Speaking Of A Crisis Of Competnce

With a hat tip to Jesus' General, here's a compilation of quotes from Fundy Forums:

The Corporofascist States of Americatm

If you haven't yet, go and read this post over at Christina's. Now, I dare you to defend our policies both in the Middle East and here at home. That we can perpetuate such atrocious actions is anathema to what this nation is supposed to stand for.

Friends, we are engaged in a horrible thing in our "fightin' 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here". Our nation is acting in an evil manner. And the perpetrators of the whole mess hide behind a label of "Christian". There ain't a bit of "Christ-like" in it. I do not like it.... You do not like it....

Imagine what the Founding Fathers would think of it.

While you're off reading posts? Go read this one at The Cunning Runt's place. If you think what's going on now is bad, imagine what the corporatists and dominionists will do to the rest of the world - and us - if they manage to hold their coalition together.

Why Am I Posting At 2am?

Because I spent the last hour scanning the Flickr set at Teh Bestest Review of the Creation Museum Evah! Make sure you turn on the captions if you look at the pics.


(Thanks to frequent Shakesville commenter Nik.E.Poo, who left the link over at PortlyDyke's)

Onward, Christian Soldiers

More evidence that these people have absolutely no idea what Christ was all about:

What Would the Founding Fathers Think?

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

I can think of no other statement that better expresses the danger of Theocracy. And no better counter to those who claim that the United States of America is a "Christian country". Except, possibly, this one:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And yet, a significant portion of the population of this country denies the second quote and seeks to institute a Theocracy. I have written before on the subject of "America as a Christian" nation and don't wish to repeat myself, but perhaps I should.

America was founded, for the most part, by people who had left Europe to escape persecution. The Puritans in New England, the Quakers (and others) in the Middle Colonies, and the Scots and Scots-Irish in the South all came here because of two things: the promise of land and to escape religious persecution. They were all 'others' in their homelands, and looked upon - at best - as second class citizens, or - at worst - as heretics.

One of the main concerns of the fledgling United States, after winning independence from Great Britain, was to assure that they would no longer suffer from religious persecution. This is why it is the First Amendment to the Constitution that says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People often look at this one amendment as three separate items, but they are not. They must be viewed of a piece - co-equal. Those that wish a return to "our Christian roots" or to establish a Theocracy (though they will never use that name) with the Ten Commandments as the supreme law of the land, are guilty of no less than treason. That's right, treason.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution says, in part: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Actively espousing ideas that are against the Constitution is, indeed, "levying War against" the United States - and in a more insidious manner than Radical Islam is.

As Sinclair Lewis said, “When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Theocracy and Fascism have a lot in common. Both depend on the suspension of reason, and the blind adherence to belief. Two years before his death, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind." The spirit of the Sage of Monticello is no doubt moaning in grief at what is currently happening in the nation that he helped to found. Televangelists openly pushing for the initiation of the "end times" and the Current Occupant of the White House holding that he has been "chosen by God" to lead the country. How far the country has fallen from its' founding as a bastion of freedom.

I end, as I began, with a quote from Jefferson (emphasis mine):

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

(Blog Against Theocracy)

Which is right? Your Interpretation or Their Words?

Attention all Fundies who wish to "return" the United States to its' "Christian" origins:

Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June 1797.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity [sic], of Musselmen [sic]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [sic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

In his, "A Defence [sic] of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

James Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments [1785]:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

[and]

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

These quotes, and many more, are from Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular.

See also, these previous posts.

Random Thoughts

I was just reading through the comment thread re: Is Pat Robertson’s law school changing America? over at Crooks & Liars and a thought occurred to me. It was caused by this comment:

[...]
South Park actually got it very right when they had Donahue wanting to kill Jesus. Because if Jesus came back today, would any of these so-called Christians even recognize him? I would suspect that you'd have far more secular leftists - hell even atheists, defending Jesus on his return than you would have of these apostates. (He would be considered a fake, possibly even the anti-Christ.)
[...]
JJohnson | 04.09.07 - 8:51 am |

I (and, indeed, many others) have wondered why Christians continue to espouse faith in a God who hasn't made His presence known for the last two millennia (our Islamic brethren would question that statement, since Mohammad lived in the late Sixth and early Seventh centuries CE, and certainly believed he had received messages from God (Allah) - with such conviction that an estimated 1.4 billion adherents now follow his teachings - oh, and let's not forget the Mormons).

My thought was this: What if the messages have indeed been squelched by "Christians"? What if the 'second coming' happened hundreds of years ago, and perhaps even a third, fourth and fifth coming? This is certainly plausible, given the power-mongering attitude of the Church throughout the ages.

I have said this before, but let me restate it so that their is no misunderstanding: I do not believe that all Christians are hypocrites, just an unfortunate many.

I, myself, do not claim to be a Christian, though I do live my life in as close to a Christ-like manner as I can manage. Despite what the Fundies say, one can believe the message without worshiping the messenger or subscribing to a set of religious rules.

Anyway, as I said, it was just a thought....

The End Is NERE!!!

The Newsweek Poll, 31 March 2007, included, after the perfunctory political quiz, questions on religion. The answers to these questions (and, indeed, the questions themselves) provide more evidence that America is becoming a third world theocracy and dumber than a fencepost (no offense to all you fenceposts reading this) to boot.

Let's start with the first God-themed query:

12. Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process [A] (or) Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process [B] (or) God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so [C]?

Of course, there's always "the question is bs because there ain't no God", but that answer had to settle for the "other/don't know" [D] column. And by the way, why is other/don't know lumped together? Which is it? there's a big difference between "other" and "don't know".

A B C D
Current Total 30% 13% 48% 9%
Evan. Prot. 18% 4% 73% 5%
Non-Evan. Prot. 42% 9% 39% 10%
Catholics 42% 11% 41% 6%
Agn./Ath. 27% 45% 13% 15%

A "point of order" here. Under which of the above four categories does Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, etc, fall? it’s not like the poll didn’t ask “What is your present religion?”(question #20). But I, like the populace of Uhmurrrrica, digress.

The percentages, while sad, are not that surprising - except for the responses of the Agnostic/Atheist. I would assume that the Atheist portion of those respondents picked [D], but 40% of this category chose one of the answers that had God at least partially involved in the process. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, agnostic means:

1[noun] : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2[adjective] : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this sort of preclude attributing anything to the actions, or indeed, inactions, of God? Of course, the literal translation of ‘agnostic’ is ‘without knowledge’, so maybe those respondents were just that.

Okay. Next question:

13. Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?

This time, the choices are “Well Supported” [A], “Not Well Supported” [B], or Agnostic - I mean, “Don’t Know” [C]. Apparently no one came up with any ‘other’ on this one.

A B C
Current Total 48% 39% 13%
Evan. Prot. 25% 63% 12%
Non-Evan. Prot. 57% 24% 19%
Catholics 58% 33% 9%
Agn./Ath. 73% 18% 9%

The fact that any non Evangelical would answer anything but [A] is sad. Evangelicals are just plain sad. Next question!

14. Do you believe in God?
Yes No Don't know
91% 6% 3%

This one I’ll accept (even though it’s scary). This tells us that 6% of respondents are atheist and 3% are agnostic - but wait! Question 16 (I’ll get to 15 in a minute) is:

16. Would you describe yourself as an atheist?
Yes No Don't know
3% 96% 1%

As Mama Shakes, over at (the newly renamed) Shakesville, says, “What the Poop?” Maybe I need to check the definition of atheist (Merriam-Webster again):

one who believes that there is no deity

Hmm, that’s what I thought. So, let me get this straight. 6% do not believe in God, but only half of those identify as “one who believes there is no deity”. Ohhh-kay. My head hurts.

Alright, back to question 15:

15. People who don't believe in God are called atheists. Do you personally know any atheists, or not?

Yes No Don't know
49% 48% 3%

This tells us that atheists, remember- only 6% (or is it 3%) of the population, really get around. My question to them is, why haven’t you introduced yourselves to the other 48%? Do they smell bad or something?

Check out the entire poll, if you haven’t already. I need a nap.


DISCLAIMER: I apologize for the poor structure of the block quotes. I can't figure out how to get them aligned properly. I hope it's not too confusing.

Fundamental Agreements?

French scientists rebut U.S., Muslim creationism
(h/t to Petulant Rumblings for the link)

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

ORSAY, France (Reuters) - With creationism now coming in Christian and Muslim versions, scientists, teachers and theologians in France are debating ways to counteract what they see as growing religious attacks on science.

Wow, I didn’t know that Falwell, et al, had teamed up with the ‘turrists’. But it turns out that they have. A Turkish “Islamist publisher” has mailed Muslim creationist books to schools in France. I’ve been saying all along that there was very little difference between Christian Fundies and Muslim Fundies (aka Islamists, aka turrists) and here is proof. They both object to the facts of science, among other things.

I really shouldn’t generalize the Muslim Fundies - as I don’t personally know any, but I do have the great misfortune to know some of the Christian variety and I suspect that the Islamic ones are just as narrow-minded and, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. They reject Darwin and the myriad who have followed, because they believe, falsely, that Evolution denies the existence of God/Allah. Evolution restricts itself to what happened after the origin of life, and has nothing to say regarding those origins.

I don’t fall into the group who believe that all religious people are crackpots. I know, from personal experience, that a person can be both religious and open-minded. My parents, both of whom have graduate degrees in religion and are deeply spiritual, are open-minded and very intelligent. When I was first learning science in school I asked my father why the scientific and religious versions of creation didn’t jibe - specifically why the scientific record contradicts Genesis. He responded that the Creation Story was metaphorical and wasn’t to be taken as literal truth, that Genesis and the other early books of the Bible were descended from oral tradition. He also referenced Hinduism (although I didn’t realize it at the time) by saying, “a day to God could be millions of years to humans.”

So, I suppose that it follows that I do believe that those who believe in a literal translation of the Bible as the absolute and complete truth are seriously bent. I've tried to figure out how anyone could ignore the evidence in front of their faces and choose to believe instead only in something that's based entirely on faith. On the other hand, it must be nice to have someone else tell you how to think. I have to muddle through daily life, thinking for myself, and that can get tiring!!

It is fine for anyone to believe whatever he/she wants. The problem comes when she/he tries to force that belief on others and that is where Fundies (be they Christian or Muslim) are trying to do. Apparently with some success (as seen in this excerpt from the above article):

There is a growing distrust of science in public opinion, especially among the young, and that worries us," said Philippe Deterre, a research biologist and Catholic priest who organized a colloquium on creationism for scientists at the weekend.

There are many issues that go beyond strictly scientific or strictly theological explanations," he said at the colloquium in this university town southwest of Paris. Deterre's Blaise Pascal Network promotes understanding between science and religion.

I find it somewhat surprising, although I probably shouldn't, that a Catholic priest is the one who is pointing out the distrust. Surprising, because the Catholic Church isn't the first (or even fortieth) place where I would turn to look for scientific progressiveness. It only recently recanted its' heresy charges against Galileo, after all. I shouldn't be surprised, though, because the Catholic Church does run prestigious (if necessarily progressive) universities, such as Georgetown and Notre Dame.

In fact, I find Deterre's statement to be very brave. It seems to me, though I'm no Catholic scholar, to not be in line with the current Pope, Benedict XVI, who has reversed many of the progressive stances that John Paul II espoused.

One final quote from the article:

Barred from teaching creationism in U.S. public schools, some conservative Christians now advocate the "intelligent design" argument that some forms of life are too complex to have simply evolved. Scientists call this creationism in disguise.

And a US Federal Court, in Katzmiller v. Dover Area School District agreed:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child"
[...]
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of ‘irreducible complexity‘, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

As a result of this case, the entire Dover Area School Board was voted out of office and the district had to pay over a million dollars in legal fees and damages.

Creationists just can’t get past the fact that they lost the “Scopes Monkey Trial” back in 1925, and all the subsequent rulings against them (visit the National Center for Science Education for more info), including the Edwards v. Aguillard SCOTUS case in 1987.

Has all this deterred the Intelligent Design proponents? Oh, hell, no! Take a look at the Discovery Institute website. They have three conferences scheduled over the next few weeks to promote ID. States, including New Mexico, have pending legislation on the subject (see Albuquerque Tribune commentary and rebuttal). Even as I type this, NPR’s “Fresh Air” is airing (on my local affiliate) the second in a series discussing Evolution versus Creationism.

I seem to have strayed from my original topic: the commonalities between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. I’ll return to that topic, rest assured. But I felt I had to comment on the denial inherent in fundamentalism....

As I said to earlier, I believe that people are entitled to whatever beliefs they have. That’s what Freedom means to me. Believe whatever you want. If you want to be so narrow minded that you refuse to see the evidence all around you that society is becoming more accepting, more open and yes, more liberal - go right ahead. I’m sure ‘God’ will judge you accordingly. But please, please, please stop trying to tell others what to believe!

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense