Repeat after me:

Christian science is bullshit.
Christian science is bullshit.
Christian science is bullshit.

That’s a lower-case ’s’, by the way. The philosophical Christian Science and the “Church of Christ, Scientist” aren’t out in force trying to alter our laws. They’re much too busy pretending to heal people.

Introduction - About CS

“Christian science” is a rather misleading name for the category. Really, the only things it deals with are the theory of evolution and creationism. Occasionally there’s a wild conspiracy theory about the Flood/Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant or the Walls of Jericho. Everything else in this category is just regular science with “because God made it that way” thrown in every now and then.

Unlike regular science, which relies on the scientific method to gain empirical data in proving or disproving a hypothesis surrounding a theory, Christian science or “Creationism” interprets the bible according to varying degrees of literalism, then thinks up scientific explanations for the events therein.

The direct result of such a presumptive model of research is that it assumes the theory is correct or absolute, which means that only evidence which supports this theory can be admitted. Evidence which does not support, or even contradicts the theory is discarded or ignored, even when the evidence indicates another hypothesis or theory entirely.

We can see where this type of reasoning would lead if applied to, say, our legal system in which a murderous man is presumed innocent, but any evidence that suggests a guilty verdict is discarded from the case. It’s good for the man, but not so good for the rest of society. This is what I’m getting at: Creationism and other self-styled Christian sciences are great for Christianity, but not so great for the rest of us.

Imagine if the theory of evolution never existed. Would Gregor Mendel have discovered inheritence factors or would he have found them relevant? Had he not discovered them, there would be no reason to discover chromosomes, genes or DNA. Under the guidance of Christian science and their Creationism, we wouldn’t have the understanding of the body or of microbiology to create antibiotics and vaccines, or medicines to treat our diseases, all of which have saved lives, extended life, and made life easier for those who suffer.

Christian scientists would have prevented it because it’s not in the bible.

Would they have, if they’d known the good that would come of it? Possibly. But they didn’t know what would come of it–they were fighting it even then! They think they know what the end result will be, but they don’t. Starting with Darwin and ending with modern life science and medicine, can you imagine what we could have accomplished without all the setbacks by religious hostility?

Creationists claim that God created everything as it exists today but ignore the fossil record. They say the earth is no older than 15,000 years (many say it’s as few as 6,000 years) but ignore carbon dating and all the information stored in a stratigraphic column, as well as the knowledge that stars are millions of light-years away, but we can still see them shining. How can this be considered science?

It can’t, and the creationists know it. Instead of defending their methods, they carry on the long tradition of attacking actual science to make their views seem less… insane.

Unnatural Selection - Creationism vs. Evolution

Might as well get this one out of the way. Evolution. Fundies hate anything that has to do with Darwin, so they attempt to break evolution into a number of parts and attack them separately, drawing conclusions between them… and demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding about them in the process. According to them, nobody was around to observe “evolution,” so it must not exist.

Mutation is a popular target for scrutiny. The creationists say that if mutations exist, there should be millions and millions of examples in the fossil record and no missing links whatsoever. They’ll say that every now and then a human should give birth to a monkey, and vice versa. Why aren’t people occasionally born with wings? They say this is proof that evolution is wrong and creationism is right. There’s no room for more than one possibility in Christian “science.” It’s God or bust.

Another popular target of attack is natural selection/survival of the fittest. The fittest survive. They get the breeding rights, the food, the land. I’m not sure how this is incompatible with Christianity, but for some reason it’s still a target.

Then there are all the outright silly claims of debunkery such as the one where if evolution is true, we should find life randomly appearing all around us. One video I recall has people who weren’t even biologists saying that “the food industry counts on evolution being false” and that “every once in awhile, we should be able to open a jar of peanut butter and find life.” The man then opens the jar and says something like,”nope, no life here.”

Thing is, we do see new life coming into existence every single day. I’ve heard that thousands are discovered daily. Just because you can’t see it with the naked eye doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I mean, seriously, do they expect a worm to randomly come together with all its parts and complex systems in working order inside a jar of peanut butter?

Is it so surprising that literal-minded creationists would attack evolution in such ways? I think not.

Not So Fast! - A Thinking Man’s Retort

Nobody was around to observe Creation, so it must have just been made up by guys who wrote it down in a book. We can actually observe evolution: through a microscope. Because of the extremely high rate of reproduction, viruses and other microbes provide a microcosm of evolution at work. Resistance to immunity, changing from fluid transmission to airborne transmission… is this not the very definition of evolution? Oh, that’s right. We didn’t “see” apes turn into humans.

First off, you don’t have to be present at the first time an event occurs to view it. That’s what a lab is for. Scientists will attempt to simulate the conditions that are believed to have surrounded the event in question. They use what they already know and build upon it, then draw from that knowledge to help explain other things. Christian science, however, uses deceptive reasoning and half truths–of course there will be millions upon millions of transitional fossils if everything that dies becomes fossilized. But it doesn’t work that way. Anyone who thinks about the claim for five minutes can easily reach such a realization.

Want to figure out our origins? Look around you.

“What were conditions like on earth millions of years ago? Let’s look at the rock layers. Ah, traces of meteoric dust in this layer, a meteor must have hit earth during this time. Ah, fossils also exist in and above this layer. We hypothesize that this meteor may have had an impact on environmental conditions. Indeed, we see an increase in deadly chemicals that must have surrounded the air during this period. No bones of mammals have been found in this layer, so we hypothesize that they must not have existed yet.”

Easy enough to follow, right? While this may be a hypothetical train of thought, it’s all based on truth. We can tell when Ice Ages happened, when the air was hot and windy or wet and calm. There are actually layers or rock and sediment we can observe which actually has thinks like meteoric dust settled within it. They’ve used layers of of ice in the polar ice caps in the same way.

But if we are to believe the young-earth creationists, for that dust to get there a meteor must have struck sometime in the past 6000-10000 years–one big enough to leave the same type of dust in the same layer of rock found all over the planet… and it wasn’t mentioned in any oral or written history. Or, maybe they’ll claim that God made it that way. For what? Why have meteoric substances buried between layers of rock meters and meters below the surface?

When they don’t have the answer, they say “God works in mysterious ways,” or “nobody fully understands God’s plan.” In other words,”You stumped us, so we’re going to stop using our Christian science and instead rely on something that is unfalsifiable by science,” which means that it can’t be tested by experiment.

Seems their science only works when it suits them, doesn’t it? Someone ought to tell them that their children are mutants. The overall process involving mutations is that they effect the organism gradually over a very long period of time, thus making arguments such as “why aren’t humans sometimes born with wings” or “why don’t monkeys give birth to humans once in awhile” become non sequitur, almost parodical. Mutations happen during conception every single time. The DNA is changed; that’s a mutation. Otherwise we’d be autosexuals who didn’t need partners to reproduce; we’d just make clones of ourselves.

“Why wouldn’t a monkey give birth to a human, since humans are the next step in evolution, or for that matter, if survival of the fittest is true, then why are monkeys still around?” Obviously there was a genetic split somewhere. Since not every ape breeds with every other ape, evolution is not going to take place at the same pace or even in the same direction among a common species. There’s no reason to believe that apes from Africa would have a common evolutionary path with apes from South America. Look at the differences between tigers and bobcats. Both are kitties, both have fur and claws, but they’re different enough to make a distinction between them. They might as well ask why humans and whales don’t look the same, or why fish don’t sometimes flop out of bird eggs.

So far, here’s the list of some of the tools and evidence each side has:

Science: the fossil record, land formations, laboratories, telescopes, radiocarbon dating, rock layers, geology, dinosaurs, DNA, biology, microscopes, physics, microbiology, chemistry, reason, college degrees and science careers, credibility.

Creationism: the Bible, people who aren’t scientists and believe in the Bible.

The truth is, all this is futile. This whole blog, this whole debate. No matter how much proof you have, they will ignore it. Fail to explain the most minute thing, suddenly there’s a gap that only an all-powerful god can fill. But besides that, creationists can just lie about evolution to debunk it.

The Slyentific Method - Christians on Science.

Science, as I mentioned earlier, relies on the scientific method. The scientific method is a process by which something is studied then has a hypothesis formulated around it, which is tested by empirical means.

Creationists hear this definition and immediately jump up and say you can’t empirically test evolution. They say that people weren’t around back then, and there definitely weren’t scientists who knew what evolution was, so therefore the theory cannot be proven. Because there’s nobody around to watch evolution as it happens, fundies triumphantly claim that it is “bad science.” Even though, as I pointed out earlier, we can and do view it.

Now, the fundies are turning the tables and saying that it’s not Creationism that takes faith, it’s the theory of evolution that takes it. Instead, they argue, Creationism does not require faith because God communicated it to Man through the Bible. We’ll come back to this point in a moment.

They also try to brand people who believe the Theory of Evolution as “evolutionists” and call secularism a religion. Then they have the audacity to cry “separation of church and state!” while demanding that equal time be given to creationist theories in public classrooms. They say that not accepting creationism as an alternative to evolution is intolerant.

Then there’s the big whopper: that evolution is such a controversial topic, there’s a huge debate among scientists about whether or not it even exists.

WTF?

Whenever a scientist shows skepticism towards evolution or any facet thereof, fundies immediately claim him as a creationist. “See!” they say,”even SCIENTISTS question evolution!” Isn’t it a scientist’s job to be critical? I find it reassuring that scientists question their own findings or the findings of others. More often than not, it helps to confirm the results rather than debunk them.The questioning of evolution has been going on for about 150 years and guess what? It’s still around, going strong as ever.

Keeping creationism out of a science class should be self-explanatory. Science class is for science. God-theories are for church. Maybe the fundies ought to be doing their job as Christians rather than asking the state to do it for them.

Dare I even address the assertion that science is a religion? How can such a comparison even exist when one requires evidence and the other requires faith, respectively? What ought to be asked is why Christians are so hostile to evolution and does it have to do with evidence, or does it have to do with their religion?

Are we to believe that these people disagreed with the theory of evolution based on its merits and simply happened to be Christians? Now that demands faith.

Don’t even get me started on ID, or “Intelligent Design.” ID is another presumptive pseudo-science where instead of saying “God created everything,” it comes from the angle that everything appears to have been designed by an intelligent force or being and guided in its progression. Proponents coyly state things like,”Now, if the intelligent cause turns out to be supernatural, that’s a determination that is outside of science.” Yeah, so is saying things were created by an intelligent source. Unless someone out there has a better word for “supreme being capable of creating the universe and guiding everything in it,” why not call a spade a spade: This is god science, creationism with a new label.

The Breakdown - Christian Science is Bullshit.

The paranoia surrounding science, particularly the theory of evolution and origins of the universe, is silly. The idea that science wants to trick people or force them to think a certain way, or tell people they have to make a choice,”us or them,” is ridiculous. Saying that scientists aren’t looking into creation as an alternative means they’re afraid of what they might find is nonsense and shows a lack of understanding.

Science is neutral. It doesn’t give a damn about religion. In fact, letting religion guide their findings is the very definition of “bad science” and should be avoided at all costs! Fortunately for the rest of us, scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not opinion. When fundies complain that science is trying to stifle their opinions, they’re wrong. Uninformed opinions without evidence that are made by people who either A) aren’t scientists or B) don’t have a degree in the field of science they’re criticizing–they have no place in science. We’re not trying to silence you, we’re simply ignoring you and hoping you’ll take the hint.

But that’s not to say that science claims god doesn’t exist, mainly because there’s no way to prove it, hence why it is not considered scientific to make such a claim. Yet, if at the apex of human knowledge and understanding we do indeed discover that there’s a god (or something) that created it all, awesome. Science discovers God. The difference in credibility is that science will have proof to back up their claim, while creationists and ID theorists will still have none.

You see, even if Christian scientists are proven to have been right all along in their conclusion, it does not, by extension, automatically justify their methods. If someone is on trial for a crime, killing all the witnesses is not the right way to reach a ‘not guilty’ verdict, even if the defendant really is innocent.

What fundamentalist Christians need to realize is that science does not have a Secret Agenda of Evil. It is not out to “get” them. Politicians and activists may reference scientific evidence to support their causes, but that does not mean science is altering the results or making bogus claims to push an agenda.

Another ridiculous claim is that most scientists are atheists, and evolution is the only way that atheism can be true (more of the same crappy reasoning that it can only be one or the other). They say that evolutionary science is really a conspiracy by atheists to justify their “religion” of not believing in God. Outrageous!

First off, there doesn’t need to be justification for atheism, especially not to holier-than-thou pharisees like the Religious Right. What ought to be justified is how people are allowed to lie like this and still be taken seriously by our courts and legislatures.

Science is not the enemy of Christianity. Nobody is asking anybody to abandon their faith in God. In fact, the ones who say we must make a choice are the fundies! “Either you believe in God or you believe in Man.” It can only be one or the other? And moreover, who gave you bastards the authority to judge such things? It wasn’t God, and it sure as hell wasn’t us.

A Compromise - Science and Religion in Harmony.

Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity. So is the Big Bang theory, for that matter. The Bible said that God created Man, but didn’t go into much detail. The Bible also says that God created the universe and BANG; the universe is created. See, fundies? This is your trump card. Will you play it?

My guess is no. As our knowledge and understanding of the world’s complexity expanded, our superstitious explanations should have naturally declined. Instead of seeing stories in the bible as allegorical comparisons designed to teach us a lesson (think “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”), they’re being interpreted as literal. When people cling to the bible as being a completely accurate transcription of how things happened, they tend to lose the meaning of the stories and the lessons they attempt to teach us. Didn’t Jesus speak in parables? Why would the rest of the bible be much different? Look at Revelations. Most end-times people I’ve encountered regard the book as something that is open to interpretation, not something that is being described in precise detail.

Some atheists make the mistake of labeling everything in the bible as false by association, lumping the mythical side of Christianity with the side that tries to convey a message to help us get along in life. They overlook the wisdom that can be found in many biblical stories. Honestly? They’re missing out.

But why wouldn’t they lump it together? The fundies do it. They’ll focus so much on the details that they end up missing the forest for the trees. Which is more important: whether or not a woman was actually healed by touching Jesus, or the moral about how forgiveness can help to set things right? Do you see what I’m getting at? Think about it.

I’ve come up with a Deistic proposal for fundies to follow. Why isn’t it aimed at “evolutionists,” you ask? Because evolution is playing nice and not trying to destroy Christianity. Maybe someday they’ll return the favor.

First, instead of trying to return to the dark ages, fundies ought to thank their Creator for giving humans brains that are capable of figuring out and understanding how his creations work. Instead of fighting science and characterizing it as a trick by Satan, you should thank all the brilliant people out there who, because of things such as the theory of evolution, were able to establish other branches of science that have led to unprecedented improvements in our ability to prevent and treat disease, prolong life, and save life when it’s endangered.

How about taking the theory of evolution at face value: not as an attack on the Christian faith, but as an imperfect model to help scientists understand the world and how it works. Instead of seeing it as having religious grounds, maybe you ought to at least try to look at it as a neutral area of study that seeks neither to confirm nor deny the existence of God or the validity of your religion.

It’s also time to start taking the bible at face value and recognize the folly of interpreting every line literally while trying to prove it with science, inadvertently driving people away from God while eradicating the fundamental tenet of Christianity: faith.

Is this so unreasonable?

In Closing…

Fundies, it’s time to start doing your job as Christians and start influencing people by setting a good example rather than attacking them for things that you don’t know much about either. Maybe you’ll be such a sparkling example of the love of Christ that you’ll convince others to come to church and join you. Then, you can start winning souls for Jesus like the bible commands instead of trying to mingle science with religion, which just makes people write you off as crazy.

What you could do is follow the example of non-fundie Christians out there who follow the teachings of Jesus, but don’t seem to give a shit one way or the other when it comes to scientific explanations of spiritual events or origins. I’m merely speculating at this point, but maybe these people are enlightened in that they realize how pointless origins really are. Where we came from is not nearly as important as the fact that we are here now and must learn to live together in peace.

How about it, fundies?

An etiquette guide for the religious?

Why am I helping the fundies? I’m glad you asked. I got Jesused again by the neighbors today, only this time they sent their daughter to give me “you’re going to hell” literature. Seems I was right–we didn’t fool them after all. Anyway, the tackiness of the approach struck me again.

Tip #1: Sincerity - Be genuine for once.

For starters, if you’re going to be gung-ho about your religion try introducing yourself to the person you’re trying to convert. My family and I have been “witnessed” to twice by the neighbors, both times by surprise, and we don’t even know their fucking names.

Start out with,”Hey, my name is Joe.” The idea is not revolutionary. In fact, most normal people introduce themselves when they first meet somebody. I’ve always found that people are more receptive to “Hello” than “Accept Jesus or you’ll burn in hell.”

Tip #2: Patience - Good things come to those who wait

Alright, now you’ve sniffed each other’s butt, figuratively speaking. Do you go straight into your holy sales pitch? NO!

Now that you’ve established contact with your target, stay as far away from the topic of religion as you can. There are three things you never talk about with people you don’t know well: sex, politics and religion. Especially religion. This is a very touchy subject for many people. If your goal is to make the other person avoid you from now until Judgment Day, ignore what I’ve just said.

A friend of mine recently brought his girlfriend from overseas to meet his father. He introduced himself, but completely failed tip 2. Shortly after they arrived, he pulled out a brand new bible and handed it to her as a gift. My friend, knowing what his father is like but still not expecting this, looked for any reason he could to get the hell out of there.

Get to know the person. There are plenty of things you can find out just by talking to them. Don’t ask them what church they go to or whether they’re on “the winning team.” Be a friend. You can’t convert people by badgering them about their beliefs.

Tip #3: Humility - Do us all a favor and shut up.

Countless are the times I’ve heard fundamentalists interject “God” or “Jesus” or some random fundie catchphrase unexpectedly and without context. It’s almost as if they’re attempting to insert subliminal messages into the conversation. “We’ve been blessed, praise Jesus, to have so many pens lying around here.”

*record scratch* WHAT? Yes, it is a miraculous event! Jesus had nothing better to do with his eternity and powers so he focused them on guiding the fates of the universe to ensure that you were well stocked on pens.

Talking like a fanatic makes less-religious and non-religious people very uncomfortable. Does this serve your interests? I didn’t think so either. The only purpose this serves is establishing street cred with other holy rollers.

Tip #4: Conversion - The art of preaching without preaching.

As I said yesterday, the best way to win people over is by being genuine and kind to others. I’ve often heard fundamentalists rail the Catholic Church for their practice of Christ-worship, calling it a system that is based on good works instead of faith.

First, you’re not impressing anybody by condemning others for believing in god differently than you do. Second, you’re forgetting something: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

I think what bothers the irreligious most about outspoken fundamentalists has to do with this. You try selling your religion as one that only requires faith… then many of you practice it in such a way. Easy as pie! All I need to do is “accept Jesus,” whatever that means, and I’m home free! Don’t need to put any time or effort into it, I’m as good as can be.

To me, that gives one a license to sin, not a deterrent. “Well I’m saved so I can do whatever I want because Jesus will forgive me.” Good deeds are a required part of Christianity as said in the doctrine. Having faith is not enough; you must actually do something that shows your faith. And I’m not talking about picking up poisonous snakes and dancing with them.

If you people do give a shit about “saving people’s souls,” maybe it’s time to get off your ass and actually practice your religion the way it commands. There’s not a damn thing you can do to convert someone who isn’t already seeking some form of acceptance. People come to faith of their own means and volition, not by someone forcing them to. Doing the things you’re supposed to do as a Christian is the best way to get people to want your values. Requiring their kids to pray to your god at school is not one of them.

Good luck.

Introduction

Welcome to Fundie Week 2008! By now you’re probably wondering what bug crawled up my ass to give me cause to dedicate an entire week of blogging to fundies. Well, For months I’ve been toying with ideas to address the issue of fundamental Christianity and its impact. I just haven’t had the motivation.

Then, last week, I was called intolerant and fearful by a typical fundie for saying that Creationism belongs in a church, not a classroom.

Many of my friends and readers know me as being openly hostile to religion. I’m tolerant of it, but I’ve run out of patience with certain elements of it in several faiths. Why am I not targeting radical Islamists this week? Well, I’d written a lengthy blog about it, but I apparently missed it while transferring everything from my old host. There was also one about fundies and the election.

The reason Christianity is in the spotlight is, well, American Muslims aren’t trying to turn us into a theocracy while Christian fundies are trying desperately to make their beliefs into law, even going so far as to lie about being founded as a Christian nation, something I’ll be covering later this week. By the way, I sometimes use the name “Jesus” as a verb. You’ll understand when you see it.

Anyway, introduction over. Here’s the entry for Day 1. Enjoy.

A Secular View

I’m of the belief that people ought to be able to practice their religion freely, but not to the point where it involves the subjugation or oppression of others, both those within the religion and beyond it. I do not believe people should be told how to practice their faith until it meets this condition.

I also believe that it is Christianity’s mission to spread love rather than hate; to be charitable, to love and accept without preconditions. I think living in such a way sets such an example that makes others want to emulate it as well as the most effective way to convince people to keep their faith.

As such, I wouldn’t dare question the positive impact or significance of Christianity in the greater human story, nor would I challenge the message of love and acceptance it seeks to spread. To me, Christians who practice their faith according to these instructions are among the most admirable people in this society.

So what is this all about, anyway? What do I mean by “fundie?” The term is shorthand for “Fundamentalist Christian.” Fundamentalists are traditionally characterized by their belief that the bible is completely infallible (and even try using science to prove it), their active roles in politics, activism on certain social issues such as abortion, as well as aggressive attempts to make Christian beliefs a mandated part of public institutions (prayer in schools, creationism/ID taught alongside or replacing evolution in educational curriculum, religious symbols on public property, etc.). They’re also known for uncompromisingly supporting for the Republican party and the fanatical rejection of all things deemed “liberal.” They are generally intolerant of secular or otherwise non-Christian thing or ideas.

There are always exceptions to this, but not many.

In short, all of you normal, reasonable Christians out there, don’t get too offended. This isn’t about you. Any fundies out there who read this paragraph and think they’re off the hook, nice try. Quit kidding yourselves–you don’t fit into this category.

I don’t know what’s scarier: fundie behavior or the fact that they see themselves as reasonable. Let’s start with their methods of spreading the gospel.

“And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” - Matthew 4:19

A few days after my family moved into our new house, we received a knock at the door. I was on the couch feeding the baby, so my wife answered it. I heard the whole conversation.

A man from next door had shown up to welcome us to the neighborhood. We’d previously been warned about the neighbors by my mother in law, herself a practicing Christian. These people, she warned, were Baptists, and there was a good chance they’d come over to preach to us.

As soon as I figured out who it was, I knew what to expect. He said welcome to the neighborhood, then immediately went into his speech. With feigned, heartfelt sincerity he eventually asked,”If you die tonight, do you know where your soul will go?” After asking us if we had a church yet, my wife, who thankfully thinks quick on her feet, said we were Methodists and went to a different church across town. The guy sounded disappointed at this, and I haven’t heard from him since. I still don’t know what he looks like.

I don’t think we fooled him, though. The car hasn’t been out of the driveway on a Sunday morning since my last all-nighter on the computer, when I left to restock on cigarettes.

Obviously, the conversation would have gone a bit differently had I answered the door. This is not the first time I’ve been Jesused. Even back in my conservative Christian teen years, these door-to-door salvation salesmen came Jesusing. Even though I’d marked the “saved” box on the newcomer form some places pass out during gatherings, some errant youth pastor’s assistant would come knocking. In hindsight, maybe they wanted a check mark instead of an “x” and needed to verify my standings on the roster of eternal judgment.

In a nutshell, I’m familiar with the speech. Even back then I found myself offended that some guy was invading my space to drill me on my beliefs. Now that I’m a secular humanist, that is, one who adopts Humanistic philosophy but is agnostic in respects to the supernatural, my view on this method of “Jesusing” people is that it is very rude.

As I said in the beginning of this article, the best way to spread faith is to be charitable and loving. What fundies read is to be “fishers of men.” What they don’t seem to catch is the rest of the chapter where Jesus goes around helping people: healing the sick, teaching.

In the next chapter Jesus goes on to give a speech of hope. Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are they that mourn. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the peacemakers. And let’s not forget this one:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” - Matthew 5:16

Remember when I said that living by example is the best way to win people over? I came across this passage long after I wrote that. I wanted to see whether the “Jesusers” were acting according to the bible. I mean, I can’t be too angry at them for knocking on my door to sell me their religion if that’s what it commands.

As it turns out, it isn’t. It’s easy to quote the “fishers of men” verse and put the Jesus-fish on the back of your car. But in doing that while ignoring the rest of what he has to say, the fundies are missing the forest for the trees, aren’t they? Looks like Mr. Christ agrees with me.

Besides that, knocking on someone’s door to Jesus them but disguising it as a friendly welcome to the neighborhood is very tacky, and it makes you come off as fake and insincere. Want to make newcomers receptive to you and perhaps eventually your attempts to convert them? Start by welcoming them to the neighborhood and actually meaning it. Be genuine, because first impressions last. If you come with ulterior motives, I’m infinitely more likely to see you as a fraud than a friend on future occasions.

“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” - Luke 6:37

Wow, what a proposal! “Be accepting and benevolent to one another.” Can you imagine the age of peace and enlightenment we’d enjoy if people in this country followed this verse?

This is among the most quoted passages I’ve seen used by Christians and non-Christians alike. Usually, when a non-Christian pulls this one out it’s to throw scripture back in the face of a fundie with an axe to grind.

No, there’s no shortage of judgment among the fundamentalists. Everything from gays to scientists have a special place in hell carved out for them, and they’re not shy about repeating it over and over. Wait.. what happened to all that talk about judgment and forgiveness and not condemning each other, or about the merciful being blessed by God?

Don’t want to hold gay wedding ceremonies in church? Fine, that’s your business. Telling the state it can’t declare them a couple while condemning any who are in favor of these rights? Not so much.

From an outside perspective, we don’t see Christian soldiers fighting the holy war against Satan. We see hypocrisy, and that’s never appealing in any situation. And the fact that men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could amass such a following and wield such power serves only one purpose: to convince us that we’re right about you fundies and your hypocrisy.

“The Bible is the infallible Word of GOD!” - Fundie slogan.

One of the things that befuddles me is the complete absence of flexibility on this point. Even when you point something out and quote the verses that conflict, they act like they didn’t hear it, or that it doesn’t exist, or they say you’re lying.

For instance, let’s do a little exercise:

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” - Matthew 1:16

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” - Luke 3:23

So which is it? Last I checked, men don’t give birth and according to fundies it’s a sin for two fathers to raise a child.

Can’t we just accept that, hey, maybe the bible isn’t quite as infallible as we want it to be. There are hundreds of direct contradictions and holy inconsistencies throughout the tome, so either the angelic branch of God Press which does the copy editing needs to hire some better staff, or the bible isn’t a perfect text.

Can’t they just concede this one point? Inconsistencies and contradictions don’t invalidate your whole faith. God-inspired they might be, they were still penned by the hands of men.

And why all the focus on these details anyway? Is the fundamentalist faith so weak that it requires infallibility? Is the conviction they claim so fragile as to need scientific backing? Must faith be instituted by the state and be taught in schools in order for fundies to maintain it?

If not, then why bother with it? Why all the hostility towards secular things, why the demand for religious conformity?

From my perspective, it is the sum total of stubborn ignorance and blind faith of a weak-minded group of people who have no problem thumping their bibles but either haven’t read them or are wholly incapable of comprehending the concepts therein. I dare you to prove me wrong.

From an outside perspective, one which is at least respectful to the message of Jesus, they’re a disgrace to their religion and an embarrassment to their fellow believers. It’s pretty god damn bad when someone with a secular mindset finds more value in the bible’s teachings than those who are so zealous as to eagerly condemn others to hell for not believing the way they want us to believe.

Not all Christians are like this, thankfully. But the ones who are are outspoken and motivated enough in their intolerant crusader mindset to have the ability to overturn elections and, by extension, cause the rest of us to suffer as a result of their ceaseless stupidity. The only solution I can offer is vigilant resistance and constant ridicule, because reason doesn’t work. We tried that already, and if any fundies out there get wind of this week’s roster, I’m sure they’ll be more than willing to give us an example.

In closing, I’d like to take this moment to offer a way out. I’d like it to serve as a reminder not just for fundies, but all Christians. It needs to be said once in awhile to remind them: this is what you’re up against. When you go out into the world and are hurt or confused by its reaction to your beliefs, this is why. When the rest of the world is constantly reminded of the bitter closed-mindedness and hatred that seems to consistently emanate from the religious right, fundamentalists aren’t the only ones who get a bad rap.

If any Christians out there are reading this message, fundamentalist or otherwise, take these words of advice: Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Love your neighbor as yourself. When pride comes, then comes shame. Judge not. Condemn not. Forgive. Those of you who actually read the bible might already recognize it.

But then again, maybe I’m just wasting my time: “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.” - Proverbs 23:9

NOT!

So I’m listening to NPR on the way to work this week, and I hear Steve Inskeep talking to the Chinese ambassador about the riots and violence in Tibet over the past few weeks. I was floored. The ambassador (Zhou, I think his name was) consistently ignored Inskeep, who repeated the same question at least three times that I recall.

Zhou claimed that the Dalai Lama is not looking for autonomy or socio-cultural preservation, but an independent state. He characterized the attacks not as a riot or the culmination of many problems bubbling beneath the surface, but as violent criminal acts without reason or provocation. He said there was no evidence of ethnic conflict and that they were only doing this to disrupt the 2008 Olympics.

The question Inskeep repeatedly asked was something along the lines of,”Do you think the rioting happened because of legitimate concerns about Tibetan autonomy/grievances with the Chinese?” Zhou ignored it every time until the end, where he finally said (to paraphrase),”no, it’s not about autonomy, it’s not about ethnic conflict, these people are nothing but criminals.”

When Steve pointed out that the Chinese were ignoring the four days of peaceful protests before that, or that the fact that Chinese- and Muslim-owned businesses were targeted specifically indicates ethnic conflict, he was again ignored.

Shitty.

Listening to the Chinese ambassador speak was an exercise in patience. It mirrors the frustration I feel when I see the current administration dodging or ignoring important questions or completely stonewalling investigations. We may bark about how China is communistic while preaching the evils of communism, but if we do we will miss the similarities to what our government has been up to in recent years.

Now is a great time to inventory of all the ways our government has been running an authoritarian regime, for it is not Communism that makes the Chinese oppressive, but authoritarianism. Forced integration with Tibet, state-run media, tightly controlling what foreign journalists are allowed to see, throwing dissenters in prison, excessive use of execution. These aren’t Communist principles, they’re the outcome of authoritarian governing.

Dictionary.com defines the word “authoritarian” as follows:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an /????r??t??ri?n, ????r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] –adjective

1.	favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2.	of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3.	exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

–noun

4.	a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

This is one of those rare cases where every definition seems to apply. Let’s start with number one: Obedience and subjugation to authority. In the United States, this can pretty much be summed up with Cheney’s recent answer to the figures that show 2/3rds of Americans oppose the Iraq war: “So?”

I think more than anything this shows the natural attitude of resentment that those with authority can have towards those without. “I’m in charge here, you’re under me, you’re supposed to obey me, I know what’s best.” It’s my will over your will.

Other examples can be observed through the actions of President Bush. Telling Joe Lieberman that the reason we should trust his decision to go to war with Iraq, the reason we’ll succeed, is because of his instincts rather than because of actionable intelligence or a reviewed case by experts and advisors. This is typical of the arrogance that often accompanies authoritarian policy: we believe we’re right no matter what.

Another example is the administration’s treatment of the press. Certain questions dealing with serious or otherwise important matters are considered unacceptable and are usually not answered. One grievance of the press is the administration’s intentional lack of availability. At a press conference during John McCain’s recent publicized visit to the White House, at the end of the session one reporter demanded weekly press conferences with the president or White House spokesperson. In response, Bush ignored the question and instead chided the group for their bad behavior. It’s the media’s job to report, and the administration is telling them what is and is not acceptable in a society where freedom of the press is a guaranteed right.

China may run the media and control what gets inside Chinese borders or what gets beyond, but our officials ignore reporters, deny them access, attempt to cover up their activities and do their best to hinder any kinds of investigations or investigative reporting.

The 9/11 Commission is a good example. Bush and Cheney, after intially opposing the panel being created, finally agreed to be interviewed–but not by the whole panel. Instead, they’d meet with the panel’s top two officials and limit the questioning, if that is indeed what took place, to a mere hour. The meeting took place in private at the White House, neither Bush nor Cheney were under oath and no recordings were allowed–no media was allowed. No camera, no pictures, no transcript. Cheney, whom many see as some kind of evil puppeteer for Dubya, was with him the entire time. Condoleeza Rice also refused to publicly testify.

There’s an old adage in Washington that goes “if you have nothing to hide, don’t act like you do.” Remember all those 9/11 conspiracies gaining popularity a few years back? Ever wonder how people come up with them?

Other less-benign examples include the quashing of protests ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention. The story linked here is pretty long, but definitely worth the read. In short, a large group of people were peacefully marching down 16th Street in NYC and were trapped as the police blocked off the entire block with orange construction netting, arrested, hauled away in busses, put in what was described as parking garages for hours and hours before being taken to a jail for many more hours. Last I checked, it’s illegal to hold someone for over 24 hours without being charged. But it wasn’t only the protesters. Some people just happened to be passing by, or saw the commotion and were curious, or were coming out of shops and diners. Some were journalists. Everyone on the block was arrested and harassed, and some were even assaulted by what appeared to be random selection.

It settles any and all debate over the Bush administration’s unconstitutional and authoritarian tactics. But of course, supporters will call the writer a liar and attack his credibility rather than the merits of the story, which are myriad. But then again, if one must see it to believe it, the article has photos, audio and video. Go ahead and click the last link I posted. Then watch the rest of the videos. Suffice it to say, China isn’t the only country that suppresses protest. What the NYPD did was violate the Constitutional First Amendment right to assembly and the Fourth Amendment protection against being arrested for no god damn reason. I’ve linked to the wikipedia entries in case you Conservatives out there, who love misquoting the Constitution and claim to uphold and defend it, get confused.

I wouldn’t be surprised if any Republicans arrested in that incident were Democrats by the time the day was over. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just accepted being abused like that and blamed it on the protesters. Sigh. Naturally, the mainstream media didn’t devote much attention to it, as it wasn’t yet stylish to publicly criticize the administration on important things like accountability, moral or legal. They were content with making fun of Bushspeak.

The PATRIOT Act, government-sanctioned police brutality, just about any Act or Law having to do with Homeland Security or domestic terror written since 2001… The list goes on and on.

Number two: centralization of authority and lack of constitutional accountability to the people. The examples in this case are plentiful and many are common knowledge, and many fall into both categories: suspension of habeas corpus, torture, the lack of Executive Branch accountability to Congress or the Judicial branch, getting away with direct disobedience to Congress, abuse of Executive privilege, using “National Security” as an excuse to completely obfuscate any matter of public record, blatant abuse of personal information for political purposes, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Number three: Excercising complete control of others’ will. I should just say “Fox News —> Conservatives” and leave it at that, but while the current administration is pro-Fox, Fox isn’t the government. For this, I’ll simply make a passing reference to certain police “compliance” tactics and, the big one, Bush’s leash on the DoJ, as evidenced by Alberto Gonzales’ protect-at-any-cost policy with the Bush administration, as well as the subsequent refusal by Michael Mukasey to enforce Congressional contempt charges against White House staff. Suffice it to say when the president (or vice president) wants something, it’s carried out or else. For evidence, one need look no further than the Iraq War commanders who’ve resigned after criticizing Bush’s policy. Heh, number four could be summed up as “Neo-Conservatives and Bush supporters.” But really, many of these examples fit into multiple definitions.

However, when observing the government’s trend in authoritarian policies it is important to acknowledge that it did not start with George W. Bush, nor will it end with him. In terms of the police, more hardline tactics were used under Janet Reno than any that come to mind when I think of Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey. Waco, Elian Gonzales, numerous cases of brutality, etc.. You don’t have to be a right-winger to be a bastard.

It was Benjamin Franklin who remarked about the Constitution and the government it describes,”…this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” Seems Mr. Franklin sees the historic pattern. And now, in the way he predicted, we’re approaching the end of the cycle. If nothing else, shouldn’t this be a cause to look at mistakes of past governments and learn something from them? Jingoist reasoning won’t suffice; “That won’t happen, this is ‘merica” is not a valid argument.

While listening to the Chinese ambassador explain his country’s actions in response to the rioting in Tibet, I thought the similarities were astounding. We’ve a way to go before we catch up to the Chinese government in terms of magnitude, but we have a hell of a good start and a mindset and determination to get there. We haven’t had our own Tienanmen Square yet, we don’t persecute the religious, and we don’t jail our journalists for doing their jobs… oh wait, yes we do.

Strange… the left is supposed to be comprised of “Commies,” yet it’s the right-wingers with business interests who buddy up to China and kiss their ass. Oh, that whole human rights/Communism thing? It gets swept under the rug.

Yet, who are the ones proposing a boycott of the Summer 2008 Olympics in Beijing? Could it be the stalwart champions of democracy, those unrelenting routers of Communism, the Conservative Republicans? From all their talk, I’d think it would have to be, wouldn’t you? Well, we’d be wrong. Instead, it’s the same group of so-called Anti-American liberals who are protesting about Darfur and Tibet, those liberal Hollywood actors, dubious organizations such as UNICEF, Reporters Without Borders, the Genocide Intervention Network, along with Nobel Peace Prize winners and various news organizations.

I wonder, is Fox News among them? They’d have to be, since they’re all about fighting the liberals and their pro-Communism ideology, right? Nope. Wrong again. I guess I’m just not with it today. The International Olympic Committee, who must certainly be dedicated to the spirit of brotherhood and world peace as symbolized by the Olympics? Nope. As David Kilgour points out, the IOC stands to gain tremendous profits off the games. Really, though, listen to the audio. The IOC committee member gets her ass handed to her on a platter.

The end result of all this? Not only is our government coming closer to mimicking China’s policy on human rights while offering a weak rhetorical slap on the wrist over it, we’re now abetting it by participating in the games and muting our criticism. I offer a different proposal: in the spirit of the Olympics, how about the rest of the world unites… elsewhere? We can have the Olympics still. In the spirit of peace, we could hold our protest event at one of the many Olympic stadiums that have served the games in the past, all around the world. China thinks it can use U.S. business interests as leverage in asking us to tolerate their disregard for humanity. But if the rest of the world (or at least most of it) locks arms in protest, maybe the greedy corporations will realize that they can take their business elsewhere. Maybe it will send that message to any government in the world: play by the rules or be left behind, because when it comes right down to it, either we accept their policies and abet their crimes or we don’t.

How about it, world?

I knew I was taking a gamble by defending Pastor Wright a few weeks ago. I knew that until I saw the video, I wouldn’t have an informed opinion or a solid defense of the man. I also knew that Obama is a reasonable, intelligent man. I know that when people preach messages of hate, the few listen, not the many.

I knew what would happen. It’s what usually happens: I was right.

It also proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the blatant bias, divisiveness and lies of the Fox News Network and any Rupert Murdoch production. It proves my accusations of knee-jerk nationalism by the Right as well as the absurdity of their hateful, uninformed views. Since these videos have been around for at least a week and so-called Conservatives are still preaching the same old lie, it proves my point about their self-imposed, willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.

America’s chickens may be coming home to roost, but my ducks are neatly in a row. I can’t help but say it: I told you so.

Thanks to Grandma’s Attic for alerting me to the existence of these videos on YouTube. I’ll embed these videos within this blog, knowing they’ll probably not be viewed and even if they are, most Conservatives will stubbornly refuse to accept defeat and resort to straw-man arguments, ad hominem and hairsplitting to defend their ignorance. Chances are, I’m right about that too.

Enjoy:

Or “NIGCER.” The NIGCER is a loose association of prominent Conservatives coalescing to destroy the image that Conservatives and Republicans are racists.

“It’s not the kind of image we want,” says Chairman I.M. White,”We want everyone to know that we’re not racists, and that we have black friends.”

Indeed, Alan Keyes, the only African American member of the organization has had a prominent role in the group’s promotion. His picture and likeness have been used on every single one of the Institutes’ billboards, commercials as well as its internet and magazine ads.

Board member Ivory Blanco claims she has been using this strategy for years during party events,”When we have a campaign rally, we instruct the camera crews to zoom in on any dark faces in the crowd. The strategy has really been quite successful in making black Americans think that we care.” When asked if Americans can truly believe that the Republicans care in this modern day and age, Ms. Blanco replied,”Of course. We care about getting every vote we can!”

After the furor that broke out over the confusion of their name, President Lynch made it clear that the “G” was silent. Referring to the proper pronunciation of the now-notorious acronym “NIGCER,” Lynch remarked,”Can’t we all just be nicer to eachother?”

“I know what this is about,” Lynch said while addressing the press earlier this week,”yet again, this is about the liberal hatred that consumes people so much that they believe everybody is racist, which Conservatives aren’t!”

When it was pointed out that Rush Limbaugh made basically the exact same comment during a monologue about a speech made by Senator Barack Obama, he coincidentally gave the exact same answer all conservatives seem to give when told that they’ve quoted Limbaugh verbatim,”I don’t listen to Rush. I agree with most of what he says, but not all of it.” Then exited the room with the song “My City Was Gone” playing from the overhead speakers.

This follows a previous charge of racism by groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP over a slogan used by the group which says,”I’m not racist, I own a colored T.V.!”

“We thought it would be better received, you know, like a joke,” admitted the council.

“We are being charged with something that hasn’t existed for half a century! The Civil Rights movement already happened, so race is no longer an issue,” said Chairman White in response to the allegations, citing a common perception by Conservatives across the nation,”Liberals benefit from racism because it helps their cause!”

After acknowledging that those words also “may or may not have been used” by Limbaugh, he went on to talk about how racism in America is raging against whites these days. “Affirmative Blacktion and welfare are a direct assault on the values of this country, and are clearly aimed at making white people scared to leave their homes and afraid that they’ll lose their jobs to someone because he’s black. Only by abolishing these things, which are the sole cause of the racial divide, can we go back to the way things used to be before blacks were given special treatment for everything.”

Asked by a young black reporter what this had to do with dispelling the myth that Republicans are hostile to African American interests, he replied,”Look, Puffy G Dogg or whatever your name is, if you people care about America, you’ll stop demanding everything and see things the way we see them. Bang! No more racial divide!” He then asked security to remove the “thug” because he was feeling “threatened.”

The NIGCER has recently declared its support of John McCain, who said he was “proud to be supported by a group that promotes diversity and understanding between races.” McCain, at the suggestion of board member Ivory Blanco, is currently in Nebraska posing with black families for photo opportunities.

Chairman White expressed concern,”Uh, well we didn’t say anything about diversity. We just want to make sure they understand us.”

Consistently, I see polls that show smart people supporting Obama and, well, not stupid people, but less educated ones supporting Clinton. To wit:

Clinton continues to lead among women, whites, voters older than 45 and those without college degrees. Obama leads among men, blacks, voters with college degrees and those under 45.

Old. White. Feminists. That’s where Clinton leads. Just priceless.

After beginning to read through Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father,” I’ve really begun to put a more human face on the superstar Senator. This book makes him more knowable and I highly recommend it so far. Up to this point it has talked about race, but it isn’t preachy or guilt-ridden like some other books I’ve read.

The reason I’ve decided to blog is to address, yet again, the Clintonian brand of hypocrisy that causes me to wonder why anyone can take her seriously.

Earlier this month I went on about how Hillary remarked that this is one of the most positive campaigns she’s ever participated in. When I see that, I see head games being played with the rest of us. Not merely “do one thing and say another,” but acting as if what you say is more real than what you’ve actually done. It is very reminiscent of what we’ve seen during the Bush administration. Bush claiming the economy is great and working how it’s supposed to, yet people are losing their homes left and right while individuals and businesses with flawless credit are being flatly denied for loans they’re fully capable of repaying. Among others, far too many for me to list here while keeping on-topic.

Part of what I’ve seen from the Clinton camp has been a kind of immaturity. Thinking back to my childhood, I remember how all the petty arguments between playmates seemed to go. “You’re stupid!” “Nuh uh! You’re stupid!!” “Nuh uh!! You are!!!” One thing I’ve observed on several occasions is the Clinton campaign pulling a “Nuh uh! You are!”

Take, for instance, the blatant refusal of Hillary Clinton to distance herself from Geraldine Ferraro after her racially charged comments concerning Senator Obama. Her denunciation of those remarks was lukewarm at best. She didn’t ask Ferraro to leave, at least publicly, and only mildly criticized statements that required a strong, decisive response.

Then, through some super-human act of contortion, Ferraro turned it around to claim that the entire fiasco–over statements she made–was somehow the fault of Barack Obama. Somehow, drawing anger from people for suggesting that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he’s black means that people are being racist towards you because you’re white? How does that even make sense? How, in any way, could this be blamed on Obama?

The response from the Clinton campaign? Silence.  I wouldn’t characterize the Clintons as racists, but it’s pretty shameful that they’re still willing to exploit the issue for power.

For the tepid reaction, prominent figures from around the country made their disdain heard. Keith Olbermann and many others accused Hillary of campaigning against Obama by acting as if he were the Democrat, and she were the Republican.

What did the Clinton campaign have to say about this? “Nuh uh, he is!” It was perhaps a week ago when I saw this claim by Clinton’s campaign manager. Do they just copy what the other side says every time they want to make a comeback?

It gets me every time how Clinton gets all high and mighty over the matter of ethics. On the matter of such she says she’s been fully vetted, thus making “vetted” the latest buzzword amongst the news crowd. Because she has been fully vetted, it is argued, she is the most electable candidate. The overtones are obvious in this one: Barack Obama hasn’t been looked into like I have, and therefore has undisclosed baggage of the ethical variety.

Is that so? Senator Obama has released his tax returns and openly addressed controversies surrounding his dealings with Tony Rezko, who is under investigation for corruption charges, as well as the controversial statements of his pastor. As a response to the claim that he hasn’t been given the rubber glove treatment by the media, the Obama camp demanded that Clinton release records of her tax returns as well as a list of financiers for the Clinton library. For this, Obama is compared to Ken Starr–a name reviled by numerous Democrats–special prosecutor whose report eventually led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

So she hasn’t been fully vetted after all. Looks like she does, in fact, have something to hide. One can only wonder how much they cook the books for her tax returns and list of donors to her husbands library before finally releasing them.

The troubling part is not that she has something to hide–the Clintons have been hiding crap for years, we expect that. It’s the sheer hypocrisy of it all. How dare Barack Obama question Hillary Clinton’s integrity, yet she does the same thing by suggesting he’s got enough skeletons in his closet to cost him the general election? Then goes on record perpetuating myths against him with statements like “(he’s not a Muslim) as far as I know” yet expects us to buy her victim facade as her campaign releases unflattering photos and digs up dirt wherever they can get it, all while claiming that the media has given him a free pass?

Where does the madness end? Does anybody really buy this shit? Oh, that’s right, she’s attracted the uneducated majority. No wonder they keep falling for it. I guess I’ve answered my own question.

I was watching CSPAN tonight while taking care of the boy. Gotta tell ya, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a hell of a guy. Apparently, after having their secret session concerning the FISA act, House Democrats were as incensed as ever over the Republicans’ demand to grant retro-active immunity to the telecom corporations that assisted in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Republicans’ argument against the Majority-supported bill went something along the lines of,”If we don’t protect these American corporations from opportunist trial lawyers’ lawsuits, then we haven’t done our job to protect the American people from the terrorists.” Throughout the counter-arguments, the telecommunications companies in question were referred to as “good Samaritans” and having “answered the call in this country’s hour of need.”

First off, let’s get a few things straight. One, while the House-proposed bill does not provide retro-active immunity for the telecom companies, it does (at least according to the CSPAN ticker at the bottom of the screen) make it “easier for telecom companies to defend themselves” should they be confronted with one of these “opportunist” lawsuits.

Second, the FISA bill, as it currently stands (and has stood for 30 years) enables intelligence agencies to obtain all the information they need with a court order or, in emergency situations, without a court order. This is what Republicans want, right? To be able to cut through the red tape to protect Americans from terrorists when the need arises? As they’ve continued to reject this bill, I’d say they want to make a law which violates Constitutional protections against “unnecessary search and seizure” by cutting out the courts altogether. Wait… didn’t they claim to be the holy defenders of the Constitution back when Clinton was in office? Tsk.

Third, and this is something I’d really like to touch on, is about the immunity for communications companies. One thing House Democrats made a point to mention is that the telecom industry already has immunity–with the proper documentation: court authorization via a warrant. It was argued that telecom companies, who have the means to full immunity for wiretapping, willingly chose to bypass the rule of law and suddenly want protection from it, when the mechanism for their immunity was already available if only they had followed the procedure.

That’s like illegally downloading something online, getting caught, then asking for a receipt as a proof of purchase without actually buying anything. The conditions for getting a receipt to avoid charges have not been met. Likewise, American citizens’ phone records, conversations and internet activity have all been handed over to the government without following the law, the People found out, and now they’re wanting immunity–their receipt–even though the conditions of getting it haven’t been met. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? The point: they had their chance at immunity and knowingly blew it.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the telecom industry actually is a victim in all this. I’ll bet they were told–or assumed–that they were being given full legal authority to do this for the Bush cabal. They were led to believe that what they were doing was perfectly legal, and maybe, just maybe, they complied out of naivety rather than complicity. I don’t think that just because their crimes were tied to the White House, that they share the same operating procedure and philosophy as the Bush regime. We don’t have all the information regarding who did what yet, so I’m willing to suspend judgment on the companies themselves while this gets sorted out in Congress. If it can be shown that they acted egregiously (and not merely gregariously), then let the chips fall where they may.

Bushie, however, is obviously by this point beyond any benefit of the doubt.

Naturally, the Senate says this is a “step in the right direction” but are still babbling about reaching a compromise. In other words,”If the House adds immunity to this thing, because we’re all getting creeped out by Dick Cheney’s evil stare and want to get this over with as quickly as possible, we’re willing to overlook any earmarks you glue to this sucker.” I’ll bet the “compromise” is at least similar to this.

I don’t get what’s so terribly offensive about Wright’s sermons. I don’t agree with all of it, but I can at least see where he’s coming from.

Browsing the news articles today, I found a wealth of ignorance left by commentors on the articles. I couldn’t help but think,”Oh look, white Republicans ganging up on a black Democrat because his pastor–not he, but his pastor made comments that reflect ugly truths and perceptions of white Americans, things you white Republicans aren’t comfortable acknowledging about yourselves. Then, without even willing to look at why you’re being criticized (since understanding is a catalyst for resolution), you simply make a judgment about a man based on comments FROM HIS PASTOR. His pastor, who you’re labeling a bigot while refusing to accept a shred of responsibility for the things he’s angry about.” Who’s the hypocrite again?

What gets me about it is that these are comments from people–and you can tell by their arguments–who wouldn’t have voted for Obama anyway. It’s made by people who are looking at this as a way to justify their already-racist attitudes. Is race involved in this election? Hell yes it is. When you read the tripe these people regurgitate, it becomes quite obvious.

A good percentage of them were only regurgitating what they heard on Limbaugh. I caught part of his racist diatribe during lunch and hit the refresh button on one of these stories, only to see it filled with comments that weren’t merely inspired by Limbaugh’s statements, but were directly plagiarized, at times word-for-word! Republicans are such sheep.

Anyway, I don’t think the pastor believes that white people are the root of all evil. In fact, nowhere did I see him even suggest that. But from a black perspective race is important, especially–especially–considering this country’s history. I think we can all agree that there are issues within the black community that can’t be fixed by any amount of reparations or actions by whites, things that need to be dealt with from within, but that doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. People ought to take this into consideration when weighing the Pastor’s statements.

In addition to that, I can’t find any fault with what he said. That Hillary had it easier than Barack? He makes a good case for it. Is the idea that maybe we were responsible for 9/11, maybe even had it coming, so outlandish? Tell that to the 9/11 Commission, the Iraq Study Group, numerous political scientists and foreign policy specialists. Tell it to the intelligence community. Tell it to the people of the Middle East. Tell it to Palestinians.

The blowback phenomenon works almost like a law of physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” When we grant Israel a license to do whatever it damn well pleases while we turn a blind eye to their crimes against humanity, we would be reasonable to assume there would be consequences. When we attack foreign countries based on lies while arming their enemies, it would be reasonable to think that there would be resentment. When we allow our corporations to run amok in these areas, it is reasonable to believe that we may be viewed in a negative light. It is not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary to assume that when we employ an unjust foreign policy towards a region, their people will hate us. It is insane to ignore the fact that every person killed as a result of our policies has friends and relatives who wish to avenge them.

It is reasonable, my friends, to draw a line connecting our actions in the Middle East and the attacks of 9/11 as a direct repercussion. The attacks were evil, but they were not random, and they were not unprovoked. No, I don’t find anything wrong with the Pastor’s thinking.

Now we’ve got the Conserfascists demanding that Obama outlines which parts he does agree with (copying this line from Limbaugh, like everything else they think), rather than simply saying he doesn’t agree with certain parts. Apparently, to a conservative, this is an Ace-in-the-Hole argument, even though it’s not an argument. They reason that even though he may not agree with certain statements, he’s been listening to 20 years worth of these sermons, so he must agree with some of what he says (never failing to add foreboding finger-pointing Republican emphasis).

The truth is, like I said before, these people weren’t voting Obama anyway. They’re happily going to vote for whatever bum the Republicans squeeze out of their dookie-holes. In this case, John McCain is the turd they’re willing to sniff for the next 4-8 years. I, however, smell another foulness on the air. You see, most of the time, Republicans don’t even give a shit about the Democratic candidate until one has been chosen. This year, however, they’re all over it. If you ask me, I think it’s part of their little fraudulent conspiracy to put Hillary Clinton on the ballot. Scumbags.

Originally Posted on January 11th, 2008:

My poor, poor neglected blog. There’s so much that’s happened since last time that.. well, I’m not sure where to start.

RealID. This turd has been floating in the toilet known as Washington D.C. for quite awhile now. Today, I find out that they’re trying to renew efforts to implement it.

Besides the obvious difficulties to overcome with manufacturing and distributing such a thing, getting states to comply and putting in place an infrastructure to get the RealID from the government to the citizen, there’s the ethical argument against it, which goes something like “WHY THE FUCK IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTING LIKE NAZI GERMANY?!”

Really, folks. They’re talking about requiring one of these things to board aircraft (and possibly trains) and enter federal buildings. Next thing you know, they’ll have traffic stops with armed guards (which are already a well-practiced scam) requiring a RealID to pass through. Police are already infamous for randomly asking for identification without a reason. There’s no question about it, this is awfully reminiscent of WW2 German soldiers stopping people at checkpoints to check their “papers.”

Only, we don’t have papers. Instead, we’ll have an ID card with a sort of microchip inside. This chip will store your personal information (and will quite probably act as a gateway to all sorts of other information, like what books you read, for instance), which is easily attainable by people with what amounts to an RFID snooping device. All they need to do is stand next to you. And we thought identity theft was a problem today!

I understand the concern for protecting against terrorism. I really do. I understand that certain measures can be taken to prevent it, including standard security procedures. But also, not inflaming people’s hatred of our country with belligerent foreign policy while letting our corporations do whatever they damn well please overseas would help.

What other people need to understand is that terrorism, by its very nature, is random and unpredictable. The only way to control that which is random is to have control over everything. The Patriot Act. Gitmo. Checkpoints. Department of Homeland Security. Unauthorized wiretapping. Real ID. This is obviously what they’re trying to accomplish. To that, I say benevolence brings about better conditions that totalitarianism. We, as a nation, need to go back to fighting the good fight rather than trying to justify fighting the bad one.

Even the government itself has been transparent about being opaque. Donald Kerr, our deputy national director of intelligence, says that “Privacy is not synonymous with anonymity.” Well, Mr. Kerr, you cannot maintain freedom through control, nor can you save it by forcing protection upon it. Despotism is synonymous with tyranny.

—–

In other news, women who are planning on voting for Clinton because she’s a woman are sexist idiots.