Of course they do. Most of the western world now understands that two wrongs don't make a right. That someone killing someone doesn't make it right to kill them. That if killing people is wrong unless its in self defense or to protect someone, then the death penalty is wrong.
Why? Because a person in jail is not able to kill another innocent. A violent criminal can be put in a cell by them selves and given limited privileges outside it. In the case of this story, a man shot his girlfriend and now gets the death penalty. His killing of one person is very "eye for an eye" and is likely supported by many christians.
The US Supreme Court has made it official that killing criminals is okay with the constitution now. So lets take a toll. Police tazer old people to death, but tazers are still widely used, even on old people. States can execute criminals for killing others (eye for an eye and two wrongs make a right). The United States Government can spy on its citizens with no warrant simply by calling them a domestic terrorist, which is very loosely defined. The US Government can hold suspected terrorists and domestic terrorists in definitely without charge. The US Government can torture suspected terrorists and domestic terrorists. Its not a wonder the rest of the world hates us. We are who we used to defend the world from. How shameful.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Obama and the White Vote: Should he be worried?
Analysis: Maybe Obama should worry - Decision '08- msnbc.com
This MSNBC article brings up some really interesting points. However, I think it really fails to take into account the depth and strength of peoples dislike and disgust of George W. Bush. The idea is that there are allot of voters who won't vote for Obama because he is black. Well, that may be true. There are people who won't vote for McCain because he is old as well.
The thing Obama has to do is link McCain with Bush. McBush cannot and will not lose an election. Democrats, whether they like or dislike Obama will vote for Barack. They will not vote for McBush giving George a "third term". Obama would have to do something so horrible as to pale the last 8 years for Democrats to vote for McCain.
That being said, he will lose some votes. In any negative campaign, the negativity does get some people. It is to be expected. Much in the same way, when the democrats finally get a hold of McBush and his lobby loving past, including the lobbyist running his campaign, McBush will lose votes.
What people should see is that Obama leads McCain in national polls by nearly 5%. McCain hasn't under gone any scrutiny and Obama has gone through hell, yet people still lean towards Obama. Once people get to hear the McCain story from the democrats view point, this thing might be over before it starts. Barring anything new coming out, Obama doesn't have anything to worry about in my view.
This MSNBC article brings up some really interesting points. However, I think it really fails to take into account the depth and strength of peoples dislike and disgust of George W. Bush. The idea is that there are allot of voters who won't vote for Obama because he is black. Well, that may be true. There are people who won't vote for McCain because he is old as well.
The thing Obama has to do is link McCain with Bush. McBush cannot and will not lose an election. Democrats, whether they like or dislike Obama will vote for Barack. They will not vote for McBush giving George a "third term". Obama would have to do something so horrible as to pale the last 8 years for Democrats to vote for McCain.
That being said, he will lose some votes. In any negative campaign, the negativity does get some people. It is to be expected. Much in the same way, when the democrats finally get a hold of McBush and his lobby loving past, including the lobbyist running his campaign, McBush will lose votes.
What people should see is that Obama leads McCain in national polls by nearly 5%. McCain hasn't under gone any scrutiny and Obama has gone through hell, yet people still lean towards Obama. Once people get to hear the McCain story from the democrats view point, this thing might be over before it starts. Barring anything new coming out, Obama doesn't have anything to worry about in my view.
Religion Goes to the Dentist
'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000 - National - theage.com.au
For those of you who haven't read this story, it should make you laugh. Its another religious nut story. Another person who just doesn't get that not everyone wants you to shove your religion down their throats. In this case, very literally!
Paul Gardner is a dentist, a "spiritual" dentist at that. He is a professed christian who has apparently been "praying" over patients for years with out complaint. Of course this lady was a schizophrenic and was probably not in the mood to be told she had demons in her. And to pile it on, he told her that her wife had demons in him too.
But then, he and others believe that his "command prayers" have helped patients over come gagging, fear of needles, anxiety, crying, and vomiting! However, the agency over such things in Australia made sure to send a strong clear message about this. He was fined $10,000 for unprofessional conduct and he was directed to undergo counseling on the relationship between his religious beliefs and dental practice. Let me rephrase that.
There is no place for your ridiculous religious superstitious belief in medicine! Pray to yourself or do it at home, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on someone in a vulnerable position, someone in your care. It is unethical.
He is of course doing the christian think, nailing himself up on a cross and making himself out to be a martyr. If he doesn't stop, I hope they force him out of practice. If he isn't intelligent enough to understand what business ethics are in medicine, then he shouldn't be allowed to treat people.
For those of you who haven't read this story, it should make you laugh. Its another religious nut story. Another person who just doesn't get that not everyone wants you to shove your religion down their throats. In this case, very literally!
Paul Gardner is a dentist, a "spiritual" dentist at that. He is a professed christian who has apparently been "praying" over patients for years with out complaint. Of course this lady was a schizophrenic and was probably not in the mood to be told she had demons in her. And to pile it on, he told her that her wife had demons in him too.
But then, he and others believe that his "command prayers" have helped patients over come gagging, fear of needles, anxiety, crying, and vomiting! However, the agency over such things in Australia made sure to send a strong clear message about this. He was fined $10,000 for unprofessional conduct and he was directed to undergo counseling on the relationship between his religious beliefs and dental practice. Let me rephrase that.
There is no place for your ridiculous religious superstitious belief in medicine! Pray to yourself or do it at home, but you don't have the right to force your beliefs on someone in a vulnerable position, someone in your care. It is unethical.
He is of course doing the christian think, nailing himself up on a cross and making himself out to be a martyr. If he doesn't stop, I hope they force him out of practice. If he isn't intelligent enough to understand what business ethics are in medicine, then he shouldn't be allowed to treat people.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Casting the Mold - Part 3 - The Mute Man
So far, I have addressed concerns with the person who can't see the reality right in front of his/her eyes, followed by the person who refuses to listen to the truth or some how justifies the reality into something they can accept. I want to wrap up this series by discussing a common reality with in the church today. This entire series has been focused around right wing fundamentalists, end time theology, and biblical literalists. But today, I want to speak about those in christianity and indeed religion in general, that do not espouse these types of destructive faith structures. Members of the church that understand what a metaphor is, and understand that the bible is man made, and that understand that there is no need to act the way fundamentalists do if their god is indeed all might and all powerful.
I have met and indeed discussed religion with many of these types of people. They are smart and intelligent but can't seem to let go of religion. They often accept that science is correct, and I have often been told by them that science only uncovers what god as already set in motion. Thus the discovery of evolution is merely the discovery of gods mechanisms for the advancement of all life. There are more of them then I had originally thought. However, they are willing to speak to me and engage christian fundamentalists in an anonymous fashion on a forum or chat room, but are unwilling to make a public stand against them.
These people I coin mute. Why? Because they "get it" to a much higher degree, but don't want to offend those that don't. Their refusal to stand up to fundamentalists and literalists in part allows such practices to continue in full force. If they were to stand up and speak out against it, would the church not eventually snuff out radical fundamentalism with the exception of a few straggling cults? An internal revolution would relegate such ridiculous beliefs as a talking snack and the destruction of the world to their proper place as a cult. People would then treat them as such instead of giving them air time and having to pretend like they believe something that is even remotely sane.
But they don't and they remain silent, not wanting to side with atheists and rationalists. Who really knows why, but I think it is out of fear. Fear that breaking that fundamentalist core will in turn break their religion completely. And they are right to fear that. If religious texts are not to be taken literally, then what is to say anything in it is to be taken seriously at all? After all, if you can ignore the immorality of god in the old testament, then you have just decided true right and wrong on your own in the very bible that you claim gives you morality. If you don't need a literal bible to determine morality, or any other book for that matter, then why do you need religion at all? And since it is religion that has determined that an all powerful being exists, then on what foundation does a belief in god exist at all?
Thus, at its core, religion IS the dangerous fundamentalism that I am speaking about. To demolish it, is to necessarily demolish religion. There is not much room for one without the other. But as long as the Mute exists in the church, there will always be flourishing fundamentalism, dangerous, and unashamed.
I have met and indeed discussed religion with many of these types of people. They are smart and intelligent but can't seem to let go of religion. They often accept that science is correct, and I have often been told by them that science only uncovers what god as already set in motion. Thus the discovery of evolution is merely the discovery of gods mechanisms for the advancement of all life. There are more of them then I had originally thought. However, they are willing to speak to me and engage christian fundamentalists in an anonymous fashion on a forum or chat room, but are unwilling to make a public stand against them.
These people I coin mute. Why? Because they "get it" to a much higher degree, but don't want to offend those that don't. Their refusal to stand up to fundamentalists and literalists in part allows such practices to continue in full force. If they were to stand up and speak out against it, would the church not eventually snuff out radical fundamentalism with the exception of a few straggling cults? An internal revolution would relegate such ridiculous beliefs as a talking snack and the destruction of the world to their proper place as a cult. People would then treat them as such instead of giving them air time and having to pretend like they believe something that is even remotely sane.
But they don't and they remain silent, not wanting to side with atheists and rationalists. Who really knows why, but I think it is out of fear. Fear that breaking that fundamentalist core will in turn break their religion completely. And they are right to fear that. If religious texts are not to be taken literally, then what is to say anything in it is to be taken seriously at all? After all, if you can ignore the immorality of god in the old testament, then you have just decided true right and wrong on your own in the very bible that you claim gives you morality. If you don't need a literal bible to determine morality, or any other book for that matter, then why do you need religion at all? And since it is religion that has determined that an all powerful being exists, then on what foundation does a belief in god exist at all?
Thus, at its core, religion IS the dangerous fundamentalism that I am speaking about. To demolish it, is to necessarily demolish religion. There is not much room for one without the other. But as long as the Mute exists in the church, there will always be flourishing fundamentalism, dangerous, and unashamed.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The War on Science: Expelled!
Only in America can the intelligent and reasonable be the minority. A new movie is in the theaters call "Expelled". It is about teachers being expelled for trying to teach creationism in the class room. Its centered around the idea that evolution is "just a theory" and "intelligent design" should be taught as its equal. That some how this entirely religious principle is some how on the same field of play as a scientifically proven theory.
But what Mr. Ben Stein fails at in this movie a basic understanding of either evolution or a theory. I will explain why.
1.) He states that evolution is, after all, just a theory. Just a theory, like something that hasn't been proven. Well, Mr. Stein, if you knew anything about science you would understand the falsity of this statement. Gravity is also just a theory. A theory is a working frame work for describing particular events. Even when a theory is proven conclusively, it is still a theory, and can still be changed if more evidence comes to light. A theory is the top title a new idea can be given, after facts are collected, a hypothesis is given and tested, and those two steps repeat over and over again. When a hypothesis has enough facts and tests that have proven it true, it is given the title of a theory. A theory is also testable and can be changed if new data becomes available. But it is always a theory.
2.) Mr. Stein also tries to put creationism, or intelligent design, on par with evolution, and indeed, even above it. But intelligent design CANNOT be on par with the Theory of Evolution. Why? Because it is not testable. Thats why courts have ruled that it can't be taught in science class, any more than teaching the Egyptian creation myths can be taught in the science class. Thus, if it can't be tested, it can't be falsified in theory, thus is not science. A rudimentary understanding of this would be nice on Ben Steins case, and indeed, the 75% of America who don't understand this as well.
3.) Expelled also makes the laughable statement that some how evolution teaches that every thing is by chance. They use the same worn our arguments that a tornado can't go through a junk yard and leave a fully assembled boeing 747.
No, it can't. But the comparison with evolution is faulty on many levels. First, a plane is not a living organism that will transfer genes to its offspring, thus it can't possibly be effected by evolution. Second, evolution simply does not teach that everything happened by chance. In fact, it is the opposite of random chance. It is a slow gradual process in which one single change happens due to one or more of a hand full of process from natural selection, genetic drift, or other ideas of how evolution has occurred. But the fact remains that the archeology and the current study of biology and genes proves conclusively that evolution has happened. And it happened over millions and billions of years. Most of the evolutionary changes have not been ultimately beneficial to a species as 99% of the worlds species over the years have died. But its never chance. On member of a species is born with something that gives it a better advantage over the rest and so he lives to reproduce and the others that don't are left behind. Or an event causes two different groups in a species to be separated from each other. Over time, as we can observe in real time with humans and other animals, the genes maintain small changes that slowly change their core dna. Ultimately these two groups become different species that can't mate any more. They are a different breed from where they came. This can be seen in real time with a couple species of fish and fruit flies. This is known proven and observed science.
Evolution isn't the theory of chance, it is the theory of adaptation. The theory that says our body simply adapts to its environment, and that our genes slowly change over time, and in the end, the one that is strong enough to survive an environment change will live on while the others die. And two groups of a species, when give enough time away from each other and in different environments while necessarily change to become distinct from each other. It is not change, it is cause and effect, plain and simple.
The simple reality of this "debate" between ID and Evolution, is that one is filled with scientific facts, including "missing links" and archaeological data to support it, and the other one wouldn't exist if not for people believing in an ancient text that tells of an omnipotent being creating the world. If not for religion, then this "theory" would never exist. ID isn't science, it is religion. If a SCIENCE teacher insists on teaching his/her religion as science, then they should be expelled. And if Ben Stein isn't going to bother looking at evolution from something other than a christian apologists ignorant point of view, then he shouldn't be making movies.
But what Mr. Ben Stein fails at in this movie a basic understanding of either evolution or a theory. I will explain why.
1.) He states that evolution is, after all, just a theory. Just a theory, like something that hasn't been proven. Well, Mr. Stein, if you knew anything about science you would understand the falsity of this statement. Gravity is also just a theory. A theory is a working frame work for describing particular events. Even when a theory is proven conclusively, it is still a theory, and can still be changed if more evidence comes to light. A theory is the top title a new idea can be given, after facts are collected, a hypothesis is given and tested, and those two steps repeat over and over again. When a hypothesis has enough facts and tests that have proven it true, it is given the title of a theory. A theory is also testable and can be changed if new data becomes available. But it is always a theory.
2.) Mr. Stein also tries to put creationism, or intelligent design, on par with evolution, and indeed, even above it. But intelligent design CANNOT be on par with the Theory of Evolution. Why? Because it is not testable. Thats why courts have ruled that it can't be taught in science class, any more than teaching the Egyptian creation myths can be taught in the science class. Thus, if it can't be tested, it can't be falsified in theory, thus is not science. A rudimentary understanding of this would be nice on Ben Steins case, and indeed, the 75% of America who don't understand this as well.
3.) Expelled also makes the laughable statement that some how evolution teaches that every thing is by chance. They use the same worn our arguments that a tornado can't go through a junk yard and leave a fully assembled boeing 747.
No, it can't. But the comparison with evolution is faulty on many levels. First, a plane is not a living organism that will transfer genes to its offspring, thus it can't possibly be effected by evolution. Second, evolution simply does not teach that everything happened by chance. In fact, it is the opposite of random chance. It is a slow gradual process in which one single change happens due to one or more of a hand full of process from natural selection, genetic drift, or other ideas of how evolution has occurred. But the fact remains that the archeology and the current study of biology and genes proves conclusively that evolution has happened. And it happened over millions and billions of years. Most of the evolutionary changes have not been ultimately beneficial to a species as 99% of the worlds species over the years have died. But its never chance. On member of a species is born with something that gives it a better advantage over the rest and so he lives to reproduce and the others that don't are left behind. Or an event causes two different groups in a species to be separated from each other. Over time, as we can observe in real time with humans and other animals, the genes maintain small changes that slowly change their core dna. Ultimately these two groups become different species that can't mate any more. They are a different breed from where they came. This can be seen in real time with a couple species of fish and fruit flies. This is known proven and observed science.
Evolution isn't the theory of chance, it is the theory of adaptation. The theory that says our body simply adapts to its environment, and that our genes slowly change over time, and in the end, the one that is strong enough to survive an environment change will live on while the others die. And two groups of a species, when give enough time away from each other and in different environments while necessarily change to become distinct from each other. It is not change, it is cause and effect, plain and simple.
The simple reality of this "debate" between ID and Evolution, is that one is filled with scientific facts, including "missing links" and archaeological data to support it, and the other one wouldn't exist if not for people believing in an ancient text that tells of an omnipotent being creating the world. If not for religion, then this "theory" would never exist. ID isn't science, it is religion. If a SCIENCE teacher insists on teaching his/her religion as science, then they should be expelled. And if Ben Stein isn't going to bother looking at evolution from something other than a christian apologists ignorant point of view, then he shouldn't be making movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
