An article by Mark Penn for Time (reprinted below and available here) makes the case that the decade since 9/11 has seen the US fall into a tailspin of pessimism and shaken confidence. He based his assessment on the results of a poll which show the majority of Americans having very negative views on the present and future of the country. Many believe another terrorist attack on our soil is likely. Still other see economic worries threatening our future.
In all, Mark seems to be wanting the comparison to Carter's "malaise" speech (despite the fact that Carter never used the word "malaise") in order to create the assumption that we have a vacuum of leadership in the country. In fact, I think the primary issue here is much simpler and direct. We have had terrorist attacks before, we have had economic woes, and we have had uncertainty about the future. During all those times, however, we also had Presidents and a Congress who stood up and reassured the American people that we would get through it. We were tough and could take the heat. President Obama pretty much ran his campaign on such Roosevelt-type of reassurances and to this day ends his speeches on a similar high note.
Contrast that to the 8 years of the Bush administration. This is the administration that declared war on "terror", thereby solidifying "terror" into an entity for us. He never said "don't be afraid, we got this". He said continually "be afraid because they are coming to attack us and these Democrats hate our troops" (paraphrased). He handed us a color coded chart which never, ever went below yellow in terms of caution. He resurrected Cold War era fears of impending massive attacks using "suitcase nukes" or bio weapons or chemical agents. People were actually buying hermitic bomb shelters again.
This shows the simple, singular difference between our previous national crises and that created by 9/11: the willing and rather open exploitation of fear for political advantage.
Read Mark's article:
The Pessimism Index
By Mark J. Penn
Just 10 years into a new century, more than two-thirds of the country sees the past decade as a period of decline for the U.S., according to a new TIME/Aspen Ideas Festival poll that probed Americans on the decade since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda seriously weakened, but the impact of the 9/11 attacks and the decisions that followed have, in the view of most Americans, put the U.S. in a tailspin that the country has been unable to shake during two administrations and almost 10 years of trying.
The poll confirms that the country is going through one of its longest sustained periods of unhappiness and pessimism ever. Today's teenagers hardly remember a time before 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and constant economic upheaval. Baby boomers, the generation known for continuous reinvention, are filled with worry and doubt about their future and the future of their children. (See TIME's cover story: "The Optimism Bias.")
It is hard to overstate what a fundamental change this represents. A country long celebrated for its optimism amid adversity is having trouble finding the pluck and the spirit that have seen it through everything from world wars to nuclear threats to space races. The U.S. usually bounces back after a few years of difficulty, such as the Vietnam War, Watergate or recessions. After two or three years of anxiety and worry, the electorate normally returns to its innate optimism. Yet the forces now aligned against the American people seem much more formidable to those we surveyed; the poll uncovered the kinds of attitudes we saw among Europeans during the decade after World War II.
According to the poll, only 6% of more than 2,000 Americans believe the country has completely recovered from the events of 9/11. Some of this pessimism can be tied to fears of more terrorist attacks. Despite the death of bin Laden, most Americans think another terrorist attack in the U.S. is likely. Americans generally supported the post-9/11 measures to secure the homeland, like those in the Patriot Act, and have confidence in the military to deal with terrorists — and yet they see an attack coming anyway. America's feelings of invincibility have been replaced by a new sense of inevitable vulnerability. Nearly 8 in 10 believe there will be a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next decade. When asked which major city would most likely be the target of such an attack, 30% selected Washington and 27% chose New York City.
A startling 71%, including a majority of every major demographic group other than African Americans, see the U.S. as worse off now than it was a decade ago. Americans blame their leaders and politicians for the decade of decline. The Bush Administration takes the most heat — 23% named it as the cause — followed closely by the Obama Administration (20%) and the U.S. Congress (16%). In contrast, only 6% blame Wall Street. (See the case for optimism in TIME's special report: "10 Ideas That Will Change the World.")
If there is widespread agreement that the U.S. is in bad shape, there is also a perception that not everyone has experienced the difficult decade in exactly the same way. Those surveyed say middle- and working-class Americans, followed by seniors and younger people, have borne the brunt of the decline — an ominous sign for any incumbent, regardless of political party. Yet those surveyed said some demographic groups were better off than they were a decade ago; they say the quality of life has improved most for gays and lesbians, the affluent, Hispanics and immigrants. And while overall the U.S. is seen as becoming more socially and politically tolerant in the past decade, the majority agreed that 9/11 set off a wave of suspicion against Muslim Americans.
Post-9/11 America is also a more isolationist country. Americans recognize that the election of President Obama brought with it a renewed sense of respect for the U.S. around the world. However, the effect of those improved relationships is overshadowed by the finding that most respondents have no desire to be more involved in global affairs. Almost two-thirds (62%) believe the U.S. today is too involved overseas. Americans are particularly impatient with U.S. policy toward Pakistan. With 69% believing that Pakistani officials knowingly harbored bin Laden, it is not surprising that 3 in 4 Americans — older Americans and Republicans especially — want the U.S. to cut back its military and nonmilitary aid to that country.
But whatever the U.S.'s worries about external forces, the biggest threats today are widely regarded as self-made. It's the enemy within that Americans register the most concern about: runaway deficits, political gridlock, skyrocketing health care costs and other structural problems. A full two-thirds of Americans see the greatest long-term threats to national stability as coming from within the U.S. This too is an enormous change from the days and months after September 2001. (See the U.S. optimism deficit.)
President Jimmy Carter — at the urging of his pollster — rather famously gave a speech in mid-1979 suggesting that a crisis of confidence had befallen America. It took several years and a new President to return the country to its optimistic ways. President Bill Clinton faced a similar moment in 1995 and turned the mood of the country around a year later. This poll suggests we are at another malaise moment, one even longer and deeper than the mid-1970s', presenting even greater challenges — and opportunities — for leadership.
Penn is CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the strategic-research firm that conducted the TIME/Aspen poll. He was a pollster for six years under President Clinton.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
7/03/2011
5/24/2011
Yeah, HE is the loony, right?
[caption id="attachment_1204" align="aligncenter" width="588" caption="Talk to your invisible 8 foot tall rabbit friend, you have a mental illness. Talk to a god, you are simply devout and holy."]
5/22/2011
The Christians are Still Here
*sigh*
Best post-rapture video yet:
Best post-rapture video yet:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KlMWzKj4s
5/18/2011
To Rev. Camping and Congregation
Dear Sir and Congregation,
I write to you after having received your package in the mail today. In it were the items I requested from your website this past weekend: books, pamphlets, and information about your ministry. I must confess I did not expect to receive these materials so soon, if ever. I imagined you being inundated with requests for the same materials by many people the world over given the considerable media attention your group and its claims have received. The speed with which you responded, seemingly to get the materials to me before the May 21, 2011 deadline your reverend predicts, convinces me of the depth of your belief and the sincerity with which it is held.
That said, I must also confess to the ulterior motives I had when making the request from your site. I am an atheist and someone who disbelieves not only your specific claims about the coming weekend, but also the belief system within which you make such predictions. I was brought up a Christian, devout in my fundamental evangelical beliefs until my late teens. At that time, questions in my life were not being answered as I thought they would, given the promises of my Bible and the sermons of my pastors.
I found myself alone and questioning, traversing a park green in the middle of many nights, crying and wailing for a god who was not there and, as I came to discover, had never been there. I was alone in the universe, as were my fellow humans on this planet we call home. I could no longer abdicate my personal responsibility for my actions to the influences of whims of invisible beings. I could no longer hope for a reward or fear a punishment and adjust my behavior accordingly. I could only stand alone with what I had and what I could gain in terms of knowledge and wisdom, to carve out a good life for myself and to help others as I could. It is a process I continue to this day.
It was not a process without a price. I paid a heavy toll in the loss of my prior innocence and in gaining a gritty, albeit realistic view of the world around me. I stared into the abyss and the abyss did nothing at all, because there was never anything there to stare back. The acknowledgment of oblivion, of endless nothingness awaiting me after death was as profound a shock and englightenment as any spiritual experience I had ever encountered. I no longer feared death and, indeed, saw my life as being something worth living for the now of it, rather than what it might gain me after it was over.
The process hurt. I had been a man with profound strength of intellect and will, blinded and hobbled by religion, but lead to the temple to stand between its pillars one last time. In the agony I experienced in Sherlock Park, Cookeville Tennesse that fateful night, I shoved the pillars with a strength of questioning and curiosity I had forgotten I possessed. The temple crashed around me and a part of me truly died. I felt the death of it acutely, as if something was carved directly from my muscles and bones. When I emerged from the rubble of my religious tabernacle, I found myself in the world anew. No longer were questions forbidden or doubts frowned upon. No longer did I fear some invisible being over my shoulder, pushing and pulling through me in some kind of cosmic wrestling match with some other being. I was free.
I write to you now in the hopes some of these words are with you during the wee hours of Saturday night and into Sunday morning. You are going to find yourself there and none of the things predicted having come to pass. You will be where I was one star filled summer night, in a sleepy little town in the south, and you will find the tears flowing unbidden. You will have two options: embrace or anesthetize. Some of you will indeed embrace a new beginning, free of the shackles which chained you to this day for so long. Others will seek a way of re-establishing your belief, made all the harder by the stubbornness with which your pastor has refused to give an "out" for his coming second failure of prediction. It is my sincerest hope that you choose the former over the latter and, in doing so, surround youself with outside friends and loved ones, even those who do not believe as you do. Be open to their counsel and support. Most of all, be honest and open about any feelings you might have which lend themselves to thoughts of harming yourself others.
With the same passion and sincerity in which you carefully mailed me the materials I selected, I implore and hope you find a brighter path on the glorious dawn of May 22, 2011. It's a Sunday which might decide the course of the remainder of your life and I wish you well in a new world of light and freedom from dogma. We have a lot of work to do, as a species, and though you are few in number compared to the rest, we need all the help we can get. I bid you welcome. The new heaven and new earth are right here, waiting for us to make them.
I write to you after having received your package in the mail today. In it were the items I requested from your website this past weekend: books, pamphlets, and information about your ministry. I must confess I did not expect to receive these materials so soon, if ever. I imagined you being inundated with requests for the same materials by many people the world over given the considerable media attention your group and its claims have received. The speed with which you responded, seemingly to get the materials to me before the May 21, 2011 deadline your reverend predicts, convinces me of the depth of your belief and the sincerity with which it is held.
That said, I must also confess to the ulterior motives I had when making the request from your site. I am an atheist and someone who disbelieves not only your specific claims about the coming weekend, but also the belief system within which you make such predictions. I was brought up a Christian, devout in my fundamental evangelical beliefs until my late teens. At that time, questions in my life were not being answered as I thought they would, given the promises of my Bible and the sermons of my pastors.
I found myself alone and questioning, traversing a park green in the middle of many nights, crying and wailing for a god who was not there and, as I came to discover, had never been there. I was alone in the universe, as were my fellow humans on this planet we call home. I could no longer abdicate my personal responsibility for my actions to the influences of whims of invisible beings. I could no longer hope for a reward or fear a punishment and adjust my behavior accordingly. I could only stand alone with what I had and what I could gain in terms of knowledge and wisdom, to carve out a good life for myself and to help others as I could. It is a process I continue to this day.
It was not a process without a price. I paid a heavy toll in the loss of my prior innocence and in gaining a gritty, albeit realistic view of the world around me. I stared into the abyss and the abyss did nothing at all, because there was never anything there to stare back. The acknowledgment of oblivion, of endless nothingness awaiting me after death was as profound a shock and englightenment as any spiritual experience I had ever encountered. I no longer feared death and, indeed, saw my life as being something worth living for the now of it, rather than what it might gain me after it was over.
The process hurt. I had been a man with profound strength of intellect and will, blinded and hobbled by religion, but lead to the temple to stand between its pillars one last time. In the agony I experienced in Sherlock Park, Cookeville Tennesse that fateful night, I shoved the pillars with a strength of questioning and curiosity I had forgotten I possessed. The temple crashed around me and a part of me truly died. I felt the death of it acutely, as if something was carved directly from my muscles and bones. When I emerged from the rubble of my religious tabernacle, I found myself in the world anew. No longer were questions forbidden or doubts frowned upon. No longer did I fear some invisible being over my shoulder, pushing and pulling through me in some kind of cosmic wrestling match with some other being. I was free.
I write to you now in the hopes some of these words are with you during the wee hours of Saturday night and into Sunday morning. You are going to find yourself there and none of the things predicted having come to pass. You will be where I was one star filled summer night, in a sleepy little town in the south, and you will find the tears flowing unbidden. You will have two options: embrace or anesthetize. Some of you will indeed embrace a new beginning, free of the shackles which chained you to this day for so long. Others will seek a way of re-establishing your belief, made all the harder by the stubbornness with which your pastor has refused to give an "out" for his coming second failure of prediction. It is my sincerest hope that you choose the former over the latter and, in doing so, surround youself with outside friends and loved ones, even those who do not believe as you do. Be open to their counsel and support. Most of all, be honest and open about any feelings you might have which lend themselves to thoughts of harming yourself others.
With the same passion and sincerity in which you carefully mailed me the materials I selected, I implore and hope you find a brighter path on the glorious dawn of May 22, 2011. It's a Sunday which might decide the course of the remainder of your life and I wish you well in a new world of light and freedom from dogma. We have a lot of work to do, as a species, and though you are few in number compared to the rest, we need all the help we can get. I bid you welcome. The new heaven and new earth are right here, waiting for us to make them.
Sincerely,
Brian McKinley Ragle
Washington DC
May 18, 2011
[caption id="attachment_1182" align="aligncenter" width="645" caption="Great Disappointment II, collectibles"]
P.S.
As I feel bad that you went to the trouble and expense of sending me your materials, particularly so quickly, I will be sending you $20 to defray the costs I estimate you incurred. Please accept it as a compensation of your time and effort and not as a demonstration of faith in your belief.
4/28/2011
FactCheck.org Worth Revisiting Regarding Birthers
The birthers are recycling some of the same arguments they used when Obama released his birth certificate back in 2007. Specifically, they are honing in on his father's race, listed as "African". Trouble is, like the requirement for a "long form birth certificate", they are making up a standard which doesn't apply. The parents' racial identity isn't identified for them. It's not like some nurse is looking at the parents and deciding what their race is going to be listed as. That's the language of racial separatists and another clue as to what Something Else might be motivating the birthers apart from sincere disbelief.
When my daughter was born, I was asked what ethnicity I am. I am descended from German, Swiss, Irish, and Native American gene lines, but have an olive skin tone. I listed my race as "white". Obama's listed his as "African", which makes perfect sense in the burgeoning civil rights movement, in an ethnically diverse place like Hawaii, and the African identity notion sweeping through at that time.
Don't believe me? Well, once again, the state of Hawaii had to correct everyone on its own procedures once again:
Via FactCheck.org:
When my daughter was born, I was asked what ethnicity I am. I am descended from German, Swiss, Irish, and Native American gene lines, but have an olive skin tone. I listed my race as "white". Obama's listed his as "African", which makes perfect sense in the burgeoning civil rights movement, in an ethnically diverse place like Hawaii, and the African identity notion sweeping through at that time.
Don't believe me? Well, once again, the state of Hawaii had to correct everyone on its own procedures once again:
Via FactCheck.org:
Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be."
Birthers Behaving Badly
Via Buzzfeed, we get the following reactions from the birthers/teabaggers to yesterday's release of Obama's "long form" birth certificate. As predicted, giving them precisely what they want doesn't satisfy them. Suffice it to say, the real crazy is yet to be seen.
Click on a thumbnail to see the whole image. Keep in mind, these are real responses from real people. Laugh or cry, these folks are out there and they are allowed to vote and own guns and drive cars on the roads.
[gallery]
Click on a thumbnail to see the whole image. Keep in mind, these are real responses from real people. Laugh or cry, these folks are out there and they are allowed to vote and own guns and drive cars on the roads.
[gallery]
[caption id="attachment_1144" align="aligncenter" width="708" caption="Seriously, Fox isn't even trying any longer to hide their schilling for the GOP."]
And for a humorous look at how birthers probably view the newly released document, here is something which might be considered real, given the above examples, if I didn't specifically state that it's a joke:
[caption id="attachment_1145" align="aligncenter" width="630" caption="Looks fake to me!"]
4/24/2011
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 8
Whew, another night! That makes 2 nights and 1 day. Only 1 more night and 2 more days to go.......
....wait, what? It's only Sunday morning! He's not been dead 3 days and 3 nights yet. Did someone enter a cheat code?
No, the short answer here is that the Bible is simply not some infallible historical record. It's a book of myth, lore, and tradition, with some historical elements mixed in. For example, there was really a Jerusalem at that time and the Romans really did occupy it. There was even a Pontius Pilate. There very likely was a Jesus, as it was a common name, and there might have even been one who was something of a rabbi or local cult leader, such as John the Baptist was.
The myths and legends about the man, however, are simply those created by his believers to make him into something he claimed for himself. It's a bit like how Mormons venerate Joseph Smith and leave out the bits about his penchant for young girls or that he was lynched in jail by an angry mob. Or how Scientologists leave out the parts where L. Ron Hubbard was a sci-fi writer looking to cash in on the notion of a religion. Instead, he's portrayed as a wise and noble man, fully in touch with whatever secrets he claimed to be sharing.
Those are modern examples of how any venerated leader is from history. Muhammed, Jesus, the Buddha....all have these epic stories attached to them which are more like Hollywood movie scripts than reality. In the end, this small example of an error of the Bible is just another bit of evidence that the book itself is simply like all other ancient books: penned by fallible humans who wrote or edited in their own agendas and biases or even made stuff up entirely.
Interesting sidenote, on the above account from Matthew. Nothing further is mentioned about the soldiers. Nothing. Neither does Mark, who also changes when the stone was rolled away. In Mark, Luke, and John, it's already opened by the time the women get there. Matthew punched his version up by including an earthquake and dramatic entrance by an angel. Mark has an angel too, but he's already inside when they get there. Luke has two men who are kind of implied to be angels outside the tomb when the women come back out. John didn't include any angels all.
But none of them mention the fate of the soldiers. Were they dead? Ran away? Roman soldiers deserting a post would be cause for their deaths. If they were stunned or killed, it would lead to an investigation and most likely the local Jews would be blamed. Instead, all the gospel writers choose to just skip ahead with the story like this was nothing at all.
[caption id="attachment_1075" align="aligncenter" width="546" caption="Or maybe the cave had a Tardis inside and they are currently flitting around space-time?"]
[/caption]
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
....wait, what? It's only Sunday morning! He's not been dead 3 days and 3 nights yet. Did someone enter a cheat code?
No, the short answer here is that the Bible is simply not some infallible historical record. It's a book of myth, lore, and tradition, with some historical elements mixed in. For example, there was really a Jerusalem at that time and the Romans really did occupy it. There was even a Pontius Pilate. There very likely was a Jesus, as it was a common name, and there might have even been one who was something of a rabbi or local cult leader, such as John the Baptist was.
The myths and legends about the man, however, are simply those created by his believers to make him into something he claimed for himself. It's a bit like how Mormons venerate Joseph Smith and leave out the bits about his penchant for young girls or that he was lynched in jail by an angry mob. Or how Scientologists leave out the parts where L. Ron Hubbard was a sci-fi writer looking to cash in on the notion of a religion. Instead, he's portrayed as a wise and noble man, fully in touch with whatever secrets he claimed to be sharing.
Those are modern examples of how any venerated leader is from history. Muhammed, Jesus, the Buddha....all have these epic stories attached to them which are more like Hollywood movie scripts than reality. In the end, this small example of an error of the Bible is just another bit of evidence that the book itself is simply like all other ancient books: penned by fallible humans who wrote or edited in their own agendas and biases or even made stuff up entirely.
Interesting sidenote, on the above account from Matthew. Nothing further is mentioned about the soldiers. Nothing. Neither does Mark, who also changes when the stone was rolled away. In Mark, Luke, and John, it's already opened by the time the women get there. Matthew punched his version up by including an earthquake and dramatic entrance by an angel. Mark has an angel too, but he's already inside when they get there. Luke has two men who are kind of implied to be angels outside the tomb when the women come back out. John didn't include any angels all.
But none of them mention the fate of the soldiers. Were they dead? Ran away? Roman soldiers deserting a post would be cause for their deaths. If they were stunned or killed, it would lead to an investigation and most likely the local Jews would be blamed. Instead, all the gospel writers choose to just skip ahead with the story like this was nothing at all.
[caption id="attachment_1075" align="aligncenter" width="546" caption="Or maybe the cave had a Tardis inside and they are currently flitting around space-time?"]
[/caption]
4/23/2011
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 7
Another day in the can and we can now make the count 1 night and 1 day. Two more of each to go.
[caption id="attachment_1072" align="aligncenter" width="330" caption="Still guarding. Still bored."]
[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_1072" align="aligncenter" width="330" caption="Still guarding. Still bored."]
[/caption]
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 6
Okay, Saturday morning, that's 1 night down, 2 more to go for the Jesus prophecy to come true.
[caption id="attachment_1069" align="aligncenter" width="576" caption=""Sleeping? Me? Never! No, I was just resting my eyes.""]
4/22/2011
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 5
Mark:
Matthew:
Jesus is now dead and his followers are scrambling to get him off the cross and buried. Why? Because, as Mark helpfully notes for us, it's Preparation Day, the day before the Sabbath, which starts at sundown Friday and lasts until sundown on Saturday. Matthew even goes so far as to reference the 3 day prophecy, though he leaves out the 3 night part, which is telling itself, especially considering Jesus also said:
[caption id="attachment_1064" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption=""So, why are we guarding a tomb again?" "The Jews think someone might steal the body." "Why do they think that?" "Dunno, some religious thing." "Do we get overtime for this?" "Hey, don't complain, it beats having to do known-world spanning empire stuff, amirite?""]
[/caption]
And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
Matthew:
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
Jesus is now dead and his followers are scrambling to get him off the cross and buried. Why? Because, as Mark helpfully notes for us, it's Preparation Day, the day before the Sabbath, which starts at sundown Friday and lasts until sundown on Saturday. Matthew even goes so far as to reference the 3 day prophecy, though he leaves out the 3 night part, which is telling itself, especially considering Jesus also said:
Are there not twelve hours in the day?
[caption id="attachment_1064" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption=""So, why are we guarding a tomb again?" "The Jews think someone might steal the body." "Why do they think that?" "Dunno, some religious thing." "Do we get overtime for this?" "Hey, don't complain, it beats having to do known-world spanning empire stuff, amirite?""]
[/caption]
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 4
Matthew:
The clock is now started. Jesus has officially "died" on the cross. If we go by his prophecy, he will be dead tonight (Friday night), all day on Saturday, Saturday night, all day on Sunday, Sunday night, and alive again sometime on Monday. Or, if we grant him the daytime of Friday, he will come back alive sometime Sunday night. Wonder what we will see happen in the story? Stay tuned!
[caption id="attachment_1061" align="aligncenter" width="428" caption="Heavy on the symbolism, the authors likely added details to make the story seem more significant when it likely was a minor event only at the time."]
[/caption]
This gives us an opportunity, however, to discuss some of the other elements of the story taking place at this time, notably events which are fantastical and would have a huge impact on the region for possibly years to come. Let's start with two verses from Matthew 27, linked at the top of this post:
These two verses, just casually tossed into the story indicate a major event occurred which would have affected the entire city, and possibly even the region as the story spread. People who had been dead, possibly for years or even centuries, were now back alive and wandering around Jerusalem. The verses indicate they were seen by many people and yet, this seemingly minor plot point of the Jesus story has zero other mentions in any extra-Biblical reference or account. No one wrote about it, least of the Romans, who liked to write down everything. No merchant wrote a letter back home, no local historian jotted it down, no one marked the occasion by carving it into a stone somewhere. It's just a one-off reference by Matthew, with no mention in Mark, Luke, or John.
That in itself indicates the story is an exaggeration or simply an event which grew mythic with each retelling among the line of adherents who passed it along. A massive historical occurrence in that dead people are shuffling around Jerusalem and Matthews gives it a ho-hum mention in passing.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
The clock is now started. Jesus has officially "died" on the cross. If we go by his prophecy, he will be dead tonight (Friday night), all day on Saturday, Saturday night, all day on Sunday, Sunday night, and alive again sometime on Monday. Or, if we grant him the daytime of Friday, he will come back alive sometime Sunday night. Wonder what we will see happen in the story? Stay tuned!
[caption id="attachment_1061" align="aligncenter" width="428" caption="Heavy on the symbolism, the authors likely added details to make the story seem more significant when it likely was a minor event only at the time."]
[/caption]This gives us an opportunity, however, to discuss some of the other elements of the story taking place at this time, notably events which are fantastical and would have a huge impact on the region for possibly years to come. Let's start with two verses from Matthew 27, linked at the top of this post:
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
These two verses, just casually tossed into the story indicate a major event occurred which would have affected the entire city, and possibly even the region as the story spread. People who had been dead, possibly for years or even centuries, were now back alive and wandering around Jerusalem. The verses indicate they were seen by many people and yet, this seemingly minor plot point of the Jesus story has zero other mentions in any extra-Biblical reference or account. No one wrote about it, least of the Romans, who liked to write down everything. No merchant wrote a letter back home, no local historian jotted it down, no one marked the occasion by carving it into a stone somewhere. It's just a one-off reference by Matthew, with no mention in Mark, Luke, or John.
That in itself indicates the story is an exaggeration or simply an event which grew mythic with each retelling among the line of adherents who passed it along. A massive historical occurrence in that dead people are shuffling around Jerusalem and Matthews gives it a ho-hum mention in passing.
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 2
Why is the 3 days, 3 nights thing important? It comes from a casually tossed off comparison that Jesus made between himself and the mythical Jonah:
This prediction, while seemingly innocuous and arbitrary, provides a kind of test of the validity of the rest of the story. The authors wrote these tales down decades, even centuries after they allegedly occurred. To think they are error free and infallible is beyond ludicrous, yet that is precisely what most modern Christians believe to this day (thanks largely to a vote by the Nicean Council).
Thus, if the story of Jesus can't be trusted to get such a simple detail right, why is it to be trusted by people who should know better and spend their days peering to the sky for the return of their savior god?
[caption id="attachment_1051" align="aligncenter" width="640" caption="Just as we really can't trust Medieval European artists to accurately depict the Middle East."]
[/caption]
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
This prediction, while seemingly innocuous and arbitrary, provides a kind of test of the validity of the rest of the story. The authors wrote these tales down decades, even centuries after they allegedly occurred. To think they are error free and infallible is beyond ludicrous, yet that is precisely what most modern Christians believe to this day (thanks largely to a vote by the Nicean Council).
Thus, if the story of Jesus can't be trusted to get such a simple detail right, why is it to be trusted by people who should know better and spend their days peering to the sky for the return of their savior god?
[caption id="attachment_1051" align="aligncenter" width="640" caption="Just as we really can't trust Medieval European artists to accurately depict the Middle East."]
[/caption]
4/21/2011
3 Days 3 Nights Easter Eggs, Part 1
As I have written about before (and before), this is the time of year when Christians celebrate the brutal killing, burial, and alleged resurrection of their savior god for the sole purpose that this same god could turn around and forgive them for violating his rules in the first place. Aside from the absurdity of that story and its implications, the narrative itself was bungled in its telling by the authors who wrote it down nearly a century after it supposedly occurred.
[caption id="attachment_1045" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="I love me some boiled sacred cows."]
[/caption]
Starting today, Friday April 22 and going through Sunday April 24 will be a point by point reminder of the story's events and their bungled timeline. The problem centers around fixed points of time referenced in the story. If the authors had simply been more vague in their retelling of what would have by then been nearly century old tale, they wouldn't fall into the traps they do. As it happens, by being so specific in naming exact days of the week, they manage to make Jesus' prophecy of his burial and resurrection into a bungle.
The story of Easter actually begins earlier in the week than on the day the Jesus character was killed. According to the Gospels, Jesus and his disciples observed the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, better known as Passover. The first and last days of this 7 or 8 day observance are considered holidays and holy to the Jewish people. This establishes a clear and fixed point in time to start measuring. The first day had technically began sundown the previous day.
That evening, approaching sundown, Jesus and his crew sit down to their Passover feast. The night proceeds with Jesus having communion with his disciples, telling of his coming betrayal, death, and resurrection, and then he and a couple of his closest disciples leaving the house to go pray. Jesus spends most of the night praying, commonly known as the Agony in the Garden. He is then arrested and hauled before the clerical council to answer to the charges of blasphemy. They find him guilty and, in another moment of fixing the time, they remand him over to the Romans "when the morning came".
Pontius Pilate then has a morning of dealing with Jesus and finally has him up on the cross that morning, as Luke makes clear Jesus was already crucified by the "sixth hour", or noon. According to Matthew, he was dead by the "ninth hour", or 3 PM that day. And what day was it?
Here we get another fixed moment in time. It was the Preparation Day, the day before the Jewish Sabbath. This means Friday, and they had to rush to get Jesus off the cross or risk violating the Sabbath, which occurred at sundown. Thus, let's back up. If Jesus was killed on a Friday, the means the previous day was the first day of Passover, which ended at sundown that previous night (which is why the Jews waited until after sundown to arrest him). That makes the first day a Thursday and Jesus killed on a Friday. Since the only other Sabbaths in the near timeline would be the weekly Sabbath on Saturday and the end of Passover Sabbath over a week later, we can conclude nothing else. And that's where the trouble starts....
[caption id="attachment_1047" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Trouble starts with T and that rhymes with C and that stands for crucifix..."]
[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_1045" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="I love me some boiled sacred cows."]
[/caption]Starting today, Friday April 22 and going through Sunday April 24 will be a point by point reminder of the story's events and their bungled timeline. The problem centers around fixed points of time referenced in the story. If the authors had simply been more vague in their retelling of what would have by then been nearly century old tale, they wouldn't fall into the traps they do. As it happens, by being so specific in naming exact days of the week, they manage to make Jesus' prophecy of his burial and resurrection into a bungle.
The story of Easter actually begins earlier in the week than on the day the Jesus character was killed. According to the Gospels, Jesus and his disciples observed the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, better known as Passover. The first and last days of this 7 or 8 day observance are considered holidays and holy to the Jewish people. This establishes a clear and fixed point in time to start measuring. The first day had technically began sundown the previous day.
That evening, approaching sundown, Jesus and his crew sit down to their Passover feast. The night proceeds with Jesus having communion with his disciples, telling of his coming betrayal, death, and resurrection, and then he and a couple of his closest disciples leaving the house to go pray. Jesus spends most of the night praying, commonly known as the Agony in the Garden. He is then arrested and hauled before the clerical council to answer to the charges of blasphemy. They find him guilty and, in another moment of fixing the time, they remand him over to the Romans "when the morning came".
[caption id="attachment_1046" align="aligncenter" width="727" caption="Why do NONE of these guys look even vaguely Middle Eastern?"]
Pontius Pilate then has a morning of dealing with Jesus and finally has him up on the cross that morning, as Luke makes clear Jesus was already crucified by the "sixth hour", or noon. According to Matthew, he was dead by the "ninth hour", or 3 PM that day. And what day was it?
Here we get another fixed moment in time. It was the Preparation Day, the day before the Jewish Sabbath. This means Friday, and they had to rush to get Jesus off the cross or risk violating the Sabbath, which occurred at sundown. Thus, let's back up. If Jesus was killed on a Friday, the means the previous day was the first day of Passover, which ended at sundown that previous night (which is why the Jews waited until after sundown to arrest him). That makes the first day a Thursday and Jesus killed on a Friday. Since the only other Sabbaths in the near timeline would be the weekly Sabbath on Saturday and the end of Passover Sabbath over a week later, we can conclude nothing else. And that's where the trouble starts....
[caption id="attachment_1047" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Trouble starts with T and that rhymes with C and that stands for crucifix..."]
[/caption]
4/20/2011
Meeting the Scientologists
I recently spent some time in downtown DC, doing the backyard tourism thing, and once again encountered Scientologists on the National Mall. My previous encounter with them was last year during the 4th of July festivities, when they had a large pavilion tent constructed and were inviting people for information.
This was a much smaller group, at a single table only, and they appeared to only be offering free "stress tests" to people passing by, and naturally, to sell Scientology materials.
I decided to check them out and volunteered for a stress test. The video of that encounter follows this paragraph. I met Clyde, a very nice older man who lead me to a folding chair next to their table. He had an "e meter" device on the table, which had two wires connected to metal tubes. He placed those tubes in my hand and gave some basic instructions on the meter itself. He claimed the needle would measure my stress level at various questions. His left thumb stayed on a calibration dial of some sort throughout the process and it appeared he was actually manipulating the needle at times.
His questioning was about my family life, my work, money, my marriage, etc. The point was to lead me to the actual sales pitch for Dianetics. At no time did Clyde get into the specifics of the Scientology beliefs: that an ancient extraterrestrial warlord imprisoned a group of extraterrestrials on Earth inside volcanoes, which then exploded, trapping the extraterrestrial spirits as "thetans" which then attached themselves to primitive humans, altering our evolution to the point we evolved into psychologically and spiritually damaged beings, which can be cleansed via the Scientology process of "auditing".
Here's more information on this cult.
This was a much smaller group, at a single table only, and they appeared to only be offering free "stress tests" to people passing by, and naturally, to sell Scientology materials.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUphJw2WmYM
I decided to check them out and volunteered for a stress test. The video of that encounter follows this paragraph. I met Clyde, a very nice older man who lead me to a folding chair next to their table. He had an "e meter" device on the table, which had two wires connected to metal tubes. He placed those tubes in my hand and gave some basic instructions on the meter itself. He claimed the needle would measure my stress level at various questions. His left thumb stayed on a calibration dial of some sort throughout the process and it appeared he was actually manipulating the needle at times.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c29i-9zQhho
His questioning was about my family life, my work, money, my marriage, etc. The point was to lead me to the actual sales pitch for Dianetics. At no time did Clyde get into the specifics of the Scientology beliefs: that an ancient extraterrestrial warlord imprisoned a group of extraterrestrials on Earth inside volcanoes, which then exploded, trapping the extraterrestrial spirits as "thetans" which then attached themselves to primitive humans, altering our evolution to the point we evolved into psychologically and spiritually damaged beings, which can be cleansed via the Scientology process of "auditing".
Here's more information on this cult.
1/29/2011
Egypt is burning
As I write these words, thousands of Egyptians are defying tyranny, risking their lives and all else they have to demand a change in their autocratic government. It puts into perspective not only the ongoing struggle between old institutions and the current generation in the Middle East, but also the kinds of rhetoric and language used in US politics.
No, Mr. Teabagger, you are not living in a tyranny. No, you really don't have an excuse to advocate revolution. No, you really don't have it so badly that you could in any way be compared to the valiant and desperate citizens of Tunisia, Yemen, and now Egypt.
This is what an actual revolution looks like:
No, Mr. Teabagger, you are not living in a tyranny. No, you really don't have an excuse to advocate revolution. No, you really don't have it so badly that you could in any way be compared to the valiant and desperate citizens of Tunisia, Yemen, and now Egypt.
This is what an actual revolution looks like:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI
5/10/2010
Yes, the original Constitution was defective
President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court today. The announcement was expected, with news leaking Friday that he had decided on Kagan. The Republican response, up to the last few minutes, has been guarded, but not overly aggressive. Then, the RNC released this announcement:
If Kagan does not believe the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, is defective, she is not qualified for the bench. How could she, or any other person who has actually read the thing believe otherwise? It institutionalized slavery, set black people's value as 3/5 of a white person, and denied anyone the vote aside from white males.
What's more, the Founders knew it was defective and would require amending from time to time, hence they built in the method to change it, fix it, whenever the nation had the need and the will to do so. It's an evolving document, still not perfect, but seeking like the rest of the union to grow "more perfect". Kagan understood this, as did Thurgood Marshall, whom she was quoting in the paper her comments were lifted from.
Naturally, given that this is Michael Steele's press release, the RNC has to follow up with a "what he meant to say" statement. From the RNC blogs page:
See that? "What Chairman Steele was actually concerned about is" and then the attempt to fall back to the "activist judges" and "empathy" complaint. It's especially telling when the author of that post, Doug Heye, has to trot out "the American people" and what they want and do not want in a judge. How does he know? Did he ask? Does he cite a poll? Of course not. He simply rides the GOP scooter of telling the American people what they want, what they are, and what they are asking for.
"Activist judge" is when the judge rules in a way the person using the phrase didn't like or want. When a judge has a personal agenda carried out in the decision he or she hands down which that same person does like, no "activist judge" label is applied. That person is ruling "according to the Constitution", however defective and in need of amending from time to time it might be.
"Given Kagan’s opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school’s campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution “as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective,’” you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.”
If Kagan does not believe the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, is defective, she is not qualified for the bench. How could she, or any other person who has actually read the thing believe otherwise? It institutionalized slavery, set black people's value as 3/5 of a white person, and denied anyone the vote aside from white males.
What's more, the Founders knew it was defective and would require amending from time to time, hence they built in the method to change it, fix it, whenever the nation had the need and the will to do so. It's an evolving document, still not perfect, but seeking like the rest of the union to grow "more perfect". Kagan understood this, as did Thurgood Marshall, whom she was quoting in the paper her comments were lifted from.
Naturally, given that this is Michael Steele's press release, the RNC has to follow up with a "what he meant to say" statement. From the RNC blogs page:
In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court’s primary role is to “show special solicitude” for people a judge has empathy for. Liberals would much rather talk aboutwhose view she is endorsing rather than the substance of that view. That they would prefer to do so is unsurprising, because her view of the Court’s primary mission is at odds with the majority of Americans.
See that? "What Chairman Steele was actually concerned about is" and then the attempt to fall back to the "activist judges" and "empathy" complaint. It's especially telling when the author of that post, Doug Heye, has to trot out "the American people" and what they want and do not want in a judge. How does he know? Did he ask? Does he cite a poll? Of course not. He simply rides the GOP scooter of telling the American people what they want, what they are, and what they are asking for.
"Activist judge" is when the judge rules in a way the person using the phrase didn't like or want. When a judge has a personal agenda carried out in the decision he or she hands down which that same person does like, no "activist judge" label is applied. That person is ruling "according to the Constitution", however defective and in need of amending from time to time it might be.
Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher
From Breitbart:
High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.
Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.
"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.
Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.
"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."
He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.
He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.
High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.
Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.
"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.
Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.
"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."
He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.
He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.
5/07/2010
We Are Not a Christian Nation
Bad Astronomy has an excellent post up today, which I caught during my morning reading:
I have no problems with people being religious per se. I think that people have the right to believe in whatever they want. If they happen to believe in something that is demonstrably wrong, well then, they should be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of reality.
The problem tends to come in when some religious people try to impose their religion on others. If you go through my posts on religion, you’ll find that this is where I tend to step in. Want to teach creationism in the classroom? Uh uh. Want to oppress women? Sorry, fella. Think abstinence-only education works and you should get government grants to teach it? Keep it in your own pants, please.
The problem is amplified by the fact that pretty much every religion tends to think of itself as the One True Belief. And when they get some political clout, things get very itchy indeed. Or have we already forgotten what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan?
That’s why I worry when I hear politicians in the U.S. saying we’re a Christian nation. We’re not. We’re a nation of mostly Christians, to be sure, but there are other religions here as well, and a bunch of non-believers too.
When confronted with this, most of these politicians tend to say the Founding Fathers were Christians, and based this country on Christian beliefs. But that’s not true either: the basis of our country’s law is the Constitution, and the Founders took a great deal of care making sure it kept religion at arm’s length (despite what some politicians believe).
With the far-right going apoplectic every time someone mentions non-believers or religions other than Christianity (remember this?), I imagine the 2012 Presidential election will be one where every candidate tries to out-religious the next. But we have the 2010 midterms coming up, and it’ll be an issue there too.
That’s why I like very much what the Freedom From Religion Foundation is doing: they’ve created wonderful ads with quotes from the Founding Fathers showing precisely how they felt on this issue. The one above of JFK is cool, because his candidacy was attacked for him being a Catholic, of all things. The thing is, he was a religious man, and still understood that religion must be kept away from politics.
But far and away, I love this one the most:
Not a lot of wiggle room in that, is there? Sarah Palin, of course, disagrees (read that link; Barry Lynn’s — sorry, I mean the Reverend Barry Lynn’s — comment there is wonderful). But I suspect that her grasp of the actual history of this nation is somewhat tenuous, given her many inaccurate statements about it and about reality in general.
Anyway, these banners (seven in total) will run on buses, and it’ll be interesting to see how the far-right religious folks will react. I’ll note that the FFRF ran a full-page ad in the New York Times yesterday about how the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, which I agree with. Strongly.
What strikes me as funny is how the über-religious in the US fight to tear down the wall of separation, not realizing that they are weakening themselves. What stands between their religion being dominant and, say, Muslims? This is one of the many problems with having religion intertwined with government. As long as it’s your religion, hurray. But see those guys over there praying in a place of worship with slightly different architecture from yours? They feel exactly the same way about their religion as you do about yours. The only way to protect your own freedom of religion is to protect your freedom from theirs.
There are two ways to do that. You can either emulate the Taliban… or you can make sure that laws, politics, and government are kept wholly and, I dare say, fundamentally separated from religion.
The choice is ours.
Trackback >
I have no problems with people being religious per se. I think that people have the right to believe in whatever they want. If they happen to believe in something that is demonstrably wrong, well then, they should be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of reality.
The problem tends to come in when some religious people try to impose their religion on others. If you go through my posts on religion, you’ll find that this is where I tend to step in. Want to teach creationism in the classroom? Uh uh. Want to oppress women? Sorry, fella. Think abstinence-only education works and you should get government grants to teach it? Keep it in your own pants, please.
The problem is amplified by the fact that pretty much every religion tends to think of itself as the One True Belief. And when they get some political clout, things get very itchy indeed. Or have we already forgotten what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan?
That’s why I worry when I hear politicians in the U.S. saying we’re a Christian nation. We’re not. We’re a nation of mostly Christians, to be sure, but there are other religions here as well, and a bunch of non-believers too.
When confronted with this, most of these politicians tend to say the Founding Fathers were Christians, and based this country on Christian beliefs. But that’s not true either: the basis of our country’s law is the Constitution, and the Founders took a great deal of care making sure it kept religion at arm’s length (despite what some politicians believe).
With the far-right going apoplectic every time someone mentions non-believers or religions other than Christianity (remember this?), I imagine the 2012 Presidential election will be one where every candidate tries to out-religious the next. But we have the 2010 midterms coming up, and it’ll be an issue there too.
That’s why I like very much what the Freedom From Religion Foundation is doing: they’ve created wonderful ads with quotes from the Founding Fathers showing precisely how they felt on this issue. The one above of JFK is cool, because his candidacy was attacked for him being a Catholic, of all things. The thing is, he was a religious man, and still understood that religion must be kept away from politics.
But far and away, I love this one the most:
Not a lot of wiggle room in that, is there? Sarah Palin, of course, disagrees (read that link; Barry Lynn’s — sorry, I mean the Reverend Barry Lynn’s — comment there is wonderful). But I suspect that her grasp of the actual history of this nation is somewhat tenuous, given her many inaccurate statements about it and about reality in general.
Anyway, these banners (seven in total) will run on buses, and it’ll be interesting to see how the far-right religious folks will react. I’ll note that the FFRF ran a full-page ad in the New York Times yesterday about how the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, which I agree with. Strongly.
What strikes me as funny is how the über-religious in the US fight to tear down the wall of separation, not realizing that they are weakening themselves. What stands between their religion being dominant and, say, Muslims? This is one of the many problems with having religion intertwined with government. As long as it’s your religion, hurray. But see those guys over there praying in a place of worship with slightly different architecture from yours? They feel exactly the same way about their religion as you do about yours. The only way to protect your own freedom of religion is to protect your freedom from theirs.
There are two ways to do that. You can either emulate the Taliban… or you can make sure that laws, politics, and government are kept wholly and, I dare say, fundamentally separated from religion.
The choice is ours.
Trackback >
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
