Now on ScienceBlogs: Spirited Debate with Ray and Kirk
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
… the true utility function of life, that which is being maximized in the natural world, is DNA survival. But DNA is not floating free; it is locked up in living bodies and it has make the most of the levers of power at its disposal.
Richard Dawkins
« Cephalopods: Octopuses and Cuttlefishes for the Home Aquarium | Main | Ken Ham: still whining, but an online poll supports him »
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: December 3, 2008 2:26 PM, by PZ Myers
It's a very happy song.
The resolution is a little too pat, though. One thing we've learned from the last 20 years is that people will gladly vote against their economic well-being to support bizarre social values.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/87061
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Tim Lambert 11.22.2009
PZ Myers 11.22.2009
PZ Myers 11.14.2009
Ed Brayton 11.22.2009
Ed Brayton 11.22.2009
Comments
Posted by: Jonathan | December 3, 2008 2:49 PM
That was amazing.
Posted by: Nerdette | December 3, 2008 2:55 PM
Nice star-studded cast
"Yeah, but it says the exact same thing about this shrimp cocktaaiiil!"
Posted by: mayhempix | December 3, 2008 2:58 PM
Great cast... John C.Reilly, Jack Black, Maya Rudolph, etc.
Posted by: JSug | December 3, 2008 3:03 PM
Of course the ending was silly. It's satire. Nobody expects the religious right to stop fighting gay rights. It's the moderates we have to convince, so we can marginalize the bigotry.
Loved the bit where Neil Patrick Harris implies Alison Janney is a lesbian :o)
Posted by: Gobear | December 3, 2008 3:03 PM
Too little, too late. Where were these people a month ago when their video could have made a difference? Yes, it's an amusing video, but it is now too late to change the minds of California voters.
Posted by: JSug | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM
Gobear: It's never too late. If they can amend the state constitution once, they can do it again. And there's still a good chance that prop 8 will be overturned in court. Suits have already been filed.
Posted by: Brock | December 3, 2008 3:45 PM
I hate musicals, but this was still awesome.
Posted by: Matt | December 3, 2008 3:59 PM
I have to admit, that really was rather well done.
Posted by: LisaJ | December 3, 2008 4:24 PM
That was awesome! Neil Patrick Harris always brings it up to a new level. That guy's awesome. Great cast all around.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2008 4:26 PM
Now hold on a minute, Jack Black isn't Jesus Christ. He's Jeepers Creepers. Big difference there.
Posted by: Brad D | December 3, 2008 4:43 PM
Eh, have to watch this at home later so as to not make IT cranky from bandwidth usage. NPH (the actor, not the insulin) was fantastic in Dr. Horrible's sing along blog.
Posted by: Metro | December 3, 2008 4:47 PM
My life has contained a great deal of Neil Patrick Harris lately: Harold and Kumar and the aforementioned Doctor Horrible (which, it turns out, wasn't about Egnor at all). So when I saw this video I realized it must be a sign from ...
Uh ...
Well anyway, I'm stealing it.
Posted by: JJR | December 3, 2008 4:48 PM
They need an extended version where the JC character goes on a long, rhyming rant about all the crazy, weird sh*t in the bible...
"The Bible also says...[insert ridiculous Bronze age superstition/prejudice here]."
That would do some real good.
Posted by: JJR | December 3, 2008 4:52 PM
They need an extended version where the JC character goes on a long, rhyming rant about all the crazy, weird sh*t in the bible...
"The Bible also says...[insert ridiculous Bronze age superstition/prejudice here]."
That would do some real good.
Posted by: Michelle | December 3, 2008 4:57 PM
Now Jack is a Jesus I can believe in!
Hey! It's...that... DOCTOR DUDE! ...I like him.
Posted by: Rebecca C. | December 3, 2008 4:57 PM
Metro, if anything were to convince me that there might be a deity out there it would be Neil Patrick Harris. Mmmm.
Except he's gay and has a boyfriend, and I'm a woman with a husband.
So yeah, back to godless atheism for me.
Posted by: Greg | December 3, 2008 4:59 PM
Bravo. Bravo I say! I'm so glad NPH brings up my reasons for supporting Gay Marriage, other than the obvious one of "Who Gives A F&%#"
Posted by: Terry Small | December 3, 2008 5:20 PM
I would go gay and male for Neil Patrick Harris.
Posted by: ndt | December 3, 2008 5:27 PM
Gobear in #5 makes a good point. Where was all this energy and organization before the vote?
Posted by: Sili | December 3, 2008 5:57 PM
Wait? Was that C.J. Cregg?!
And I've finally found out where I knew Harris from.
Posted by: Alverant | December 3, 2008 6:04 PM
I thought the part of the bible that says homosexuality was an abomination was talking in the behavior of rabbis and not for everyone else. I also thought the word "abomination" wasn't as harsh back then as now.
Posted by: Nick | December 3, 2008 7:10 PM
Yeah, the No on 8 campaign really fucked up. And a lot of people were lulled into complacency because of favorable early polling.
But the good news is prop 8 passed by a much, much smaller margin than the last gay marriage ban. So things appear to be going in the right direction. Even if they're not able to defeat prop 8 in the courts there will eventually be a prop that overturns it.
Posted by: Josh | December 3, 2008 8:22 PM
Saw NPH on B'way in Assassins a couple years ago. He does indeed rule.
Posted by: pixelfish | December 3, 2008 11:09 PM
Ah, yes. Neil Patrick Harris is delectable. And Jack Black makes the cuddliest Christ ever. (Although I wish he'd pointed out that John C. Reilly's character was almost certainly wearing a wool-linen blend and mixing his fabrics--also against the Bible.)
When I was but a wee tyke in Utah and certain people were trying to explain the horrors of homosexuality to me, they were always oh-so-quick to bring up the tired canard that gays are promiscuous and THAT was why we had the AIDS crisis, because gays couldn't stick to just one partner. For the longest time, I couldn't understand why these same people were so upset at the prospect of gay marriage, which seemed to encourage, you know, one partner. Seriously, they were upset with gays when they had multiple partners, and then they were upset when they wanted to settle on just one. Make up your minds, people!
But as PZ points out, this is a clearcut case of people voting against something that would only benefit all of society in the long run, including their hateful little selves. Those who say they are protecting marriage obviously AREN'T. Instead, they are, as they have done in the past, trying to control the sexuality of somebody they don't understand.
Posted by: Solitas | December 3, 2008 11:39 PM
#21
Leviticus 20:12 (KJV)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus 20 is very much to bring up in discussions with Christians who say we shall follow every word in the Bible as written. *grin*
Posted by: AL | December 4, 2008 2:42 AM
Is the guy in the yellow, winking happy face t-shirt Kirk Cameron?!
Posted by: chas-simmons | December 4, 2008 2:53 AM
Solitas wrote: Leviticus 20 is very much to bring up in discussions with Christians
The fundies have an answer to that. They hold that the ceremonial law of Leviticus was superceded "once Jesus died on the cross": the ritual pollution caused by shrimp cocktail, etc., before the shedding of the Blood of the Lamb no longer applies. Faith in Jesus absolves one of it. But "sins of impurity" were later condemned by St. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so the "sinfulness" of gay sex still applies. (Actually, Paul was rather down on all sex, but they don't emphasize that.)
In reality, what bothers the fundies (and doctrinaire Catholics) about gay marriage is the Seal of Approval it gives to gay relationships. Those Christians are quite happy to "forgive" gays, but for our society to put gay families at the same level as their own families, that's too big an affront to their dignity.
And I have a suggestion about comments like "people will gladly vote against their economic well-being to support bizarre social values." Don't say "against their economic well-being": that just encourages them, as it makes them feel extra moral and superior. Say they are acting "against the economic needs of their families". That's harder for them to pooh-pooh.
Posted by: JCfromNC | December 4, 2008 3:54 AM
Leviticus 20 is very much to bring up in discussions with Christians who say we shall follow every word in the Bible as written. *grin*
Uhhhhh... perhaps I'm misreading things here, but why the hell would we want to encourage gay-haters to stone gays to death?
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 4, 2008 4:14 AM
Because a slight majority of right-wingers would balk at taking it that far?
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 4, 2008 4:43 AM
"they were always oh-so-quick to bring up the tired canard that gays are promiscuous and THAT was why we had the AIDS crisis, because gays couldn't stick to just one partner."
Gee Wally, you don't suppose that that's because they've been denied institutional monogamy, do you?
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 5:12 AM
The fundies have an answer to that. They hold that the ceremonial law of Leviticus was superceded "once Jesus died on the cross": the ritual pollution caused by shrimp cocktail, etc., before the shedding of the Blood of the Lamb no longer applies. Faith in Jesus absolves one of it. But "sins of impurity" were later condemned by St. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so the "sinfulness" of gay sex still applies. (Actually, Paul was rather down on all sex, but they don't emphasize that.)
I agree with the first part of this, but not the latter. Peter's vision in Acts makes very clear, as does Paul, that followers of Christ are not required to follow every ritual prohibition of the Jewish law. Animal sacrifice, circumcision, dietary laws etc. are all entirely unnecessary, since Christians are saved through the blood of Christ and not through obedience to the Law. I would, however, also include homosexuality in this category; it was prohibited for the Jews, as were many other apparently arbitrary things, but Christians are not required to follow these laws.
As to Paul, I don't take his writings to be inerrant or binding in any sense. Paul was not Jesus. He makes clear when he is recounting universal Christian doctrine (e.g. when talking about the Eucharist); but the rest of the time, he's simply giving his own opinions and advice, which are relevant only in his own context. For instance, the passage in Corinthians stating that women should not speak in church was a response to a female-led cult which had arisen in Corinth at that time. So, likewise, I don't treat his opinions about homosexuality as binding on modern Christians.
In these matters, I think it's generally best to read the Bible in light of our own innate sense of common decency and fairness - a sense which I believe to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Basically, the essence of Christian ethical teaching is "love thy neighbour as thyself". It's about community, treating people with love and respect, and generally being a decent person. So this is, generally, the way I interpret Christian moral teaching. And if it transpires that I'm wrong, and there's no God and no Holy Spirit, what does it matter? I've lost nothing by trying to show compassion and respect to those around me (something which I, hopefully, would still do if I were an atheist, and which many atheists do do).
Posted by: Beelzebub | December 4, 2008 6:11 AM
You've lost nothing, and the people around you have benefited from that aspect, but if you're wrong you've still been complicit in a belief system that propagates the idea of eternal punishment and torment, which unfortunately negates the salubrity of your belief.
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 6:24 AM
... but if you're wrong you've still been complicit in a belief system that propagates the idea of eternal punishment and torment, which unfortunately negates the salubrity of your belief.
Not necessarily. Many Christians don't believe in a literal hell (I certainly don't), and some believe in universal salvation.
The doctrine of sola fide in its strictest form - believing that, as salvation is through faith, there can be no salvation without belief in Christ - is a doctrine of evangelical Protestantism; it is by no means a universal or core belief of Christianity, and many Christian denominations don't accept it. I personally reject it, since I can't conceive of a God who would damn everyone who had the misfortune to choose the wrong religion to follow, however good, honest and faithful they were in their life.
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 6:43 AM
Walton,
So you basically don't believe most of the Bible, and pick and choose which bits to believe.I remind you of Matthew 5:21-22 & 5:29-30 & 10:28, or for a bit of variety, Luke 12:4-5.
Yeah, you pick and choose.
Posted by: Beelzebub | December 4, 2008 7:55 AM
That's great, and I know Christians like you exist, but it doesn't alter the fact that many denominations terrify children (and a lot of adults) with visions of hell. You can't watch "Jesus Camp" and tell me Christianity in general, true or not, is a wholly benign pursuit.
Posted by: Walton | December 4, 2008 8:21 AM
You can't watch "Jesus Camp" and tell me Christianity in general, true or not, is a wholly benign pursuit.
No, of course it isn't. Neither is virtually any religion, philosophy or ideology of any kind - for any idea one can come up with, there will be idiots, lunatics and corrupt people who twist it for their own ends. Just as we don't treat all socialists as responsible for the crimes of Stalin (I dislike socialists on other grounds, but that's a whole other topic), nor do we equate all Hindus, say, with the radical Hindu nationalist movement in India (who are just as insane as American fundamentalists), so too not all Christians subscribe to the same beliefs.
It isn't even a question of "moderate" and "extreme" Christians; there are a number of different theologies. Catholic and Anglo-Catholic theology are a long way removed from evangelical Protestant theology. And in both denominations there are "liberal" and "conservative" movements. Not to mention non-Trinitarian Christian movements such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 4, 2008 8:26 AM
For your entertainment: Want a free Book of Mormon? and the follow-up, Two Hot Mormons are Just a Click Away.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 4, 2008 8:50 AM
Apparently Proposition 8 was backed by the less educated and the religious . No surprise there, I think.
Posted by: Miko | December 4, 2008 6:04 PM
I didn't realize that there was a party in the United States that supported our economic well-being. Just so we're clear, are you referring to the party that wants to create huge amounts of inflation by giving massive corporate welfare bailouts or to the party that wants to create massive amounts of inflation by giving huge corporate welfare bailouts?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 6:29 PM
"That was awesome! Neil Patrick Harris always brings it up to a new level. That guy's awesome. Great cast all around."-LisaJ
Funny thing, i imagined that Neil Patrick Harris was saying that as i was reading it. "Awesome!" is distinctly Barney, as well as "the next level!"
"I thought the part of the bible that says homosexuality was an abomination was talking in the behavior of rabbis and not for everyone else. I also thought the word "abomination" wasn't as harsh back then as now."- Alverant
Yeah, all it means is that you get Stoned, Ha Ha. Oh wait, you say there wasn't meth in the Bronze Age? What?! They kill you with rocks?! That's disgusting!
"In reality, what bothers the fundies (and doctrinaire Catholics) about gay marriage is the it gives to gay relationships."-Chas-simmons
Yeah, that might Fix the problem of overpopulation a little bit, huh? So which is it fundies, abortion or gay marraige? what?...You want neithe...well america seems to want both! So SIT DOWN and SHUT the FUCK UP!
"No, of course it isn't. Neither is virtually any religion, philosophy or ideology of any kind - for any idea one can come up with, there will be idiots, lunatics and corrupt people who twist it for their own ends."-Walton
Been here long? Taoism, Bhuddism, animism, Pantheism, any essentially "atheist" belief system works fine most of the time (deist is a looong way from Theist, thank you very much), but try to apply that to Western Religions, or local pantheons which Always fight, kill, maim, and usurp power from one another. The reason: One deals in absolutes, one tries to abolish such conceptions. This is also why Abrahamic faiths are so politically polarized, and patheons Embody secterian violence, don't they?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 6:36 PM
Quote fail (*sigh*):"...the SEAL OF APPROVAL to gay relationships"-Chas-simmons
Miko, the execs at the Big Three have decided to prostrate themselves accordingly and become Dollar a Year Men. I should hope that some politicians (if not the majority) follow this trend. If they did, it would also send a message to lobbyists. However, now what needs to be done is enforce this on other CEO's as well.
Posted by: Tomecat | December 5, 2008 4:54 AM
OK, maybe my 40 something age is screaming here, but all I can think of when I see NPH is a goofy Doogie Howser, (MD, of course). Not that I don't like him as an actor, but dreamy? Meh. To each his/her own.
Otherwise, great message and lots O'Fun to boot.
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | December 5, 2008 12:44 PM
Remember to sign this important petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 5, 2008 2:13 PM
Well, of course we know that gays and lesbians are always trying to recruit, recruit, recruit - but it still seems a bit unsubtle to include a Navy sign-up come-on in this particular propaganda video.
Ooh, hey, sailor!
Posted by: revulo | December 5, 2008 2:29 PM
That was bloody brilliant. Now I need an account at Funny or Die just to favorite that or something.
Posted by: LogicalJoe | December 8, 2008 9:53 AM
Isn't it great how people are still resorting to a book of ideas that date back over 2000 years to justify their laws. The bible is great and all but you can't expect everyone to live by it. Our society has its comfort zone and the idea of gay marriage exceeds it while the bible, for some reason, is as comfy as your favorite pair of PJ's. I would encourage anyone who wants to legally ban gay marriage to consider the real function of a law.
Laws are made with the intent to protect people from harm. That's why we have speed limits and why its illegal to rape, steal, murder etc... So where is the harm in gay marriage? I'm not saying everyone must wholeheartedly embrace the idea, just accept that its wrong to make laws just because you aren't comfortable something. People are different... Let them live their lives without senseless legal scrutiny.