Thoughts in a Haystack

Casey Luskin is at it again.

He is putting up bits and pieces of his law review article in the Hamline University Law Review, about "teaching biological origins," at the Discoveryless Institute's Ministry of Misinformation. Timothy Sandefur has already commented on one such snippet. If you want to subject yourself to 64 pages of tedious tapdancing around the law, you can see the whole thing in a pdf file here.

This time Luskin is featuring the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in LeVake v. Independent School District. What Luskin mentions but fails to follow up on is that LeVake's main claim was that he was being denied his right under the Constitution to freely exercise his religion by not being allowed, while on the public payroll, to spout such creationist bafflegab (taken from a "white paper" LeVake wrote at the request of the school district on what he intended to teach) as:

"[N]either evolution or creation can be considered a science because neither are [sic] observable at the present."

"[P]roponents of either interpretation must accept it as a matter of faith."

"The process of evolution itself is not only impossible from a biochemical, anatomical, and physiological standpoint, but the theory of evolution has no evidence to show that it actually occurred."

"the amazing lack of transitional forms in the fossil record."

"the mutation changing a leg into a wing could [not] be beneficial for the creature who possessed it."

"The theory of evolution is in clear violation of [the Second Law of Thermodynamics]."

"Natural selection occurs, but it is inadequate to produce 'macroevolution'"

LeVake also included more standard ID claims, including a list of things exhibiting "incredible complexity" that supposedly cannot be explained by evolution, such as:

"The structure of the microscopic bacterial flagella [sic]."

"The woodpecker's tongue and shock absorber."

"The complete metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly."

But remember folks (say it all together now!) ID has nothing to do with religion!

Amazingly, Luskin says, with a straight face: "There was no indication that Mr. LeVake intended to teach creationism or intelligent design." No indication but his own words, that is.

Luskin does make the point that "the Minnesota Court of Appeals did NOT find it was illegal to offer scientific critiques of evolution" but, instead, found "that administrators may exercise tight control over the curriculum." This, according to Luskin is good and sufficient reason "for clear legislative protection of academic freedom for teachers to assert such rights [to teach scientific critiques of evolution]." But then you have to accept that what LeVake was trying to inflict on the innocent minds of his students were "scientific critiques of evolution" and that state legislators and Kindergarten through 12th grade teachers are better able to decide what scientific critiques are than the scientific community is.

The consensus of biologists is that Rodney LeVake is full of shit. Why should government employees be allowed to pour intellectual feces into the minds of children because of the teacher's religious beliefs?
.

Labels: ID Not Religious

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:59 PM 3 comments

A Kansas jury deliberated just 37 minutes before convicting an anti-abortion activist of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of an abortion provider.

The jury found Scott Roeder, 51, guilty of gunning down Dr. George Tiller, who operated a clinic in Wichita where late-term abortions were performed. Roeder, 51, faces life in prison when he is sentenced on March 9.

- "Activist Roeder convicted of abortion provider's murder," CNN, January 29, 2010

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 4:32 PM 3 comments

John Lynch at a simple prop has another amusing example of the two faces of ID:

Expelled is now available in the UK., so sayeth the Discovery Institute. And the link on ENV goes to …. a site called Christianvideos.co.uk. But ID has nothing to do with religion. Repeat after me …

So I thought I'd gather together more or less the first ten examples of similar gaffes I came across in a search of my blog:

But ID Has Nothing to Do With Religion

Dr. Egnor Outs ID

Luskin's Pick of the Nits

Checking the Designer's ID

Monkey See

What Does the NAS Know About Science?

The Empty Cat Bag

Careful What You Wish For

Flapping In the Wind

Publishing After Perishing

And some people wonder why we call ID apologists dishonest.
.

Labels: ID Not Religious

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 12:13 AM 3 comments

Here is some interesting news: Ken Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case that banned Intelligent Design Creationism from Dover science classes ... and devout Catholic and author of Finding Darwin's God ... has been elected the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer.

The letter the group sent to Miller inviting him to become a fellow of the committee read, “Members of the committee have long been impressed with your commitment to science, rational inquiry, and public education.” Miller has published two well-known books about evolution, and co-authored a biology textbook that, according to Miller, 30 to 40 percent of U.S. high schools use.

“I have watched (Miller’s) career with admiration,” said Kendrick Frazier, the editor of Skeptical Inquirer. “He has been an effective proponent of good science and the teaching of evolution and an equally extraordinarily effective opponent of bad science and efforts to introduce creationism into the classroom and the public arena.”

Miller said he was extremely pleased to be chosen as one of the committee’s 16 fellows. Although his position does not have any outlined responsibilities, Miller said it is a huge honor and he sees himself becoming involved in the committee’s conferences and the production of newsletters and articles.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 4:50 PM 5 comments

There is an interesting article by Jonathan Dee in the New York Times Magazine, entitled "Right-Wing Flame War!," about Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. Johnson, former darling of the far right, who has now denounced erstwhile allies as "fascists," expressed support for abortion rights, showed contempt for creationism and denounced the religious right, claims that:

... all these beliefs ... are elements of the "classical liberalism" he has always believed in but previously opted not to write about. Why now? The answer is so heretical it seems destined to raise the tizzy-level among his former followers to new heights: "It's not that the war on terror has finished," he said. "It's never going to be finished, but I think things have reached the point now where it's not as pressing as it was. Some of the measures we took to protect ourselves against extremists have been pretty effective. And so I realized, you know, that maybe it's time to tell people that I'm not onboard with a lot of this social-conservative agenda.

[P]erhaps I am, as many suggested to me, just another liberal dupe. Perhaps I even fell for the pretense that Johnson lives in the modest home where I visited him, which bore none of the trappings his supposed sellout would suggest. The U.P.S. man who delivered packages to his door while I was there, and his truck, may have been hired for the day just to snow me; the decidedly un-Mata-Hari-like woman he introduced to me as his fiancée, who brought us water and fruit as we talked in his small home office, may have been a member of the Trilateral Commission. It would be just like a representative of the Mainstream Media to get caught believing his eyes like that.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 9:22 PM 0 comments

Hey, our old friend, the Rev. Tony Breeden, is back pushing his Creation Letter Project that tries to counter the Clergy Letter Project, which includes this statement:

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.

We the undersigned affirm the truth of a Biblical, literal 6-day Creation and strongly discourage any Bible-believing Christian from endorsing or celebrating an Evolution Sunday. Evolution is a lie which undermines both Biblical authority and the foundational basis of the Gospel.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 4:58 PM 12 comments

She is looking for apples.

She takes slices from my hand. Puts her little paws on my fingers, sniffs around (I can feel her whiskers!), then gingerly takes the apple slice in her teeth and backs off to eat it. Ditto the pecan halves.

I get goose bumps every time.

She is the only squirrel among the half dozen or so in my garden who does not flee when I open the door.

But I recognize her mostly because she is very nearly bald.

Skin conditions that cause hair loss in squirrels are not generally fatal (according to Purdue University), but facing a winter without fur can be. Squirrel Girl may die of exposure before spring and I will mourn her passing.

But she will not die of starvation. Not on my watch. ...

There ... are two ways to study Creation: Macrotheology, I maintain, is the study of — the search for — God, the Creator of everything.

Macrotheologists study the holy texts of their culture "religiously." They become conversant in their faith's major tenets. They seek out the greater truths hidden in their temporally bound and sometimes politically charged rhetoric. ...

Microtheology, I maintain, accepts there is much about creation that is outside human understanding: The more we learn the less we know. ...

Microtheologists do not worship nature instead of God. Rather, we have a profound sense of stewardship ... a profound love for all of creation, because of God.

We do not try to mold God in our image to suit political agendas. We make no claim to having God's phone number.

This is microtheology: I may never actually see God, but I can fill the belly of a small squirrel who is in trouble.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 2:53 PM 4 comments

Ed Brayton has the story of a school district in a small town in Ohio which has a "mission statement" which says that the schools "value belief in God." The Freedom From Religion Foundation has threatened a lawsuit and the locals are much agitated*. Faux News is, naturally, out to exacerbate the situation with the ridiculous headline "The Name Of God Is Under Attack In One Local School."

The most telling thing is the actual wording of the mission statement:

We value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, belief in God and religious freedom.

This is so sad when we are told we cant worship God! May God have mercy on thier (sic) souls!

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 10:57 PM 2 comments

There is an interesting story by 17 year-old Esteban Garcia at L.A. Youth about how this young man, who had lost his faith in Catholicism, regained it.

It's not fair to credit too much my "reading between the lines" but I found a striking amount that supports the "social glue" theory of the origin and continuance of religious belief.

Garcia describes losing his faith under the scourge of learning about evolution and his opposition (not lost) to the Church's teachings on gay marriage, contraception, women's equality and the like. Then he attends a retreat in preparation to confirmation (that he cannot avoid because of family pressures). A number of quotes will make my point:

[M]y aunt was the confirmation coordinator and I didn't want to cause any problems ...

The teachers broke us up into groups and told us to draw things that represented the Catholic faith. I'm competitive and wanted to show some leadership, so I suggested a circle because Catholicism teaches about the Church's universality. Everyone agreed and the adult leading our group thanked me.

We moved on to other activities that surprisingly made the day more tolerable. We did an activity with a soccer ball and a few others that stressed the same ideals: team-building, mutual respect and comfort in faith.

[T]hey played a video that showed scenes of teens with their voices in the background, proclaiming, "I'm Catholic!" The video showed five teens explaining the importance of their faith. ... They were people of all ethnicities united by this massive organization, the Catholic Church. In several scenes, they seemed carefree and friendly, as they were running, biking and doing other activities. I couldn't help but have some pride in at one time being a member of such a force.

My reading [of a passage of scripture at Mass] wasn't anything especially moving but being in front of everyone and having to present the words of their faith made me feel included.

I thought back to my First Communion five years before, to my teachers as my first guides, to sitting in the pews of church on Sunday mornings and appreciating the calm and the smells and the warmth of the church.

I felt chills [after reading letters from his "godparents"] but from what I didn't know. It was uncontrollable. Something massive was happening but I still remained reluctant. It was pride. I couldn't accept being absorbed into something I felt I had been disconnected from.

At this point, my eyes were moist. I had goose bumps and my heart was racing. Memories of church, of our nativity scene, of paintings of Christ with his arms outstretched, of reading about Christ walking the Via Dolorosa (the path through Jerusalem on which he carried the cross on the way to his crucifixion), of our rosary prayers, of the excitement of my First Communion, and of my family history so strongly intertwined with the faith danced in my mind.

[B]eing around people united by their shared faith recharges me.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 10:18 PM 7 comments

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, doyen of the climate change denialists, has a truly bizarre screed up at the blog of the Science and Public Policy Institute. Monckton starts off with a perfectly reasonable (if debatable) discussion of the intersection of science and religion, making these claims:

~ There is not the slightest point in any religionist trying to scientifically prove that God created the world; nor is possible to prove that God intended the universe to unfold precisely as it does, by intelligent design.

~ Conversely, science can never prove wrong the proposition that it was God who, directly or indirectly, caused the Big Bang to occur and thus brought our universe into existence.

~ A scientist may legitimately demonstrate that all religions except one, to the extent that they teach matters that are contradictory to one another, must be false; may legitimately believe -- though it is only a belief, for it is not testable -- that all religions without any exception are false but has no scientific basis for saying anything more than that none of them can be proven to be true.

According to al-Haytham, the scientist – the seeker after truth – does not place his trust in any consensus, however broad or however venerable. Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his own hard-won scientific knowledge, and he tests it, and tests it, and tests it again. As al-Haytham put it, "The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road that we must follow."

That's simplistic, of course. No consensus in science is sacrosanct and all are open to questioning on the same basis that formed them in the first place -- empiric evidence. But science builds on our present knowledge and it would be impossible to do science in our present state of knowledge if everything had to be individually confirmed by every scientist before going into new areas. Even more importantly, there is no reason to doubt our present knowledge simply because there is a consensus. But that is precisely what Monckton proceeds to try to demonstrate by citing the following alleged "facts":

~ Scientists led by Sir Fred Hoyle at Cambridge University tried to disprove the Big Bang, first proposed by Georges leMaitre, a Catholic priest, because they objected to the idea that a single moment of creation had actually occurred.

~ There was a misguided and hateful consensus as to the desirability of eugenics that led to the Nazi horrors.

~ Lysenkoism was a consensus, agreed to by the governing class of the day.

~ HIV was not treated with the "standard policy response" to a new, fatal, incurable infection, by testing everyone repeatedly, and isolating all carriers of the infection immediately, compulsorily and permanently, because a particular "pressure-group" lobbied heavily to prevent the usual public-health measures from being put into place created a consensus in the "governing class."

~ DDT, harmful only to the mosquitoes that cause malaria and yellow fever, was banned worldwide, on entirely specious, pseudo-scientific grounds.

The fact that the scientific consensus quickly accepted the Big Bang, while Hoyle fought a losing rear guard campaign against it, makes that instance, even if Mockton's characterization of Hoyle is correct, an example against his case that consensus is untrustworthy. Lysenkoism was never a scientific consensus, but one enforced at the end of a gun under one, and only one, repressive regime. Absence the threat of the Gulag, there is no reason whatsoever to compare Lysenkoism with the consensus on climate change. Besides the hint of homophobia in his claims about HIV, it is hardly true that we treat infectious diseases with permanent quarantine. Leper colonies are a thing of the past and hepatitis C patients walk the streets. His claims about DDT are, charitably, overblown, in that it was never banned for disease vector control and, in any case, it was was already succumbing to insect resistance due to its overuse as an agricultural pesticide. While science has much to be ashamed of in the case of eugenics, it is at least questionable if there was a scientific consensus on what should be actually done, as in involuntary sterilization. Even if it was a consensus, a single example is insufficient to carry Monkton's claims.

But then he gets truly weird:

Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

Amusingly, the advocates of ID, almost entirely religious believers, are constantly engaged in dishonest tactics in support of the very thing that Monckton states is impossible: to produce scientific evidence for God.

Morality being the necessary and exclusive province of the religious is a joke ... a condition Monckton also seems to suffer from.

___________________________________

Via Open Parachute

___________________________________

P.S. As Dave has helpfully pointed out in the comments, there was wide support among Christians, who, according to Monckton "preach the necessity of morality," for eugenics in America, a fact that the United Methodist General Conference admitted and apologized for in 2008. That in no way expiates whatever scientific support there was for eugenics but it clearly contradicts Monckton's claim that religion is some sort of antidote to the immoral use of the trappings of science.
.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 4:27 PM 6 comments

A thought:

The eighteenth century, as everybody knows -- this is a platitude -- was the age of the great triumph of science. The great victories of science are the most phenomenal event of that period; and the most profound revolution in human sentiment which occurred in that age was the result of the destruction of older forms -- the result of the attack both upon the established religion on the part of organised natural science, and upon the old medieval hierarchy by the new secular State.

At the same time, without doubt, the rationalism went so far that, as always happens in such cases, the human sentiment which is blocked by rationalism of this type sought for some kind of egress in other directions. When the Olympian gods become too tame, too rational and too normal, people naturally enough begin to incline towards darker, more chthonian deities. This is what happened in the third century BC in Greece, and what began happening in the eighteenth century. ...

There is no doubt that, while perhaps happiness and order might be provided by the new scientific philosophy, the irrational desires of men, the whole realm of those unconscious drives of which the twentieth century has made us so very acutely aware, began to breed some kind of satisfactions of their own. So, perhaps somewhat to the surprise of people who believe the eighteenth century to have been a harmonious, symmetrical, infinitely rational, elegant, glassy sort of century, a kind of peaceful mirror of human reason and human beauty not disturbed by anything deeper or darker, we find that never in the history of Europe had so many irrational persons wandered over its surface claiming adherence. It is in the eighteenth century that the Masonic and the Rosicrucian sects thrive. It is then that all kinds of charlatans and wanderers begin to have an appeal -- particularly in the second half of the century. It is then that Cagliostro appears in Paris and gets involved in the highest circles. It is then that Mesmer begins talking about animal spirits. This is the favoured age of all kinds of necromancers and chiromancers and hydromancers, whose various nostrums engage the attention and indeed capture the faith of a great many otherwise apparently sane and rational persons. Certainly the experiments in the occult of the Kings of Sweden and of Denmark, of the Duchess of Devonshire and of the Cardinal de Rohan, would have been surprising in the seventeenth century, and unknown in the nineteenth. It is the eighteenth century in which these things begin to spread.

Isaiah Berlin, "The True Fathers of Romanticism," The Roots of Romanticism

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:30 PM 7 comments

A group of people get together to observe an eclipse and have some lunch and an angry mob shows up.

The programme began at 11:30 am, just about the time the solar eclipse became visible in Hyderabad [India], with the public being encouraged to view the eclipse through filters and dark glasses. People were then treated to a sumptuous meal comsisting of vegetable fried rice as well as vegetrian and non-vegetarian curries.

The problem?

"We have organised this programme to clear the air and make people aware about blind beliefs that are myths.

For example, it is believed that one should not venture out during the eclipse. Hence we have encouraged people to come out and witness this spectacular event. Also, there is a belief that one should not consume food during the eclipse. To prove that there is no harm in eating or drinking during the eclipse we have arranged lunch and are inviting people," explained Varadaraju Reddy, general secretary of Manava Vikasa Vedika.

A part of the event was to prove that the eclipse holds no ill effect on pregnant woman and they are free to go about their normal routine. A few pregnant women have cut vegetables and also consumed food against the popular belief that refrains pregnant woman from taking up any such activity during the eclipse.

Trouble erupted soon with a mob objecting to the programme and branding it as anti-Hindu and raising Jai Sri Ram slogans.

"These organisations come into picture only to criticise Hindu customs and beliefs.

Why can't they do the same with other religious beliefs?'' said a furious Srikanth K.

"We suspect that the pregant women and other participants in the programme belong to other religions,'' he added.

Taking strong objection to the allegations levelled against the organisation, Reddy said, "We are not against any religion. We support science and want to show that science is universal.

If we study the past we learn that religion has always been a hindrance to science and development. It is sad that instead of supporting the awareness programme, a few people wanted to create a nuisance,'' he remarked.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:59 PM 4 comments

Remember when Pat Robertson told the people of Dover, Pennsylvania that:

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city.

And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there.

And you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know Napoleon the 3rd and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the Devil said, 'Okay, it's a deal.' And, uh, they kicked the French out, you know, with Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by, by one thing after another, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other side is the Dominican Republican. Dominican Republic is, is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etcetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come.

Uh huh.

While Haiti is tied for the most poverty stricken country in the world, to call the Dominican Republic "prosperous," with 42% of its population under the poverty line, is a cruel joke. But maybe worse than that is Pat's thinking that the earthquake is a "blessing in disguise" because it might cause a "massive rebuilding" of the county's infrastructure, a concept that his own drones, such as Bill Horan, seem to be shocked at. Buildings are worth more than people?

I've argued that we can't know what "evil" is from the perspective of an infinite omniscient being but there is no doubt that we can tell what is evil from a human perspective.

And Pat Robertson is it.

_________________________________

Via James McGrath at Exploring Our Matrix

_________________________________

Update: In the face of increasing criticism, Robertson has now "explained" his comment. It has to do with Dutty Boukman, a voodou priest who was captured and beheaded by the French shortly after the slave revolt began. As Wikipedia explains:

On 22 August 1791, Boukman presided in the role of houngan (priest) together with an African-born priestess and conducted a ceremony at the Bois Caïman and prophesied that the slaves Jean François, Biassou, and Jeannot would be leaders of a slave revolt that would free the slaves of Saint-Domingue. A pig, which symbolized the wild, free, and untamable spiritual power of the forest and the ancestors, was sacrificed, an oath was taken, and Boukman and the priestess exhorted the listeners to fight bravely against their oppressors. Days later the Haitian Revolution began. Boukman was not the first to attempt a slave uprising in Saint-Domingue, as he was preceded by others, such as Padrejean in 1676, and François Mackandal in 1757. However, his large size, warrior-like appearance, and fearsome temper made him an effective leader and helped spark the Haitian Revolution.

This ceremony has long been referenced as the "pact with the devil" that began the Haitian revolution. This negative branding of the ceremony at the Bois Caïman was possibly instigated by either the French who fled Haiti, or the Christian missionaries who were in competition with the local Vodou beliefs.

According to Robertson's statement:

This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed.

I'm willing to bet that the number of "scholars" who have concluded that Haiti is cursed by God is "countless" because you can't count zero.

More importantly, in typical fashion, Robertson's "God" proceeds to smite people who had nothing to do with the supposed "sin."

Some "God."
.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:59 PM 17 comments

Ed Brayton has pointed out a wonderful editorial by Theodore Olson, conservative heavyweight and lead counsel, along with David Boies, in the trial in Federal District court seeking to overturn California's Proposition 8 denial of gay marriage. Olson demolishes the "arguments" against gay marriage invoked like mantras by the intolerant Right and makes a conservative argument in favor of it. But here is the real heart of the matter:

We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education -- until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:58 AM 2 comments

The good ship Carnival of Elitist Bastards has set sail a little late ... okay, a lot late ... but, given all the end of the year libations to the returning sun, it is no small accomplishment to get a crew aboard at all.

To see how ridiculous climate change deniers can become, check out the story of how Build-A-Bear was attacked for having videos on its website in which little animals learn about manmade global warming and the dangers it holds for the North Pole and then teach Santa Claus about the problem. Build-A-Bear was accused of "politicizing" the issue.

There's no indication that the management of Build-A-Bear is part of any doctrinaire environmentalist movement ... they quickly pulled the videos in response to the complaints ... but, instead, were simply responding to the scientific consensus on the issue to "inspire children, through the voices of our animal characters, to make a difference in their own individual ways."

It is the deniers who have politicized the issue, insisting that the matter is to be determined not on the basis of the science but, rather, on the basis of ideology and that children should not even know what the scientific conclusions are. It is another case of projection.
.

Labels: Carnival of Elitist Bastards

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 9:39 AM 0 comments

... or so says Mark Buckle, pastor of Fernhill Church in City Rise, New Zealand:

We are discovering new things every day.

Technology is advancing and everything useful is getting smaller and cheaper. We seem to be light years ahead of our not-so-distant ancestors who harboured all sorts of irrational fears and superstitions.

That's great . . . or it would be if we were any less afraid than our forebears!

It seems to me that our fears are amplified by our heightened knowledge.

For all the supposed answers, there are just as many fresh questions.

The apparent gains in knowing all this "stuff" don't seem to have brought us any closer to the solutions to life's fundamental needs.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 3:48 PM 4 comments