More than occasionally, I listen to one the ubiquitous right-wing talk radio shows out there (I think it's illegal in this part of the country to broadcast a left-wing show). And, to tell the truth, I often agree with what I hear. But a couple days ago Bill O'Reilly claimed that the founding fathers intended this country to be a Christian country, and that really set me to thinking.
Now, a "country" is a political entity, having a designated head of state, a specific system of government and defined geographic borders. I submit that the founders (all of whom were not even Christian, by the way) most specifically did NOT intend this to be a Christian country, as evidenced by their inclusion in the constitution of a very specific separation of Church and State. Okay, I know those exact words aren't there, but by "not making a law that respects one religion over another," Jefferson et. al. are obviously advocating a government that is not only secular in itself, but, by definition, equally tolerant of all faiths. Herein lies both the beauty and strength of our constitution and of our government.
On the other hand, a "nation" is a much looser aggregate of people linked by some commonality, be it race, language, or ethnicity. Or even Christianity. If O'Reilly had stated that the founders had intended this nation to be a "Christian nation," I could have let it go (even though I know what he's inferring). As a "nation," that is, a social, sociological, and cultural entity, Christianity was one of the commonalities between a majority of the founders. But, and this is an absolutely key caveat, they were far-sighted enough to be able to separate the structure of a government from the composition of the people. It's a distinction that neither O'Reilly nor our current administration seems able to make.
I should have known better than to tune to The O'Reilly Factor in the first place. What no spin zone?
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
One last bumper sticker
Mrs. L. Described this one to me and, although I do not entirely agree (for those of you who don't know me, I just felt I had to make that point clear), I felt that I should share it.
"Love God - hate his fan club."
Tell it like it is, brother....
"Love God - hate his fan club."
Tell it like it is, brother....
Why is it?
The Dominion of Canada's House of Commons passed a resolution legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the country yesterday. Okay, technically, it still has to be passed by the Senate, but I understand that this is purely a pre-forma procedure.
And so Canada joins the august ranks of those few [3] countries who have actually risen above their own prejudice and formally recognized that citizens either have rights, or they don't. You can't arbitrarily "cherry pick" which citizens have certain rights and which don't -- unlike most things in this world, it's a black and white issue.
The thought has also occurred to me to pose the question as to why, as a nation advances socially, culturally, and technologically, the so-called Christian Church seems to lose influence? Is it because those advanced nation's have matured beyond religion?
I've always admired Canada.
And so Canada joins the august ranks of those few [3] countries who have actually risen above their own prejudice and formally recognized that citizens either have rights, or they don't. You can't arbitrarily "cherry pick" which citizens have certain rights and which don't -- unlike most things in this world, it's a black and white issue.
The thought has also occurred to me to pose the question as to why, as a nation advances socially, culturally, and technologically, the so-called Christian Church seems to lose influence? Is it because those advanced nation's have matured beyond religion?
I've always admired Canada.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Too PC, or not to PC?
Rampant political correctness continues to plague the land. Howard Dean states that the Republican Party is "pretty much a white, Christian party" and pundits from both sides of the divide go wild. Politicians of every stripe rush to distance themselves from Dean, afraid that he'll drag them down with him. Well, I gots some news for ya: The Republican party IS primarily white, and primarily Christian, and if stating the facts is a crime, then send me too jail.
Now that I think of it, I'd wager that the Democratic Party is also primarily a white, Christian party. What's the big deal?
Now that I think of it, I'd wager that the Democratic Party is also primarily a white, Christian party. What's the big deal?
Friday, June 03, 2005
Bumper Sticker Addendum
I just saw this one yesterday and had to add it to my list:
Guns save lives. (Although I continue to maintain that there is no valid reason for the average citizen to even own, let alone carry, a gun, logic such as this goes a long way towards explaining the GNL (gun nut lobby) mentality. How do you counter such a blatant denial of reality?)
Guns save lives. (Although I continue to maintain that there is no valid reason for the average citizen to even own, let alone carry, a gun, logic such as this goes a long way towards explaining the GNL (gun nut lobby) mentality. How do you counter such a blatant denial of reality?)
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Most stupid bumper stickers
In no particular order:
At least I can still smoke in my car (well, have at it!! - just don't complain to me in two years when you're hooked up to an oxygen bottle and the doctor says you've got 6 months to live because the cancer has spread.)
Experience the joy of knowing and doing the will of God (Yes, this entire thing was spread across the bumper. I am not sure how this guy got the number to God's direct line, but more power to him. We all have our crutches...)
Patriots don't vote for Kerry (Yeah, it's a bit dated, but it still ticks me off - labeling anyone who disagrees with you as unpatriotic seems to go against against the very premise of democracy as the expressed will of the people. In fact, I'd suggest that such a sentiment was much more unpatrotic than voting for Kerry could ever be.)
I took a kid hunting at XXXX National Park (So you taught a child how to kill defenseless animals for the sheer pleasure of it? Bravo!)
One story. End of story. (so much for religious tolerance - see also number two above.)
Keep marriage sacred (I am assuming that "sacred" is a code word for perpetuating discrimination by limiting the option to legally marry to those who share the same narrow-minded point of view as you do)
At least I can still smoke in my car (well, have at it!! - just don't complain to me in two years when you're hooked up to an oxygen bottle and the doctor says you've got 6 months to live because the cancer has spread.)
Experience the joy of knowing and doing the will of God (Yes, this entire thing was spread across the bumper. I am not sure how this guy got the number to God's direct line, but more power to him. We all have our crutches...)
Patriots don't vote for Kerry (Yeah, it's a bit dated, but it still ticks me off - labeling anyone who disagrees with you as unpatriotic seems to go against against the very premise of democracy as the expressed will of the people. In fact, I'd suggest that such a sentiment was much more unpatrotic than voting for Kerry could ever be.)
I took a kid hunting at XXXX National Park (So you taught a child how to kill defenseless animals for the sheer pleasure of it? Bravo!)
One story. End of story. (so much for religious tolerance - see also number two above.)
Keep marriage sacred (I am assuming that "sacred" is a code word for perpetuating discrimination by limiting the option to legally marry to those who share the same narrow-minded point of view as you do)
Thought for the Day
"Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals."
by Rabbi-poet Samuel Ullman (1840-1924)
If this gives you pause, maybe you owe it to yourself to stop and take a look at where you are in life and what it took to get there. I know I did, and it was enlightening.
by Rabbi-poet Samuel Ullman (1840-1924)
If this gives you pause, maybe you owe it to yourself to stop and take a look at where you are in life and what it took to get there. I know I did, and it was enlightening.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
A Broken Heart
My heart crys for the poor parents of the two 8-year old little girls found stabbed to death in the city of Zion, Il, yesterday. A permanent sadness settles across the plains.
At times like this I fail to understand how anyone could possibly be against the death penalty.
Peace.
At times like this I fail to understand how anyone could possibly be against the death penalty.
Peace.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
To all of those whom I have to share the road with....
Please, put down the hamburger, newspaper, cigarette, or mascara, leave disciplining the kids until you get home, turn down the radio so that I can hold a normal conversation in my own car, and for God's sake, HANG UP THE DAMMED CELL PHONE!!!
Maybe then you'll be able to stay in your own lane (yes, we each have one), stop at stop signs, and keep up with the normal flow of traffic. I'm just saying....
Maybe then you'll be able to stay in your own lane (yes, we each have one), stop at stop signs, and keep up with the normal flow of traffic. I'm just saying....
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Dumbest Thing I've Read in a Long Time
Perhaps this isn't so very unusual, but the response to it has me thinking. Several weeks ago in a city near here some idiot stalked and killed his estranged wife and her female friend in front of their three children. He followed them in their SUV, forced their vehicle to the side of the road, opened the door and shot his wife in the back as she attempted to run away. And then he went back and shot her friend, for good measure, I suppose. Fortunately for society, the man soon thereafter died when he crashed his own SUV while attempting to flee. Two innocent women dead and three children scarred for life.
Then yesterday I read in the opinion column of our local newspaper that it was all the government's fault for not allowing the wife to carry a concealed weapon in order to protect herself. Now the issue here wasn't that she'd applied for a concealed carry permit and been turned down (she had not), but that, I suppose, it's okay for a mother of three to carry a loaded firearm in her car with three small children. In fact, the writer went to far as to condemn the government for not allowing ALL adults to carry concealed weapons. Silly me, I thought the problem here was that THE HUSBAND DID HAVE A GUN, NOT THAT THE WIFE DIDN'T. After all, he's the one who actually did the deed.
Am I off base here?
Then yesterday I read in the opinion column of our local newspaper that it was all the government's fault for not allowing the wife to carry a concealed weapon in order to protect herself. Now the issue here wasn't that she'd applied for a concealed carry permit and been turned down (she had not), but that, I suppose, it's okay for a mother of three to carry a loaded firearm in her car with three small children. In fact, the writer went to far as to condemn the government for not allowing ALL adults to carry concealed weapons. Silly me, I thought the problem here was that THE HUSBAND DID HAVE A GUN, NOT THAT THE WIFE DIDN'T. After all, he's the one who actually did the deed.
Am I off base here?
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
For those who wondered....
Dada or Dadaism [French, from dada, child's word for a horse] Nihilistic movement in the arts that flourished chiefly in France, Switzerland, and Germany from about 1916 to about 1920 [and later -ed.] and that was based on the principles of deliberate irrationality, anarchy, and cynicism and the rejection of laws of beauty and social organization.
The most widely accepted account of the movement's naming concerns a meeting held in 1916 at Hugo Ball's Cabaret (Café) Voltaire in Zürich, during which a paper knife inserted into a French-German dictionary pointed to the word dada; this word was seized upon by the group as appropriate for their anti-aesthetic creations and protest activities, which were engendered by disgust for bourgeois values and despair over World War I.
In the United States the movement was centered in New York at Alfred Stieglitz's gallery, "291," and at the studio of the Walter Arensbergs. Dada-like activities, arising independently but paralleling those in Zürich, were engaged in by such chiefly visual artists as Man Ray and Francis Picabia. Both through their art and through such publications as The Blind Man, Rongwrong, and New York Dada, the artists attempted to demolish current aesthetic standards. Traveling between the United States and Europe, Picabia became a link between the Dada groups in New York City, Zürich, and Paris; his Dada periodical, 291, was published in Barcelona, New York City, Zürich, and Paris from 1917 through 1924.
In 1917 the Dada movement was transmitted to Berlin, where it took on a more political character. The Berlin artists, too, issued Dada publications: Club Dada, Der Dada, Jedermann sein eigner Fussball ("Everyman His Own Football"), and Dada Almanach.
In Paris Dada took on a literary emphasis under one of its founders, the poet Tristan Tzara. Most notable among Dada pamphlets and reviews was Littérature (published 1919-24), which contained writings by André Breton, Louis Aragon, Philippe Soupault, and Paul Éluard. After 1922, however, Dada faded and many Dadaists grew interested in surrealism.
From: http://www.peak.org/~dadaist/English/Graphics/
Other good sites:
http://www-camil.music.uiuc.edu/Projects/EAM/Dadaism.html
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/dada/
http://members.aol.com/ArionS414/dada.html
M.L.
The most widely accepted account of the movement's naming concerns a meeting held in 1916 at Hugo Ball's Cabaret (Café) Voltaire in Zürich, during which a paper knife inserted into a French-German dictionary pointed to the word dada; this word was seized upon by the group as appropriate for their anti-aesthetic creations and protest activities, which were engendered by disgust for bourgeois values and despair over World War I.
In the United States the movement was centered in New York at Alfred Stieglitz's gallery, "291," and at the studio of the Walter Arensbergs. Dada-like activities, arising independently but paralleling those in Zürich, were engaged in by such chiefly visual artists as Man Ray and Francis Picabia. Both through their art and through such publications as The Blind Man, Rongwrong, and New York Dada, the artists attempted to demolish current aesthetic standards. Traveling between the United States and Europe, Picabia became a link between the Dada groups in New York City, Zürich, and Paris; his Dada periodical, 291, was published in Barcelona, New York City, Zürich, and Paris from 1917 through 1924.
In 1917 the Dada movement was transmitted to Berlin, where it took on a more political character. The Berlin artists, too, issued Dada publications: Club Dada, Der Dada, Jedermann sein eigner Fussball ("Everyman His Own Football"), and Dada Almanach.
In Paris Dada took on a literary emphasis under one of its founders, the poet Tristan Tzara. Most notable among Dada pamphlets and reviews was Littérature (published 1919-24), which contained writings by André Breton, Louis Aragon, Philippe Soupault, and Paul Éluard. After 1922, however, Dada faded and many Dadaists grew interested in surrealism.
From: http://www.peak.org/~dadaist/English/Graphics/
Other good sites:
http://www-camil.music.uiuc.edu/Projects/EAM/Dadaism.html
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/dada/
http://members.aol.com/ArionS414/dada.html
M.L.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
I'm back!
Okay, a couple of people expressed an interest and so I thought, well, I guess the blog doesn't take up that much time. And to tell the truth, it actually made me feel good that at least three people beside myself actually read this occasionally (hint: a comment every once in a while would be nice...). That, and I received this really gross hand bill on my porch the other day that I just had to tell someone about.
It's from the National Alliance, an organization which I was not formerly familiar with, but am apparently eligible to join. But even if I don't join, you can bet I'll be watching for them in the future. I bet you didn't know that the US government is about to start "impressing" citizens into the military to fight for the Jews in the Middle East. Or that if white people would only put racial loyalty in front of wasting their lives on drugs, white superiority would certainly be assured (who are these folks?). Or that whites must all band together to raise millions of dollars to fund new media outlets in order to counter all those owned by Jews. Or even that "all around the world white men are being slaughtered, violently and ruthlessly massacred at genocidal rates" (actual quote). Only maybe not in my neighborhood so much - or perhaps the perpetrators are so very socially conscious that they always clean up those whom they have ruthlessly slaughtered. In any case, I haven't noticed any dead whites on my block lately.
I have only one thing to say to anyone associated with this hand bill, the National Alliance, or JewWatch, and let me be perfectly clear: You make me ashamed. Ashamed that our society puts up with trash like you, ashamed to live in the same neighborhood with you, and ashamed to be associated with you, even if only by skin color. I wake up every morning ready to serve my country whenever she may call, but I'll be God damned if I ever defend your right to free speech. I don't do drugs as a matter of course, and I don't judge people I don't know because of the color of their skin.
Oh, and one other thing. If I ever catch you on my property again, I'm going to kick your God damned ass.... and you can take that to the bank.
M.L.
It's from the National Alliance, an organization which I was not formerly familiar with, but am apparently eligible to join. But even if I don't join, you can bet I'll be watching for them in the future. I bet you didn't know that the US government is about to start "impressing" citizens into the military to fight for the Jews in the Middle East. Or that if white people would only put racial loyalty in front of wasting their lives on drugs, white superiority would certainly be assured (who are these folks?). Or that whites must all band together to raise millions of dollars to fund new media outlets in order to counter all those owned by Jews. Or even that "all around the world white men are being slaughtered, violently and ruthlessly massacred at genocidal rates" (actual quote). Only maybe not in my neighborhood so much - or perhaps the perpetrators are so very socially conscious that they always clean up those whom they have ruthlessly slaughtered. In any case, I haven't noticed any dead whites on my block lately.
I have only one thing to say to anyone associated with this hand bill, the National Alliance, or JewWatch, and let me be perfectly clear: You make me ashamed. Ashamed that our society puts up with trash like you, ashamed to live in the same neighborhood with you, and ashamed to be associated with you, even if only by skin color. I wake up every morning ready to serve my country whenever she may call, but I'll be God damned if I ever defend your right to free speech. I don't do drugs as a matter of course, and I don't judge people I don't know because of the color of their skin.
Oh, and one other thing. If I ever catch you on my property again, I'm going to kick your God damned ass.... and you can take that to the bank.
M.L.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Why I joined the ACLU
Text of an article titled Christian Right Marks Start of `a good 4 years' (by Robin Abcarian - Los Angeles Times)
A couple of hours after President Bush took the oath of office, the indefatigable Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder and chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, was more upbeat than usual. On Wednesday, Sheldon had tossed a Christian bash for more than 800 people at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. The host committee was virtually a who's who of politically important evangelicals, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed and Rev. Jerry Falwell. On Thursday, Sheldon played host to an indoor gathering of about 300 fellow Christians, people who wanted to experience the inauguration events with like-minded people but weren't inclined to brave the weather.
"This is the beginning of a good four years," said Sheldon, who is given to quoting historical figures and this time offered a snippet of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." "Religion and morality," Sheldon repeated. "That's what is happening--that fusion of religion and morality and public policy has now come about."
Comment by L. P. : It seems to me that the fusion of "religion... and public policy" must be effected by at least a partial fusion of church and state, the strict separation of which I will continue to defend until the day I die. Disturbing trends such as the one detailed above are why I joined the ACLU just this morning. Check it out at http://www.aclu.org.
I am reminded of Michael Douglas' character in An American President, when he confronts a crowd of hostile reporters and says "Why yes, I AM a card carrying member of the ACLU - an organization devoted solely to protecting the rights guaranteed to you by the United States Constitution - the question is, why aren't YOU a member?"
So there.
A couple of hours after President Bush took the oath of office, the indefatigable Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder and chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, was more upbeat than usual. On Wednesday, Sheldon had tossed a Christian bash for more than 800 people at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. The host committee was virtually a who's who of politically important evangelicals, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed and Rev. Jerry Falwell. On Thursday, Sheldon played host to an indoor gathering of about 300 fellow Christians, people who wanted to experience the inauguration events with like-minded people but weren't inclined to brave the weather.
"This is the beginning of a good four years," said Sheldon, who is given to quoting historical figures and this time offered a snippet of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." "Religion and morality," Sheldon repeated. "That's what is happening--that fusion of religion and morality and public policy has now come about."
Comment by L. P. : It seems to me that the fusion of "religion... and public policy" must be effected by at least a partial fusion of church and state, the strict separation of which I will continue to defend until the day I die. Disturbing trends such as the one detailed above are why I joined the ACLU just this morning. Check it out at http://www.aclu.org.
I am reminded of Michael Douglas' character in An American President, when he confronts a crowd of hostile reporters and says "Why yes, I AM a card carrying member of the ACLU - an organization devoted solely to protecting the rights guaranteed to you by the United States Constitution - the question is, why aren't YOU a member?"
So there.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
School District Rejects Science
By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania school district on Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal. The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Dec. 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The civil rights groups argued that "Intelligent Design" is a thinly veiled version of creationism -- the belief that the earth was made by God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
On Jan. 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.
Lawyers for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no religious beliefs will be taught.
Intelligent Comment by M. L.:
Intelligent design presupposes that complexity plus existence equals God. A more valid argument would be that complexity plus existence equals a complex existence. But I don’t suppose reason or logic have much play in this particular argument.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
A partial response to my Christian friends who believe (among other things) that the earth is only 5,000 years old
Recent conversations at work have resulted in my being bombarded with the URLs to websites such as
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp ,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp , and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp .
This is not an uncommon response to my professed belief in Science as opposed to religious myth. Needless to say, my beliefs are not very popular in this part of the country, nor, in some cases, are they even well tolerated. More on that later.
As background, I am replying specifically to the article The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young by Jonathan Sarfati (see the first URL above).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend,
I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a fairly logical type. So, as I am unable to respond from the scientific perspective (at least not without a considerable degree of research which I don't have the time to do), I will respond from the rationalist one.
Belief in God does not preclude a belief in Science, so why do you persist in believing in such fictions? This article is based upon the work of (among others) "creationist physics professor Dr. Thomas Barnes" - Unfortunately, the very fact that Dr. Barnes is identified as a "creationist physics professor" undermines it's validity. It is obvious that the good Dr. 1) had already reached his conclusion and was searching for a theory to support it, and 2) is unwilling to be swayed from this conclusion.
True science arrives at a plausible conclusion that explains the phenomena in question only after research has been concluded, therefore leaving open the possibility that any one of many (or even several) explanations might be true. The evidence should lead to the facts, not the other way around.
A second principle of science is that any theory is only as good as the current state of knowledge. That allows the various beliefs of the Greeks, the Romans, Galileo, and today's physicists and astronomers each to be valid for their time, and each (hopefully) is closer and closer to a true and accurate description of a part of our universe. The door, however, is left open for the next theory which may be even closer to the truth - science isn't the answer, it's the on-going process of arriving at the answer. It is implied by the very fact that Dr. Barnes conclusion is based upon the scripture (and therefore upon the word of God), that his conclusions allow no others - in effect, after thousands of years, Dr Barnes has arrived at the body knowledge that signals the end of science. After all, who needs science if you already have the final answer. As a rational human being, I feel it would be the height of arrogance to believe that I alone (or my small band of cohorts) possessed the ultimate answers - but then again, that's what Christianity is about, isn't it?
I have already stated my final point, but will voice it here again: if Dr. Barnes, research, and that of his colleagues, were legitimate, it would be accepted as fact by a majority of the scientific community. There is no underground conspiracy to keep "Christian Science" under wraps - the only criteria for being accepted are the same criteria applied to every single other scientific theory. Unfortunately, Dr. Barnes falls somewhat short.
Allow me to close with a quote from the late Karl Sagan it dosen't deal directly with the Young Earth theory, but with in a larger sense with the legitimacy of a belief in God at all:
"If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.
The bad news for Scripture-based Science is that there is competition. I grow weary, but continue to look forward to the new year. And I remain, as always, your friend.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp ,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp , and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp .
This is not an uncommon response to my professed belief in Science as opposed to religious myth. Needless to say, my beliefs are not very popular in this part of the country, nor, in some cases, are they even well tolerated. More on that later.
As background, I am replying specifically to the article The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young by Jonathan Sarfati (see the first URL above).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend,
I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a fairly logical type. So, as I am unable to respond from the scientific perspective (at least not without a considerable degree of research which I don't have the time to do), I will respond from the rationalist one.
Belief in God does not preclude a belief in Science, so why do you persist in believing in such fictions? This article is based upon the work of (among others) "creationist physics professor Dr. Thomas Barnes" - Unfortunately, the very fact that Dr. Barnes is identified as a "creationist physics professor" undermines it's validity. It is obvious that the good Dr. 1) had already reached his conclusion and was searching for a theory to support it, and 2) is unwilling to be swayed from this conclusion.
True science arrives at a plausible conclusion that explains the phenomena in question only after research has been concluded, therefore leaving open the possibility that any one of many (or even several) explanations might be true. The evidence should lead to the facts, not the other way around.
A second principle of science is that any theory is only as good as the current state of knowledge. That allows the various beliefs of the Greeks, the Romans, Galileo, and today's physicists and astronomers each to be valid for their time, and each (hopefully) is closer and closer to a true and accurate description of a part of our universe. The door, however, is left open for the next theory which may be even closer to the truth - science isn't the answer, it's the on-going process of arriving at the answer. It is implied by the very fact that Dr. Barnes conclusion is based upon the scripture (and therefore upon the word of God), that his conclusions allow no others - in effect, after thousands of years, Dr Barnes has arrived at the body knowledge that signals the end of science. After all, who needs science if you already have the final answer. As a rational human being, I feel it would be the height of arrogance to believe that I alone (or my small band of cohorts) possessed the ultimate answers - but then again, that's what Christianity is about, isn't it?
I have already stated my final point, but will voice it here again: if Dr. Barnes, research, and that of his colleagues, were legitimate, it would be accepted as fact by a majority of the scientific community. There is no underground conspiracy to keep "Christian Science" under wraps - the only criteria for being accepted are the same criteria applied to every single other scientific theory. Unfortunately, Dr. Barnes falls somewhat short.
Allow me to close with a quote from the late Karl Sagan it dosen't deal directly with the Young Earth theory, but with in a larger sense with the legitimacy of a belief in God at all:
"If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.
The bad news for Scripture-based Science is that there is competition. I grow weary, but continue to look forward to the new year. And I remain, as always, your friend.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
My Christmas Wish
Dear Santa,
For Christmas this year, I wish for one day in Iraq when nobody dies. Thank you.
M.L.
http://www.blogger.com/app/post.pyra?blogID=8978521
For Christmas this year, I wish for one day in Iraq when nobody dies. Thank you.
M.L.
http://www.blogger.com/app/post.pyra?blogID=8978521
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Anger
I am in an angry mood today. The headline reads "Shooting of Iraqi in Mosque angers Muslims." Do you want to know something? Hanging dead Americans from bridges makes me angry. Mortar shells landing in the middle of a crowded marketplace makes me angry. Some bastards in masks cutting the head off of some poor sod, bound and and foot, his body convulsing... makes me angry. Terrorists murdering innocent women who have worked thirty years to improve the lot of the average Iraqi... makes me angry. Watching the 3-year-old son of Sgt Carlos Riviera cry at his dad's funeral makes me especially angry. And I hope God, if he does exist, reserves a special place in hell just for Al Jezera. Get over it -
It's time we got over our supposed Western morality and fought this war the way it's being fought against us. I wonder how much damage a bunch of American terrorists running around Iraq could do? I mean real terrorists - unencumbered by the rules of war, or by the press, or by whatever anyone else thinks.
Ahh shit - the whole thing just makes me mad....
It's time we got over our supposed Western morality and fought this war the way it's being fought against us. I wonder how much damage a bunch of American terrorists running around Iraq could do? I mean real terrorists - unencumbered by the rules of war, or by the press, or by whatever anyone else thinks.
Ahh shit - the whole thing just makes me mad....
A couple of quotes I came across late one night...
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictator-ship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to great danger."
----HERMAN GORING at the Nuremberg Trials
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."
----THOMAS JEFFERSON, in a letter from 1798
These quotes could apply to any number of things going on right now.
----HERMAN GORING at the Nuremberg Trials
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."
----THOMAS JEFFERSON, in a letter from 1798
These quotes could apply to any number of things going on right now.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Reflections upon the great election of '04
Well, the election results are in and I am only slightly numb. I had suspected Kerry would have an uphill battle all along, but he probably didn’t help himself by acting so, well, Senatorial (if that’s even a word) for most of the campaign. Conversely, Bush made every effort to increase his appeal to Joseph Q. Everyman by showing that he was just a regular kind of guy. What can I say? People like other folks like themselves. It is one of the enduring paradoxes of democracy that the “will of the people” is so often placed upon a pedestal as some type of ideal, but that this will is often the result of nothing more than the coalescing of a collective fear of change, short term financial motivations, and blatant self-interest.
That said, I would suggest that the greatest tragedy of the 2004 elections isn’t that Kerry lost – it’s that the citizens of eleven (count ‘em, eleven!) states decided it was a good thing to codify their personal fears and prejudices by amending their state’s constitutions to outlaw Gay marriage. I often wonder what type of mass neurosis must be affecting so many of my fellow Americans that they actually think discrimination is allowable so long as it is legislated. I am, in fact, reminded of the fact that Adolph Hitler was legally elected, that his assumption of dictatorial powers was duly approved by the Reichstag, and that every single terrible thing that happened to the Jews in Germany was the direct result of statutes adapted by the government and enforced by the entire judicial apparatus of the nation.
Now don’t take this out of context and say that I am comparing our conservative Christian friends to the Nazis – the differences should be so abundantly clear that they need no elucidation here. I am merely voicing the opinion that just because something is legal, or even reflecting the will of a majority, doesn’t necessarily make it right. Considering our own country's recent history in the civil rights arena, I think this is a critical distinction, and one which should be in the forefront of every voters mind before they pull that lever. It has never been the proper place of government to legislate private morality, but to provide for the safety, rights and freedoms of all of its citizens. America’s greatest challenge is not Iraq, or terrorism, but whether we will allow ourselves to become the same type of insular and intolerant nation that distinguished us from the Old World two-hundred years ago.
I consider myself a patriotic American, and the times are very few indeed that I have been ashamed of my country. This is one of those times.
LePenseur
That said, I would suggest that the greatest tragedy of the 2004 elections isn’t that Kerry lost – it’s that the citizens of eleven (count ‘em, eleven!) states decided it was a good thing to codify their personal fears and prejudices by amending their state’s constitutions to outlaw Gay marriage. I often wonder what type of mass neurosis must be affecting so many of my fellow Americans that they actually think discrimination is allowable so long as it is legislated. I am, in fact, reminded of the fact that Adolph Hitler was legally elected, that his assumption of dictatorial powers was duly approved by the Reichstag, and that every single terrible thing that happened to the Jews in Germany was the direct result of statutes adapted by the government and enforced by the entire judicial apparatus of the nation.
Now don’t take this out of context and say that I am comparing our conservative Christian friends to the Nazis – the differences should be so abundantly clear that they need no elucidation here. I am merely voicing the opinion that just because something is legal, or even reflecting the will of a majority, doesn’t necessarily make it right. Considering our own country's recent history in the civil rights arena, I think this is a critical distinction, and one which should be in the forefront of every voters mind before they pull that lever. It has never been the proper place of government to legislate private morality, but to provide for the safety, rights and freedoms of all of its citizens. America’s greatest challenge is not Iraq, or terrorism, but whether we will allow ourselves to become the same type of insular and intolerant nation that distinguished us from the Old World two-hundred years ago.
I consider myself a patriotic American, and the times are very few indeed that I have been ashamed of my country. This is one of those times.
LePenseur
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)