayer and the aid of your god would resolve all the tremendous problems that occurred as a result of this tragedy? Is that why you hesitated for some days before actually visiting the site of this tragedy? Or were you of the opinion that because other certified born-againers like the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, made outlandish claims about not only Hurricane Katrina, but also other god-inspired comments such as: Robertson addressing participants of the Orlando, Florida Gay Pride Festival, who said, “I would warn Orlando, that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you.” Does brother Robertson, like you, really believe that a supernatural being—your god—really seek revenge against people just because they are born with different physical characteristics than those of the heterosexual community, and deserve to die or be punished for acting in a way that is normal as far as they are concerned? Some born-againers really believe in every proclamation the god prognosticator Robertson, makes.

Then there is the truly befuddled, absurdly esoteric evangelistic “end times” preacher, John Hagee, who proclaimed that “Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans. New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to god,” he said. I don’t know about you, but these kind of loony remarks from men who are in the lucrative business of converting people and filling their heads with god nonsense, should have a physical and mental examination to see if they are not mentally dysfunctional. I don’t know whether you do or don’t take the remarks of these notoriously wealthy born-again preachers seriously. You don’t, do you?

These same members and many other right-wing clergy have, as you have had, the occasion—as  stated on numerous occasions—been able to converse or be advised by their god. They’ve even, from what I’ve read, advised you and Dick on domestic, foreign, and spiritual issues concerning your god’s future  plans for this planet. Evidently, some of their advice has obviously influenced your agenda, as indicated by some of the absurd, harmful policies you have instigated during your reign as imperial president of the USA.

The biggest blunder and tragedy of your reign was—as exposed in the media—your deliberate attempt to mislead the public into falsely thinking Iraq was a threat to this country, and our military had to be employed to stop this country from a future invasion of American. What hogwash! You apparently knew then as you know now, that there was no conceivable way Iraq had either the means nor the ability to wage war against the USA.

You, Dick, and your financial supporters, intended all along to invade Iraq, and concocted the intelligence to make it appear as though you had every right to invade Iraq. You even fooled a majority of the members of Congress into thinking your intelligence was legitimate. Even the dumbed-down media—currently controlled by those with a corporate, political agenda—acted as breathless cheer-leaders defending the propaganda that your administration fed to the press on a daily basis. There were exceptions, but those who saw through your scheme were so few, that their voices were drowned out by the overwhelming cackle of voices defending your deceptions.

Of course, it’s not written into the Constitution, that those seeking to become members of congress, have a functioning brain. Since the “Gingrich Revolution” which ushered in many of those who presently occupy that office, these members of congress have acted as men and women who have no capacity to either think or know the difference between right and wrong. Many of them, especially on the political right, are also, like you, born-again fundamentalists, whose agenda fits right in with your ultra-right ideology.

I’m not sure you would have invaded Iraq under false pretenses, if you had not been a born-again Christian. Why? Because you might have as Bruce Bartlett, former policy adviser to Ronald Reagan said: “I think a light has gone off for people who’ve spent time up close to Bush: that is this weird, messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.” Bartlett went on to say, “He truly believes he’s on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.” (The New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004. From the article, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, by Ron Suskind). http://www.nytimes.com

Ron Suskind also said in the same article: “The nation’s founders, smarting from the punitive pieties of Europe’s state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush—both captive and creator of he moment—has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.”

So, there you have it George. If not for your zealous, misconstrued belief in a non-existing god, you might possibly have listened to intelligent advice, instead of feigned advice to preemptively invade Iraq, and as a consequence, create an immense tragedy in both the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, and also the death of thousands innocently trapped in situations where they could not escape guns, bombs and missiles incapable of intelligently discerning who was and wasn’t the enemy. And worse of all, the over 4000 unnecessary deaths of enlisted military who died as a result of your and Dick’s attempts to seize a country that was incapable of starting a war with the USA. Have you nor Dick no shame, no remorse for starting a war that was absolutely unnecessary?

How can anyone who objectively views your presidency with its political, religious, ideological agenda, not arrive at the conclusion that many of the current problems facing this country, are the result of your overly enthusiastic, deluded inspirational belief in a form of Christian extremism that has acted as the primary motive for everything you’ve done since being selected president of this country?

Without your extreme, exaggerated belief in a supernatural bogeyman, the present might look entirely different from the reality that has evolved as a result of your and Dick’s myopic perspective of reality.

It’s my opinion that if you had not been Christianized and convinced into actually believing you were born-again, the history of the present reality would be entirely different than the one you and Dick set into motion with your devious imperialistic, political/religious agenda.

After you leave, if you leave at all, the presidency—some have entertained the almost improbable notion that you might issue another of those numerous executive orders and try to stick around for a few more years—that it will take a few more years, or many, for whomever is elected president, to mop up the horrible mess you have created during your position as selected president of this country. The false reality you created will have to be uncreated, and democracy returned to the government of this nation.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————————————–

Readers are welcome to send articles for posting on this site: contact me at lelandw@toast.net

———————————————————————————————-

Please visit this site for the following: www.blogtalkradio.com/THE AARFSHOW

Acharya S has her own radio program on this site. Over the next few weeks she will discuss: Is There a God? Is There an Afterlife? Where Do We Go When We Die? etc.

———————————————————————————————-

Read the rest of this entry »

Pastor Rick Warren and the Political Circus

Leland W. Ruble

Yesterday, 8/16/08, the presumed nominees for president of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain, were interrogated by Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.

For what absurd reason, would either candidate submit to being interrogated by a member of the clergy? Why, for that matter, would candidates not running for official office as employees of Pastor Rick Warren’s mega-church, consent to being questioned by a man whose primary mission, is as he has declared: “…focus on the biblical purposes of the church, such as worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism.”

There’s only one reasonable conclusion, and that is that both presumed nominees are hoping that this ludicrous event would further their attempts to win votes, by  convincing mainly religious voters, to view them as totally dedicated worshipers of the Christian god. Forget about all the other many diverse religious individuals in this country who are not of the Christian persuasion.

If not for the motivation to be elected president of the USA, both men might have, but did not, reconsider the invitation from Pastor Warren, and told him to, “Shove it, my beliefs and non-beliefs are private matters and none of your business. Let the American public decide which of us is qualified to be president.” However, both men bowing to the request of this man of the cloth, submitted themselves to being publicly interrogated by a minister who has attracted considerable notice from the media for his recent book, The Purpose Driven Life.

I haven’t, nor do I intend to read a book explaining Pastor Warren’s, holy prescription for curing most of this planet’s problems by introducing or indoctrinating his readers to his confirmed belief in a contrived god. It would be a total waste of time reading something that conflicts with my total disbelief in any notion of a supernatural bogeyman (god) with a trillion eyes observing each and every individual on this planet.

Pastor Warren, comes off as another of those super-duper god salesmen who promote the Christian faith for both economical and personal reasons. Lately, many of the most notorious evangelists have used their faith as a way to become immensely wealthy, while at the same time preaching the false belief that no matter how wretched their audience of coverts are in this life, the illusive afterlife will reward them with eternal bliss on a cloud of gold streets and eternal worship of their dictatorial god.

Warren is comparable to that “Old Time Religionist” Billy Graham, who as salesperson for his brand of religious demagoguery, influenced past presidents and currently the man who occupies the White House, George W. Bush.

Is it possible that Rick Warren covets the same position the now inactive Graham once possessed, as the most influential American member of the clergy? A position that gave Graham the ability to exercise undue authority over those elected as president?

Rick Warren is known to have a close relationship with another prominent member of the clergy, Robert Schuller. I’ve observed this man on TV, and was unable, after a few minutes of his overly religious rant, to continue listening to words such as: “God wants you to do this…God wants you to do that…and if you do this, God will reward you with eternal life in his glorious heavenly estate.” I could not, ever tolerate Schuller’s salesman-like approach to god belief, just as I am sure I could not tolerate Rick Warren’s Baptist oriented religious rants.

Warren is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, a huge religious organization known for explicitly supporting right-wing political candidates. It is for this reason and others, that I question Warren’s ability to objectively interrogate the more liberal candidate Barack Obama, whose political views are, for the most part, just the opposite of right-winger John McCain.

An August 16, 2008 article in the Atlantic Magazine, www.rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives2008 had this comment by Pastor Rick Warren: “I believe in the separation of church and state, but I do not believe in the separation of politics from religion. Faith is simply a worldview. A person who says he puts his faith on the shelf when he’s making decisions is either an idiot or a liar.” Wow! Is Warren suggesting that a president cannot make a decision on public policy without faith? Is a president an idiot if he discards his faith and makes a decision based on constitutional law rather than the absurd laws scattered throughout the biblical text? Is Warren also suggesting that politics must continue to be mingled with overtures toward religious absurdity, because to not do so, is stupid?

And this is the guy who, because of his widespread influence within the religious community, has the pompous, arrogant authority to question the presumed nominees for president, on what they might or might not do, as president? What makes this god-salesman think because he’s personally content with his deluded belief, that he has the authority to interrogate candidates, one of which will most likely be elected president?

This loony episode, among many others that have occurred during this silly electoral season, will further enhance the notoriety of Rick Warren as the rightful heir to succeed Billy Graham, while in the view of the non-religious community, his actions will be perceived as an obscene display of two candidates consenting to be interrogated by a member of the clergy intent on using his position to influence the outcome of the 2008 election.

Can you imagine, in this day and age, the current befuddled, dictatorial pope, requesting candidates seeking to become the Premier of Italy, to be questioned on their religious values, faith, and political views? The Italian media would be outraged. The public would be outraged. But in this nation, where the Christian establishment has undue influence over every aspect of life in this nation, where is the outrage? Why is a majority of the media reluctant to be critical of such an absurd display of candidates seeking the favor of a man who makes his living as a salesman selling the illusion of a supernatural bogeyman in the sky?

———————————————————————————————

Magic, Meat, and Milk

A. J. Mattill, Jr.

According to Exodus 23: 19, 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21, the Lord spoke these words to the people of Israel, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk” (King James Version); “Do not cook a young sheep or goat in its mother’s milk” (Today’s English Version); “Don’t boil a young goat in its milk” (Contemporary English Version). Let’s try to reconstruct the history of this commandment.

First of all, we my suppose that once upon a time the Israelites did boil young goats in the milk of their mothers and then ate the young goats. In time the people came to believe that this practice had been ordered by the Lord himself, saying, “Thus says the Lord, You shall boil a young goat in its mother’s milk and then you may eat the young goat’s meat.”

Later on, the Israelites began to reflect on the fact that their pagan neighbors were also boiling young goats in their mothers’ milk and then eating the meat of the boiled young goats. Then the idea hit the Isralelites with all the force of a revelation from God Almighty himself, namely, that the Lord God of Israel would not want them to imitate pagan ceremonies. Hence the Israelites came to believe that God had commanded them to abhor such foolish customs: “Thus says the Lord, Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk and then eat it. That’s pagan nonsense.

As the years passed by, some of the more sophisticated Hebrews learned of “sympathetic magic,” the belief that boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk would cause the mother’s udder to dry up and develop a disease which would destroy her usefulness and value. “Here,” said these Hebrews, “we have the real reason for not boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk. It’s not because the Lord doesn’t want us to imitate pagan nonsense. On the contrary, it’s because the Lord wants to prevent harm to the dam (mother).” Accordingly, the Lord issued a command based upon the Lord’s desire to prevent dams from suffering needlessly, “Thus says the Lord, Thou shalt not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk, for that will make the mother suffer needlessly as her udder dries up and she develops a destructive disease.” For more on sympathetic magic see Joseph Lewis, The Ten Commandments (NY, NY: Freethought Association, 1946) pp. 458-459 etc.

Although informed people today will reject sympathetic magic as a primitive superstition, they will see some truth in the position just described, namely, it is a sound ethical principle to do all we can to prevent needless suffering. Carried to its logical conclusion, this humane principle would require us to adopt a strict vegetarian (vegan) diet of fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and sprouts. A truly human God would have said, “Thus says the Lord, Forget all about seething kids in their mother’s milk and enjoy a healthful vegan diet of fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and sprouts. In other words, no meat, no animal products, not even milk, except baby animals and baby humans should drink the milk of their mothers. In that way you will be helping to establish a healthier and a more humane society in which all that have life are more and more delivered from suffering.“

———————————————————————————————————-

Multiplying Murder

A. J. Mattill, Jr.

According to Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man” (New American Standard Bible). This is the first instruction in the Bible about capitol punishment. In other words, “God created man in God’s image. Therefore whoever sheds a man’s blood (that is, deliberately murders a human being) will himself be killed by his fellowman (that is, the fellowman will shed the murderer’s blood).” In short, since God created persons to be like himself (that is, in his own image), anyone who deliberately kills another person must be put to death.

Thus Genesis 9:6 provides us with the chief argument for capital punishment. The person who intentionally takes the life of another person made in God’s image has in fact attacked not only his human victim but also has done violence to God himself. Human life is sacred because man was made in God’s image. Therefore the murderer deserves the death penalty.

It goes without saying that such an argument makes no sense to atheists who don’t believe in any God. Nor is this argument useful to agnostics who are not sure whether or not there is a God. On a matter so important as capital punishment, one’s arguments should have a rock-solid, unshakable foundation of certainty.

But even to theists the image-of-God argument is more confusing than helpful, for no one knows for sure what the Bible means by “the image of God.” Is the divine image physical or spiritual? If the image is physical, then God is “the Big Man Upstairs.”We should be able to take pictures of this physical God who would look like a big, strong man. But according to Jesus (John 4:24), “God is a Spirit” (a spiritual Being). If, then, the divine image is spiritual, the image does not refer to any physical likeness between God and man. Rather, the image consists of conscience, creativity, personality, reason, and self-determination. The image of God is man’s ability to relate to, and partake in, the life of God. Thus the image includes the divine attributes justice, love, power, and wisdom. Obviously we could not photograph such a God.

To make matters even more complicated, some theologians hold that the image of God was lost in Adam’s Fall. Thus a murderer does not attack God but only a human being. Therefore the murderer does not deserve the death penalty, for neither the murderer nor his victim is in the image of God.

Finally, as my wife, Mary Elizabeth, has observed, if we execute a murderer because he/she attacked God, then  we should execute the executioners of the murderer because they attacked God when they killed a murderer who was made in the image of God. And so the executions continue, murder multiplied ad infinitum.!

Is the “image-of-God argument”  a valid argument for capital punishment? Atheists, agnostics, and theists should unhesitatingly answer, “No! No Way!”

———————————————————————————————————–

Unfortunate Uzzah

A. J. Mattill

Once upon a time King David (1000-962 BC/BCE) and Israel’s best soldiers went to Kiriath-Jearim in Judah to get the Ark of God, also called the Sacred Chest and the Covenant Box. The Ark was about four feet long, two feet deep, and two feet wide. It was the most sacred object in Jewish history. The two tablets of the Ten Commandments were inside the Ark/Box/Chest. Two golden statues of winged creatures (cherubim) were on top of the Ark, symbolizing the Lord’s throne on earth (see Exodus 25:18).

David and his men, including one named Uzzah, put the Sacred Chest on a new ox cart and began moving it to Jerusalem. Uzzah helped to guide the cart. David and all of the Israelites were dancing and singing with all their might to honor the Lord. They enthusiastically played cymbals, drums, lyres, and rattles. Unfortunately, when they came to a certain threshing floor, the oxen stumbled. Immediately Uzzah reached out and took hold of the Sacred Chest to stop it from falling off the cart. At once the Lord God became fighting mad at Uzzah for doing this, so angry that the Lord killed Uzzah right there beside the Chest. Uzzah died instantly, as if he had touched a live wire.

To David’s credit, he also was outraged, not at Uzzah, but at God himself for pitching a fit and executing Uzzah in anger. Even though David was furious, he could not, of course, have killed God Almighty. The best David could do was to name that place, “Perez-Uzzah,” “Bursting Out Against Uzzah” or “Attack on Uzzah.” And that’s what it’s still called. My rendition of 2 Samuel 6: 1-8, based largely on Contemporary English Version and Today’s English Version.

Reaction. I don’t know about you, but in this instance I, like David, am outraged at the Lord God’s loss of his temper and senseless slaying of Uzzah. If ever there was a man who sincerely tried to do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, it was Uzzah, who did his level best to protect the Sacred Chest and keep it from falling off the cart and being damaged. Yet the Lord slew Uzzah to teach the Israelites to respect his infinite holiness, for he had warned that anyone who touches the sacred objects will die (Numbers 4:15). In my humble opinion, here is a pitiless punishment all out of proportion to a small offense, if it was an offense at all.

Moreover, it was mighty King David, not lowly citizen Uzzah, who was responsible for transporting the Ark improperly. Recall the Lord’s instructions to Moses about the Sacred Chest: “Make four gold rings and fasten one of them to each of the four legs of the Chest. Make two poles of acacia wood. Cover them with gold and put them through the rings, so the Chest can be carried by the poles. Don’t even remove the poles from the rings” (Exodus 25:12-15, Contemporary English Version). If David had followed the Lord’s instructions and had the Levites carried the Chest with the poles on their shoulders, then there would have been no oxen pulling the Chest on the ox cart, the oxen would not have slipped, and Uzzah would not have taken hold of the Chest to prevent it from falling, and God would not have lost his cool and zapped Uzzah. Instead, the biblical God would have slain David who made the mistake of transporting the Chest on an ox cart instead of having it carried by Levites.

Note that we said “the biblical God” would have slain David instead of Uzzah. But surely a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent could have taught his people to respect his infinite holiness without murdering sincere, well meaning human beings. A God who practices reverence for life would place more value on living creatures than he would on sacred boxes or other holy objects.

Questions. How can  anyone adore, love, serve, and worship the God who slew Uzzah? If you’re still unmoved, just recall that two of Aaron’s sons burned incense to the Lord on a fire pan, when they were not supposed to. Suddenly the Lord sent fiery flames and burned them to death, incinerated them alive (Leviticus 10:1-2). Or how about this one? The Lord slew 50,070 men who looked into the Ark (1 Samuel 6:19). Such a God is senselessly cruel and mean. Is that your kind of God? I hope not, but it is the biblical kind of God, the kind of God believers want “to bless America.”

————————————————————————————————————

Check out this site for recent information on the political and religious right: www.publiceye.org

Read the rest of this entry »

The Mark and Definition of a Tribal God

William F. Henness

The ancient Israelites invaded Canaan and sought to establish themselves in the midst of tribal groupings of peoples devoted each to the god of the tribe. They therefore characterized their struggle as a struggle between the God of Israel and the tribal deities of their neighbors. This characterization is strongly evident during the latter days of the judges when, in the days of Samuel, they entered into conflict with the cities of the Philistines. They were themselves heavily influenced by these tribal deities and this caused them, in their devotion to the one and only universal God of Abraham, to loose sight of Him and to see, instead, the vision of a tribal deity unique to them—that is, their own tribal god.

They were losing the struggle with the Philistines and even lost possession of their precious “ark of God,” which was a sort of idol of their own, an object of veneration wherein dwelt the spirit of their God. The book of  1 Samuel tells the fascinating story of how the Philistines brought the captured ark home to their city, Ashdod, and placed it in the house of Dagon, their tribal deity. Behold, the next day they arose to discover that Dagon (the idol) had fallen face down on the ground before the ark of God. Undeterred, they set him back up, but behold, the next morning they found that Dagon had again fallen face down to the ground. Furthermore, the head of Dagon and both his hands were lying cut off upon the threshold! (1 Samuel 5)

The God of Israel had dismembered the god of the Philistines! This is a chief characteristic of tribal gods. Whenever a foreign tribe attacks, it is understood to be ultimately a contest between the gods of the respective tribes. The tribe that wins does, because it has the strongest god. The scriptures therefore described this in such a way as to encourage Israel by demonstrating that their god was stronger than Dagon, the god of the Philistines. Men almost everywhere and at all times, both primitive and modern, exhibit this same archetypical mind. Whenever they go to battle, they carry with them the belief, often unspoken and only subconscious, that their god is the most powerful and will give them the victory if they manifest great devotion to him.

Human beings come by this naturally. We see it manifest in very young children who have not yet conceived the idea of the divine, yet who nevertheless have a deep need to call upon one stronger than they. So one child, confronted by a second hostile child who seems to be too strong to attack directly, will instead invoke a higher power:

My Daddy can whip your Daddy!

This state of mind is the mark that signals devotion to a tribal god.

We can now define the concept, tribal god. A tribal god is an imaginary deity that a tribe or nation invokes to both bless them and grant victory over the enemy and the god of the enemy when it enters into war. The tribal god is therefore a god of war, and it is only in a time of inter-tribal conflict that the tribal nature of a god becomes clear.

In the modern world as in the ancient one, each of the contenders, if basically monotheistic, will overlay their belief in the one God with the characteristics of a tribal god, a deity that contends for and blesses their specific tribe or nation as it gos to war. The consequence, in the minds of the contenders, is that there are two gods contending against each other, just as there are two contending tribes or nations.

After the battle is over, the victorious party will thank its god for the victory, whereas the defeated party will ask why their god forsook them. Their usual conclusion is that their god did not fight for them because they were not sufficiently faithful to him. both parties have lapsed into a polytheistic faith according to which the gods of the parties are different deities.

It is thus that America has turned to its tribal god.

—————————————————————–

If you have an article you would like posted on this site, send an email to: lelandw@toast.net

——————————————————————

Check out the latest update on the activities of the Christian Right at: www.publiceye.org

From Bob Fincher

The following is from a Grandma eighty-eight years old who still drives her own car.

She writes:

Dear Granddaughter,

The other day I went up to our local Christian book-store, and saw a “Honk if you love Jesus,” bumper sticker.

I was was feeling particularly sassy that day because I had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting.

So, I bought the sticker and put it on my bumper. Boy, am I glad what I did. What an uplifting experience that followed.

I was stopped at a red light at a very busy intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord and how good he is, and didn’t notice that the light had changed.  Anyhow, it’s a good thing someone else loves Jesus too. Because if he hadn’t honked, I’d never have noticed. I found that lots of people also love Jesus!

While I was siting there, the guy behind me started honking like crazy, he even leaned out of his window and screamed, “For the love of God!”

What an exuberant cheerleader he was for Jesus! Then everyone started honking! I just leaned out my window and started waving and smiling at all those loving people. I even honked my horn a few times to share the love! There must have been a man from Florida back there because I heard him yelling something about a sunny beach. He said that several times, real loud.

I even saw another guy waving in a funny way, with only his middle finger stuck up in the air. I asked your young teenage brother in the backseat, what that meant. He said it was probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something like that. So I leaned out the window and gave him the good luck sign right back. Your young brother burst out laughing. Why even  he was enjoying this wonderful religious experience!

A couple of drivers were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking toward me. I’ll bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended. But this is when I noticed the light had changed. So I waved at all my brothers and sisters grinning, and drove on through the intersection.

I noticed that I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again. I felt kind of sad that I had to leave all the other drivers after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car downed, leaned out the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away.

Praise the Lord for such wonderful folks!!!

Will write again soon,

Love, Grandma

Ten Amendments to the Ten Commandments

Neal Wilgus

Originally published in the July/August 2002 issue of The Thought).

Occasionally, just for laughs, I tune into some of the religious programs on TV for a few minutes and I’m almost guaranteed to hear a couple of ridiculous things before the prayers and pitches begin. Recently it was Pat Robertson saying repeatedly that the Ten Commandments are the basis for America’s legal system—and oh, by the way, send in your money. I sent no money, of course, but I did decide to see just how fundamental the commandments are to our legal system.

The answer is: not at all. Only three of the commandments are incorporated into our system—”Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” these are almost universally acknowledged by all religions, civilizations and nation-states. Only pirates, terrorists, the mob, gangs and agencies like the cops and the CIA don’t recognize them.

But wait—you can kill in self-defense, and of course the (constitutional) state can kill whenever it wants in war or capital punishment. Stealing is reprehensible, but corporate giants and the government rip us off all the time (taxation is theft, after all). As for false witness—that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. I am not a crook!

I’m no worshiper of the US Constitution, but it is the theoretical basis of our legal system, so lets make a quick run through the rest of the commandments to see what basis Robertson was talking about. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (he’s so negative)—but we have the separation of church and state and the generally recognized principle that you can have any god you want or no god at all. Imagine—this is not a Christian nation, regardless of what the Robertsonians say.

“Thou shalt not make…any graven image…” Wait a minute. The first amendment not only separates church and state, it establishes freedom of speech and the press, so we can make any damn graven image we want and the hell with the commandments. “Thou shalt not take the name…in vain”—ditto. Free speech.

“Remember the sabbath…keep it holy.” Not constitutional. “Honor thy father and mother…” Noble sentiment but not part of our constitution—and what about parents who abuse children? “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Give me a break!

Finally: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s stuff.” Not only is this not in the Constitution or part of our legal system, it is, alas, a basic part of human nature and it’ll take one hell of a genetic manipulation to expunge it. I’ll pass on my neighbor’s house, his ox or his ass, but Robertson and his spiritual thugs can’t keep me from coveting a wife/maidservant or two along the way. Chief Justice Heffner has seen to that.

But wait a  minute—there’s a bunch of other stuff in the Constitution that isn’t even approached in the commandments. For instance: legislative powers, the house of Representatives, the Senate, elections, migration, habeas corpus, taxes, money, states rights, the president, judicial powers, admission of new states, constitutional amendments, and ratification of the constitution—just to pick and choose from the Constitution itself. There are also the ten amendments: the right to assemble and petition, bear arms, plus—search and seizure, double jeopardy, private property, speedy trial (yeah, right), jury trial, cruel punishment, more states rights.

And then there are the subsequent amendments: slavery abolished, citizenship not to be abridged, voting rights, income tax, senators elected, prohibition, women’s suffrage, repeal of prohibition, presidential limits, voting in the District of Columbia, poll tax, presidential disability, voting age and Congressional pay. Not to mention controversial supreme court decisions on education, abortion, privacy, affirmative action, sodomy, Florida chads and many other issues.

Where are these and other constitutional issues addressed in the commandments, Mr.Robertson? Obviously, they’re not, but have evolved, hit and miss, in a social/political/economic context that has no roots in the commandments whatsoever. The commandments, in fact were primitive tribal rules that evolved in ancient times to, in part, establish an authoritarian hierarchy which maintained order while a the same time ruthlessly exploiting the masses.

The battle continues over posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses and schools around the nation, and unfortunately, the fight has narrowed down to the issue of church and state, but even a superficial examination of the commandments and the Constitution, demonstrates that it’s not a religious issue at all, but one of trying to break from the old ways of thinking, the chain of religious and governmental authority, while seeking real freedom on a rational basis. The commandments are hopeless for this—the Constitution isn’t much better, but at the very least let’s recognize that Robertson is dead wrong and the two are totally disconnected.

——————————————————————————————

NO JOKE

Neal Wilgus

A priest, a rabbi

and a suicide bomber

walked into a crowded bar

at about the same time—

not together,

they didn’t even know each other.

The priest knocked back

his Irish whiskey

and wondered if

he’d ever become Pope.

The rabbi sipped

his red wine

and figured the odds

that he was the Messiah.

But the suicide bomber

vanished their dreams

when he

blew them all away.

—————————————————————————————-

For information on the ambitions, tactics, and politics of the religious and political right visit this site:

www.publiceye.org

Subject: Funny Anecdote

Frank Ray Davis

A priest entered his donkey in a race and won. He was so pleased with the donkey that he entered it in a race and again won. The local newspaper picked up on his prowess and ran a headline PRIEST’S ASS OUT IN FRONT.

The Bishop was so upset with this kind of publicity that he ordered the priest not to enter his donkey in a race again. The next day the local paper’s headline blared BISHOP SCRATCHES PRIEST’S ASS.

This was too much for the Bishop, so he ordered the priest to get rid of the offending beast. The priest gave it to a nun in a nearby convent. The paper, hearing the news, posted this headline the next day NUN SELLS ASS FOR $10.

The Bishop fainted dead away. He ordered the nun to get rid of the donkey, so he sold it to a farmer for $10. The next day the headline read, NUN SELLS ASS FOR $10.

This was too much for the Bishop. He told her to buy back the donkey and take it to the grassy plains where it could run wild. The next day the headline read NUN DECLARES HER ASS IS WILD AND FREE.

All this was just too much for the Bishop’s weak heart, and he passed to his blessed reward. The newspaper chronicled ASS’S TALE TAILS BISHOP TO HIS END.

——————————————————————————————–