Which will the religious right choose, Ayn Rand or Jesus?

Paul Ryan could very possibly cost Romney the religious right vote. The religious right has always been an awkward coalition to hold together. The only way you can get a group of narrow sectarians, many of whom believe the other faiths in their coalition are going to hell, not to turn on each other is to get them to focus on a common enemy. So far Obama has been the perfect foil, but as soon as the Obama camp starts playing quotes from Paul Ryan’s hero Ayn Rand attacking religion, as in the video below, it will hard to get religious folk to motivated to support a philosophy that mocks them. Unless Paul Ryan renounces Ayn Rand, and soon, he may be an albatross that Romney cannot afford to carry around his neck.

 

http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/aynrandvsjesusmemo/

for more links on Rand:

http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/

Paul Ryan: I don’t get it.

Nominating someone who doesn’t believe in government to be Vice President is like recommending someone with a flamethrower to be assistant fire chief. Would you go a surgeon who didn’t believe in medicine, or a plumber who didn’t believe in running water? Why would anyone vote for a Vice President who has said he doesn’t believe in the job?

Can the human brain cope with virtual reality?

When animals get trapped in a feedback loop unrelated to survival it can spell doom. Species that get too good at interspecies competition can develop nonadaptive traits that lead to extinction. If a human mammal sits at a terminal and develops a cyber life outside of nature, how long before it can no longer deal with such threats as ecological degeneration and perils unrelated to the virtual world within which it now finds meaning?

Thanks to Bob Dailey for this article.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/virtual-reality-is-addictive-and-unhealthy/

Sermon: “Blaming Eve”

What do we do with the strange places in the Bible that are either scientifically wrong, or ethically horrific? In this sermon I look at the church’s tendency to use the story of Eve to justify its own oppression of women. I also look at the passage in Timothy that tells women to shut up and just make babies.

From the sermon:

“The Bible is not a rulebook, it was never intended as a rulebook. It’s not a thesis, a dogma. It’s none of that. When it’s used that way, it’s being misused. A lot of times preachers say that the Bible is like the owner’s manual of your car. You open it up, and that just tells you everything you need to know about how you should live. But the Bible wasn’t put together in a factory. It’s not like a car, it’s not like a handbook. It’s like a forest that grew over thousands and thousands of years, and it’s a mixture of good, bad, crazy… just as a forest is a mixture of poisons and medicines. And the point is not to say, ‘This is good, this is bad; this is true, this is false.’ but ‘How do you use each of those plants? Where does it apply? Where does it become medicine, where would it be poison?’

“The way that you interpret the text is, ‘Does it look like Jesus?’ We use love as the interpretive tool.”

 

http://staopen.com/podcast/2012/rigby8_5_2012.mp3

Obama won’t prosecute Goldman Sachs

It’s not really a surprise, but a tremendous disappointment, to read that Goldman Sachs will suffer no consequences for its role in one of them most massive scams of all time. Investors need to remember that no one in Washington is protecting them. I understand the argument that the law is written in such a way that prosecution for banking crimes is very difficult, but I also remember that, when the U.S. finally got serious about shutting down the moffia, prosecutors had to work around laws that had been written by people on the take. They began to lean on the criminals in any way they could. That pressure began to change the culture of hopelessness that confronted anyone who wanted to shut down organized crime.

Neither presidential candidate will deal seriously with this problem. Romney believes in this form of ruthless capitalism, and an active Department of Justice would mean that Obama might have to arrest some of his closest advisors. But it’s not too early to be thinking about what might lie beyond today’s limited options.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/09/158534212/u-s-wont-prosecute-goldman-in-fraud-probe?sc=17&f=1001

40 years later, U.S. to clean up Agent Orange

I was so happy to see this story. I know some are saying it is too little too late, but it’s never to late to come to your senses.

Forty years ago, the U.S. was spraying herbicides in the jungles of Southeast Asia killing Vietcong, innocent villagers, and U.S. troops alike. Finally, we have agreed to help clean up some of the damage done by that immoral weapon linked with cancer and birth defects ever since the war.

The reason this story is important, is because we are being poisoned by the fairy tales we are telling ourselves. I visited a veteran from the Vietnam war a few months back, who still could not get adequate treatment for his exposure to that chemical. The sooner we tell the truth about our history and take responsibility for our actions, the sooner we can look the world, and our own veterans in the face.

It may little, and it may be late, but I prefer to see it as a step in the right direction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/us-moves-to-address-agent-orange-contamination-in-vietnam.html?_r=1

Romney accuses Obama of “war against religion”

Obama’s smear campaign against Romney has given him a 7 point lead. Perhaps out of desperation, Romney is taking a track that gives us a hint his VP nomination. If Romney is going after the paranoid religious zealot vote, as this attack implies, his running mate will have to be a Tea Party approved messenger. Romney can focus on getting the Wall Street and business crowd. His Vice Presidential candidate can play the “holier than thou” attack dog role that will be necessarily to make the Wall Street crowd and the religious zealots continue to believe they have anything in common.

I do not believe this identification with pro-choice people and hatred of religion has ever been a good long term strategy. Many national mainstream religious groups, (e.g. Methodist, Presbyterian, Jewish and American Baptist) have position statements saying that abortion should be safe and legal. When Republicans say that everyone who is pro-choice is attacking religion, it becomes clear that they consider fundamentalism to be the only true version of the faith.

I don’t know enough about electoral politics to know if Obama could have won a campaign focused on the issues, but he came out of the gate slinging mud and the rest of the campaign will go downhill from here.

The KKK: looking for a few bad men?

When I was a teenager back in Dallas, I knew several people in the Klan. One day a woman came up to me with a piece of paper held to her chest. “Are you a member of the white race?” I was speechless, not because I was unaware of racism, I was speechless because I had never heard such a stupid question. I stood there looking at my pasty white arms, while the woman decided I was not made out of Klan timber.

I never got to see the paper she was holding, but I assumed it was an application to the Klan. I wondered what kinds of other stupid questions might be on it. The man who shot the Sikhs in Wisconsin left behind an application to the Klan. What follows is an article from Slate magazine on the applicatin they found.

You have to be racist and white, of course, but the Klan sees themselves as Christian as well. If you are ready to go through the looking glass into the world of a white supremist mind, the link below is a Slate article on the application found by law enforcement people in the home of the shooter.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/wade_michael_page_applied_for_kkk_membership_what_s_on_a_klan_application_.html?wpisrc=sl_iphone

My 5 Favorite Atheists

 

I recently ran across an article by an atheist (Ian Murphy, Alternet) criticizing five of the most popular atheists of our day (link below). I too believe it is a duty to distance myself from the words and actions of my own beloved group (the church) when those words are untrue or the deeds unfair. Moved by Ian Murphy’s sense of fairness, I thought I would pay homage to five atheists who have taught me the duty of radical honesty.

 

Bertrand Russell was a philosopher and mathematician whose book Why I am not a Christian helped me realize the importance of being honest and open about what no human being can know.

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Clarence Darrow was an attorney in the Scopes trial, but he was also a fearless advocate of free thought.

“Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.”

Robert Ingersoll is the Shakespeare of free thought. Is speeches against religion are some of the best sermons I have ever read.

“We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of (humankind), reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. (Human beings) in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average (person) of to-day — of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience — and for them all, (humanity) is indebted to.”

Stephen Jay Gould was an atheist who explored how science and religion could co-exist as different kinds of approaches to life. He was attacked by the intolerant of both sides.

“Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

 

Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” was a non-theistic hymn to the universe. He saw the scientific method as basic humility and as the only possible cure for the nightmares of the imagination.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”

http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-most-awful-atheists

Will the Presidential Election of 2012 be worth covering?

Obviously, voting is a bedrock duty for any citizen, but when neither candidate addresses the issues of policy and instead focuses on their opponent’s past sins, is it a mistake for newspapers to report their comments as news? In other words, does journalism have a duty to give minimal coverage to mudslinging, and to insist that candidates say something of substance if they are going to get coverage?

I don’t care if Obama once rode an elevator with a communist. I don’t expect that anyone as rich as Romney would pay his or her fair share of taxes. I can see the flaws both candidates bring to this election, what I would sorely like to know is where each of them intends to drive the bus.

What follows is a NY Times column commenting on this dilemma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/resetting-the-campaign-agenda.html?_r=2&ref=thepubliceditor