Pharyngula

Posted by: Victor | February 8, 2009 9:47 AM

PZ, this is the catholic church we're talking about here, ofcourse her ability to have kids is more important than her ability to think.

Posted by: Kristin | February 8, 2009 9:50 AM

This woman is in no condition to consent to any sort of sexual activity or fertility treatments anyway, so what Berlusconi is saying is that there's still time to rape her! He is quickly becoming the Asshole of the Decade.

Posted by: Lightnin | February 8, 2009 9:51 AM

Reminds me of Alan Keyes justification for protecting "traditional" marriage-it's made between two people who can in principle have children.

Posted by: AJ Milne | February 8, 2009 9:57 AM

Oh, won't someone please think of the (unfertilized eggs which may yet become) children...

In fairness, mebbe it's not so surprising Berlusconi's unusually sympathetic, here...

I mean, seein' as he may, in face, be clinially brain dead himself, he may be feeling particularly compelling feelings of solidarity.

Posted by: Heresiarch | February 8, 2009 10:01 AM

Prince Charming is spot on. In the original Italian version of Sleeping Beauty, Prince Charming finds the sleeping princess, effectively rapes her, and then goes off again. She's still asleep. What eventually wakes her up is giving birth.

Perhaps Berlusconi has the same idea...

Posted by: Jessica | February 8, 2009 10:06 AM

Heresiarch, ewwww, I never heard that version. Where'd you find that?

Thanks, PZ, for pointing out what should be obvious. She's not in a condition to have babies because she's not in a condition to consent to be impregnated. Berlusconi's statement is so horrifically sexist it blows my mind. I know I shouldn't be surprised after all of his "rape is a compliment to beautiful women" statements, but this is beyond sickening.

Posted by: Iain Walker | February 8, 2009 10:11 AM

There's something positively Orwellian about the Catholic Church's use of the term "human dignity".

And that expression of Ratzinger's in the linked story - "shrouded in the mystery of suffering" - is pretty damn revealing about the conservative Catholic mindset. Just when I thought he couldn't get any more creepy and obnoxious ...

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 8, 2009 10:18 AM

So, if Eluana Englaro were post menopausal, it would be alright to take her off of life support?

Have to love the Catholic tradition of turning suffering into a fetish, how the Pope says society had to protect the sick even when "weak and shrouded in the mystery of suffering". The "mystery of suffering"? Great, Jesus kisses. Suffering is not a mystery to behold, it is a condition that a humane person tries to alleviate. Funny thing, Eluana Englaro is not capable of feeling suffering. But her family, friends and medical personal can suffer for her.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | February 8, 2009 10:23 AM

After 17 years in a persistent vegetative state I rather doubt Eluana Englaro is in any shape to bear a child. Even if she could become pregnant, the burden of bearing a child would likely kill her.

Posted by: Una | February 8, 2009 10:32 AM

Seems like every day my former religion/cultural identity shames itself even more than I thought possible.

Posted by: JStein | February 8, 2009 10:34 AM

Wow, this is ridiculous. There isn't anything in Italian law that protects the family from fascist crackpots (to use Hitchens' term) commandeering their wife, daughter and mother?

Give them some dignity in their time of grief. Religion claims to offer solace for the grieving, clearly, that's a crock.

Posted by: Holbach | February 8, 2009 10:35 AM

Demented, deranged, irrational religion intrudes into realism and humanity again. Whatever must and should be done to break its hold on reason is warranted.

Posted by: peter | February 8, 2009 10:38 AM

I thought Europeans were supposed to be smarter than Americans.

Posted by: CRS | February 8, 2009 10:39 AM

Berlusconi is evidently a Tleilaxu, and won't be deprived of his axlotl tanks.

I think it's time the Face Dancers rose up against the Tleilaxu Masters. This story is just insane.

Posted by: Vronvron | February 8, 2009 10:42 AM

Eluana Englaro is "in the condition to have babies" So who is going to take responsibility for theses babies: the Catholic church? Not likely!!

Attention: Benedict and Prime Ministers and Presidents of countries.

To paraphrase Pierre Trudeau

[I] take the position that the state has no jurisdiction over women's reproductive systems. So "fuddle-duddle."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

Posted by: blf | February 8, 2009 10:44 AM

The case is reminiscent of Terri Shiavo to a T.

Not quite? Berlusconi is one of the richest people in Italy. He also controls, owns in fact, a significant percentage (c.50% as I recall) of the Italian media (TV and print). Neither of the Bushs had the Big Brother machinery Berlusconi has at his disposal.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 8, 2009 10:47 AM

Jessica,

The original Sleeping Beauty story was a 14th Century romance called Perceforest. An episode, the "Histoire de Troïlus et de Zellandine" has Zellandine in a deep coma and Troïlus rapes her. She becomes pregnant and delivers the child without waking.

The next known version of the tale is the one Heresiarch refers to, Giambattista Basile's Sun, Moon, and Talia. Here the sleeping princess is raped by the prince (actually just a common nobleman). She gives birth to twins but does not wake up. You can get a longer synopsis here. It's not a children's story.

The most famous version (other than Disney's) of Sleeping Beauty is Charles Perrault's. This is another one where the prince comes across a beautiful maiden in sound slumber and, overcome by her beauty, does the old slam, bam, thank you ma'am. This time Sleeping Beauty wakes up during childbirth.

The Brothers Grimm toned down the sex in their version, which like Disney's has Sleeping Beauty wakened by the prince's kiss.

Posted by: Sili | February 8, 2009 10:54 AM

So, has anyone asked for Sting to help out yet?

Posted by: Iain Walker | February 8, 2009 11:06 AM

peter (#26):

I thought Europeans were supposed to be smarter than Americans.

Think of it like this:

America elected Bush twice (and on the first occasion only with the intervention of the Supreme Court), but eventually got fed up with him and his cronies. The Italians have elected Berlusconi on four occasions now in the past 15 years, and have yet to show any signs of stopping.

No one country or continent has a monopoly on fuckwittery.

Posted by: CalGeorge | February 8, 2009 11:11 AM

...she is "in the condition to have babies".

Is the "Great Seducer" contemplating his next conquest?

Posted by: Awais | February 8, 2009 11:15 AM

I found this excuse very appalling indeed.

Posted by: Rrr | February 8, 2009 11:24 AM

Argh, if they want her womb/ovaries to have kids that much, they should just remove them from her and implant them into the bastard. Should shut him up. Assuming she's signed up as an organ donor... Not that I think it'd work well to implant a fertilized egg in someone who keeps having to take a lot of meds to prevent the tissue from being rejected, as well as female hormones...

Posted by: Dr P | February 8, 2009 11:25 AM

I learn all sorts of things about fairy tales at this blog...oh yeah, and Sleeping Beauty, too.

Parts of Italy are banning "ethnic food," they aren't the most reasonable legislative body. I wouldn't be surprised if the next excuse for keeping the woman alive is 'we have to save as many Italians that we can!'

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 8, 2009 11:28 AM

I am confused by this. I have a friend who is a Catholic Priest (a gay priest who has no qualms about sleeping with men, so he's hardly the typical archconservative Catholic, but anyway).

wait a minute.

Are you suggesting that there are Gay Priests?!?!

Posted by: Donovan | February 8, 2009 11:30 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp,

Yes, believe it or not there apparently are gay men in the Catholic Church! I was totally shocked. This must be a new thing ;-)

Posted by: SC, OM | February 8, 2009 11:38 AM

"The Vatican's Grip on Italy":

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=878&kb_header_id=842

Posted by: Brian X | February 8, 2009 11:50 AM

I've heard that for whatever reason, Italy's government is more or less a gerontocracy, and a big political issue is that anyone under the age of about fifty really has no voice. And of course it's cranky old men who are the main drivers of most conservative movements, so...

Dr P:

I looked up what you referred to. It looks like a similar case -- a few racist idiots with political power dictating terms to everyone. As a foodie myself, I find it appalling.

Posted by: talking snake | February 8, 2009 11:52 AM

#38
In a democracy, a lot of stupid people vote and can control the political process for a long time. Makes one appreciate a strong, secular Bill of Rights with iron clad human rights and civil liberties.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | February 8, 2009 11:56 AM

Of course the woman is unable to give consent. But my God, are you all that dense -- how can supposedly "educated" and "intelligent" people fail to understand such a very simple point?

The woman is married, obviously. (If she weren't, how would she be capable of having babies?) Since she is married, the original owner of the rights to her reproductive system -- her father -- has transferred them to her husband, the new owner. So the fact that she cannot consent to bearing a child (or do anything else at all) is irrelevant. Who cares what she thinks, even if she could think?

Once they are married, it is the husband's decision when and how often he uses the wife to bear his children. If he were to assert his sacred rghts as husband by clambering atop her now, carefully pushing the feeding tubes and catheters to one side, that would in no way violate the infallible and divine laws of our holy mother curuch (and any mere secular laws that purport thereby to be violated are not in accordance with God's will and are thus null and void).

Yes, it's true, her brain was destroyed, her mind erased, her personhood extinguished nearly twenty years ago. But why are people raising those essentialy irrelevant points? As long as her body is physically capable of fulfilling the purpose of her existence, letting her die would be an horrific offence against the rights of God and of her husband.

(Her husband, of course, might have some quaint notions of "loving" her, and of "doing what she would have wanted", and letting her "die with dignity". An unfortunate man, if that is true. In that case he has obviously allowed his mind to be seduced by wicked modern concepts, so his choice in the matter is no longer important and the priests alone must discern the Lord's will.)

Posted by: Carlie | February 8, 2009 11:59 AM

All the bad news lately, including this, make it the kind of day where I just want to go to bed and never get up, but now I can't dream about doing that EITHER because if I do someone still might come along and make me have a baby. Argh. It amazes me how many people really, really hate women deep down.

Posted by: Francesco | February 8, 2009 12:02 PM

Berlusconi simply said in polite words that she has period (i.e. mestruation).

Is there anybody that can understand when someone does not speak as a villain?

Posted by: massimiliano | February 8, 2009 12:02 PM

First of all, right now I'm ashamed of being Italian..or, as we shold say, Italian-Vatican, since all our politicians can do, is ask the Pope what's best...It seems reason has no right to stay here in this country, and, as for abortion, stem cell research, gay rights , and many other issues, vatican intromission is heavy. But in Eluana's case, at least to me, things appear tremendously clear. No use talking about coma, brain damage or anything else, the fact is just that SHE never wanted to "live" this way, so all people should do is respect her will. No one has the right to tell anybody else how long we should live and suffer when we're sick. No Berlusconi, no Pope, no religion.

Posted by: AdamK | February 8, 2009 12:03 PM

I wish I believed in Hell, so I could imagine these Christian fuckers rotting in it.

Posted by: Carlie | February 8, 2009 12:05 PM

If he were to assert his sacred rights as husband by clambering atop her now, carefully pushing the feeding tubes and catheters to one side, that would in no way violate the infallible and divine laws of our holy mother curuch (and any mere secular laws that purport thereby to be violated are not in accordance with God's will and are thus null and void).

Actually, Mrs. T, you're more correct than you meant to be. Legally, at least in Wisconsin, a man can indeed legally rape his comatose wife, since he owns her and all.

Posted by: Pauline in UK | February 8, 2009 12:06 PM

Every person needs food and water to survive, whether they're fully functional or not. Therefore, if you withdraw food and water and replace those things with medication, it's my belief that you're not allowing them to 'die with dignity', you're starving them to death. While my sympathies are entirely on the side of the family who are suffering the grief and loss, and have the responsibility for the outcome, I do believe that this is euthanasia, and not a natural death. That's not to say it shouldn't be permitted in tragic cases like this one; perhaps thinking of it as 'death with dignity' is the only way the grief-stricken cope with it.

Posted by: talking snake | February 8, 2009 12:08 PM

#63
One just showed up @ #58.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | February 8, 2009 12:15 PM

Talking snake @72,

this is the first time you've read one my comments, I take it?

Posted by: blf | February 8, 2009 12:17 PM

talking snake, #63 One just showed up @ #58.

I have no idea if Mrs Tilton is a "Terry Shiavo was murdered" kook or not, but I seriously doubt it. Did you actually read all of Mrs T's post @58? Try doing so.

Hint: Mrs T won a Molly exactly a year ago.

Posted by: knob goblin | February 8, 2009 12:22 PM

I fail to see the connection between Berlusconi's stupid statement (something he does often) and the Vatican. So your comment at the end doesn't make a lot of sense, and is intentionally misleading.

It is the Vatican which preaches that the purpose of women is to be fucked by men and make babies. This is why condoms, Plan B, birth control pills, IUDs, and abortions are all opposed by the Catholic Church.

Berlusconi is worried that a fertile female body might be mercifully allowed die before the womb is used up. That would be an affront to God.

Posted by: literarydeadkittens | February 8, 2009 12:28 PM

To the Catholic Church, a woman is a uterus with legs.

Posted by: Dahan | February 8, 2009 12:35 PM

BTW, if you want to see a good article on this check out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/eluana-englaro-assisted-suicide

Posted by: pdferguson | February 8, 2009 12:44 PM

To the Catholic Church, a woman is a uterus with legs.

Oh, please... Legs aren't required.

Posted by: talking snake | February 8, 2009 12:45 PM

#76
Yes, I read the entire post. I like sarcasm. Sometimes I need help. You can back off, now.

Posted by: Holbach | February 8, 2009 12:49 PM

At # 83

Yes, as likewise my inattnetion to grammer.

Posted by: somesuchchildishthing | February 8, 2009 12:51 PM

"Religion really does poison everything."

My inner narrative constantly repeats that quote as I read about the lobbies of ID, theocracy, imagined divine favour, etc. and their incessant attempts to roll back all recent progress.

Of course, Ratzinger et al. only want to keep this woman alive for the sake of her reproductive capacity, so that she may one day provide them with another blank slate of a child to stain indelibly with their ridiculous beliefs. Is it not our obligation to remove these people from any position whence they may have access to power? My pessimism worsens.

Posted by: Keenacat | February 8, 2009 12:52 PM

Governing, Ur doin it rong.

I mean, hey, I'm totally aware of the fact that there are utter crackpots out there with some fucking misogynistic/misantrophic viewpoints. But please, can't they just STFU on those as long as they hold some public office?

Posted by: raven | February 8, 2009 12:58 PM

Once they are married, it is the husband's decision when and how often he uses the wife to bear his children. If he were to assert his sacred rghts as husband by clambering atop her now, carefully pushing the feeding tubes and catheters to one side, that would in no way violate the infallible and divine laws of our holy mother curuch (and any mere secular laws that purport thereby to be violated are not in accordance with God's will and are thus null and void).

Sounds a lot like necophilia to me. Why can't they just stick to one perversion at a time, like say pedophilia?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 8, 2009 1:02 PM

The pope is the voice of gawd on Earth. Why doesn't he just command the woman to be healed? Problem solved.

Posted by: Holbach | February 8, 2009 1:03 PM

At # 88

See?

Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | February 8, 2009 1:05 PM

Is this dirtbag suggesting that someone should either rape or artificially inseminate a comatose and dying woman ?

If so, has someone tested HIM for brain activity?

Posted by: Bob O'H | February 8, 2009 1:09 PM

It's nice to know that the Catholic Church's criteria for the value of a woman's life focus on the functionality of her ovaries rather than the existence of her mind.

Posted by: Debbie | February 8, 2009 1:14 PM

Bigjohn756 at #103 -

Nope, she's the wrong sex and much too old for the priests to be interested in her

Posted by: C. M. Baxter | February 8, 2009 1:22 PM

For people like Berlusconi and the Pope we need to bring back the pillory WITH RUSTY NAILS IN IT!

There, I'm better now.

Posted by: Holbach | February 8, 2009 1:32 PM

How to deal with the onslaught of religious insanity:

Constantly demand proof of their imaginary god, and not in just an image in a cow turd or indiscriminate tornadoes that are definitely divinely designed; and perhaps more important and with punch, unceasing ridicule which might get the attention of their imaginary god. So far it has not. And the morons still do not get it.

Posted by: Gustav Nyström | February 8, 2009 1:36 PM

@99 "At least they are consistent in their lunacy."

To bad their beliefs aren't consistent with reality.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 8, 2009 1:43 PM

And Berlusconi is a complete idiot: he made his money in organized crime and bought his way into the government - 60613

I'm not clear how that makes him an idiot. He's an evil scumbag all right, but he's a clever one.

Posted by: Lameduck | February 8, 2009 1:52 PM

I am Italian and a blogger. You still can have no idea of what Berlusconi really is if you can't listen to his delirious rants every evening on TV.
You named Bush. Well, he is worser than any Bushes. I would gladly share Dubya for him.
Berlusconi is the most ignorant and fascist fella who happened to rule Italy since Mussolini.
I deeply apologize for this creepy government of ours.

Posted by: Enrico | February 8, 2009 1:57 PM

You have no idea how deep is the pool of shit in which we are swimming here in Italy. Thanks to the Vatican and thanks to the spineless italians politicians. And thanks to berlusconi of course.

Posted by: Holbach | February 8, 2009 2:23 PM

Patricia, OM @ 115

At that rate, any moron can apply to be the poop pope, and they will be marching in and out, all trying to raise the dead. Their brains are dead, but their bodies keep functioning even though their ossified brains are telling them to lie down and join them.

Posted by: knob goblin | February 8, 2009 2:57 PM

Like, does he think Ms. Englaro should, in fact, be kept alive so that she can be impregnated and give birth?

The other possibility is that he is reasoning "she could wake up, and then have babies." This is still horrible, because her value has been defined by her reproductive ability. By making her uterus so important as to use it to argue for her feeding tube, it means without a functional uterus she'd be less worth feeding.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 8, 2009 3:06 PM

Why doesn't the Vatican just fly her to Lourdes and splash some of that magic water on her? She'll be right as rain in no time and everything's hunky-dory. Right?

Pilty, "She" is 17 years gone, it's just her meat that they've kept alive.

Posted by: natural cynic | February 8, 2009 3:18 PM

Reason #325,258 of "Why I am Not a Catholic".

Posted by: Daniel M | February 8, 2009 3:34 PM

Well it fits, since the far right wing(nuts) think life begins at conception - certainly no brain is present then, and it means that the only job for women is to bear children. Our two-legged underclass of human cattle should therefore be silent and do their duty.

All the better, obviously, that this woman has neither the mind nor a brain to answer back with. The best sort of woman there is, they must think.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 8, 2009 3:45 PM

From reading the article she isn't married. She had the accident when she was quite young. This has got to be dreadful for her parents, to top it off, she's an only child. The damned pope should mind his own business.

Posted by: Julian | February 8, 2009 3:59 PM

Equistem: +250 rep with teh intenets

This doesn't surprise me; Berlusconi is a crooked nationalist demagogue who's been bilking Italy since Clinton's presidency. He's been playing hard to the Vatican since he was once again elected to the PMship ~ a year ago and pro-religion civil rights abuse cases like this one have been popping up pretty frequently.

Posted by: talking snake | February 8, 2009 4:04 PM

Mrs Tilton @ 74,
you're right. I'll update the Mrs Tilton "point of view" meter, and wash the egg off my face.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 8, 2009 4:09 PM

Oh good, Piltdown Man to the rescue.

Now all we need is Heddle. *snort*

Posted by: Julian | February 8, 2009 4:15 PM

Donovan: Ratzinger isn't a big fan of Vatican II which relaxed many of the extremely conservative positions the Catholic church once held.

Posted by: John Marley | February 8, 2009 4:30 PM

That suggests there is a human essence distinct from the flesh.

Sorry, Pilty, it does not.

It means that there is no brain activity, and her body cannot live without artificial stimulation.

Of course, you already knew that, and are just a dishonest asshat.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 8, 2009 4:44 PM

I guess the neocortex doesn't count as "flesh."

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 8, 2009 5:02 PM

Piltdown Man asks, "OK, I'm listening. What are these "deeper questions" about human identity that religious refuse to address? What does it mean to be human?"

I thought you'd know. Life. The Universe (our place in it, what is of value, what is fun, what smells bad, and questions that children ask like, "Dad, do you think we could ever go across the water and see what is over there?") and Everything.

You know, the kinds of questions that people ask and ponder. Not that an insight is going to help pay the rent but, hey! people think about them. Pretty standard stuff.

Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | February 8, 2009 5:08 PM

Debbie @ #104. It's a common misconception that Catholic priests only rape boys. Many, many girls have been raped, too. For some unknown reason, our "no longer sexist" society seems to find assault on boys much more abhorrent and newsworthy.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 8, 2009 5:13 PM

Brian Macker. please, kindly point out where PZ ever advocated any of those charges.

Posted by: l'oca s. | February 8, 2009 5:23 PM

What Lameduck # 112 and Enrico #116 said.

Berlusconi is “appalling” as usual, and as Prime Minister rules over public television and radio as well. In Eluana’s case, the Vatican’s interference is so heavy-handed that even some Catholic groups, and priests, joined the protest yesterday in Milan and said they will do so again in Rome next week. Support and signatures are welcome, click on link “Firma l’appello"
http://temi.repubblica.it/micromega-online/

Plus Giertych, the racist-antisemitic-antigay Pole,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Giertych
is welcome both in the Vatican - his brother being a theologian of Ratzinger’s entourage - and at La Sapienza in Rome, Italy’s largest university, along with his creationists friends. The xenophobic Northern League has its green-shirted vigilantes round up and beat immigrants, whether legal or not. Not much opposition left, so... we’re worried.

Posted by: Goffredo Puccetti | February 8, 2009 5:33 PM

Dear all,
my name is Goffredo and I am an Italian expat living and working in Paris.
Someone asked:" isn't there a law protecting Italian citizens from fascists?"
Yes there is. It is our Constitution; and this situation is used by Berlusconi to attack it.
It is an extremely serious situation. Berlusconi controls a great part of the Italian media and they are presenting a distorted views of the facts. Eluana's father had to beg the media reporters to stop inventing on Eluana's condition.
Berlusconi did indeed say that she could have a son. That was not a methaphor or an expression of hope. The video of the interview is available everywhere on the net (and nowhere on the italian media...). The campaign orchestrated by the neo-fascist and the church is appealing and disturbing. And extremely dangerous. What they aim to is to change the constitution. They are attacking fundamental human rights. Please keep the international attention alive on it.
Beppino Englaro is a civil hero and all the democrats, secular and humanists of Italy, the vast, but too silent majority of the country, need you.

Thank you.

Posted by: erasmus31 | February 8, 2009 5:42 PM

Bloody hell! How can a person who runs a country, any country, be so brainless? And why is a head of one state consulting with a head of another one? And this poor woman and especially her family in the middle of this insanity. This is seriously scary.

Posted by: LisaJ | February 8, 2009 5:47 PM

This is absolutely disgusting. But still, not at all surprising to me and spot on for the catholic church. This sentiment of women being useful for their wombs and little else is a deeply rooted feature of catholicism everywhere. I know that even my own fairly mild catholic upbringing left me feeling ashamed of my mind, body, and gender for many years... once I saw the light it took a long time to rectify all of that brainwashing.

Posted by: dingo | February 8, 2009 5:49 PM

>> . . . and in what has to be the most tasteless and disgusting excuse made yet for the actions of these villains of the right, has further justified it by saying that physically she is "in the condition to have babies".

Surely he will be able to find some necrophile willing to impregnate her for the good of the Church and the glory of Christ.

Pardon me, I feel the need for a shower and a good purge.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 8, 2009 5:50 PM

Piltdown wrote:

Are you conscious while you're asleep? It seems not. You're actually unconscious. So sleeping people aren't really alive? "Effectively dead" even?

No - not even close, as I'm sure you're well aware. During sleep there is still significant brain activity. For a person in a peristent vegetative state there is not. Stop being so bloody obtuse.

Posted by: dvizard | February 8, 2009 5:52 PM

You see, that's the point when I start to puke. Screw the Pope and the whole religious bunch.

Posted by: Brian Macker | February 8, 2009 5:53 PM

Sven,

Once upon a time there was a article on this site that has been deleted along with it's comments that delved into the subject of bestiality. One of the objections made as to why such sex might just be unethical was that it might result in a fertile cross between a human and a chimp. PZ chimed in that he wasn't against that. Of course, the objection being that the baby might come to term.

He's had several articles on this blog that have been on the pro side of making human animal hybrids.

He also is of the opinion that fetuses only count as a collection of cells.

I fail to see why a woman who is in a vegetative state counts as anything more than a collection of cells in this view. Surely her eggs are merely cells too.

Myers, in his moralizing, often fails to quote primary concerns and likes to quote mine. For example, the primary reason given in this case was "This is murder. I would be failing to rescue her. I'm not a Pontius Pilate." not that she should be impregnated. The comment about the babies was probably a reference to how physically healthy she was, not a suggestion that she be used to pump out babies.

So, Patricia, #149, I call foul on Myers. If he can lie by omission in order to imply that Berlusconi plans on using her as a baby factor, then surely he can't complain when deductions are made from his public positions.

I'm not even sure that Myers would have an objection if the family of the girl decided to go along with a humanzee experiment based on his public pronouncements.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 8, 2009 6:01 PM

Posted by: Brian Macker | February 8, 2009

Once upon a time there was a article on this site that has been deleted along with it's comments that delved into the subject of bestiality. One of the objections made as to why such sex might just be unethical was that it might result in a fertile cross between a human and a chimp. PZ chimed in that he wasn't against that. Of course, the objection being that the baby might come to term.

Two things. First, Eluana Englaro cannot give consent to this. Second, she is hardly in any condition to carry out a full term pregnancy.

All you are doing is taking random statement said by PZ and trying to say he should support an action that PZ came out against.

You, Brian Macker, are arguing in bad faith.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 6:09 PM

This has me worried. I've made it clear to my family, that in similar circumstances, I wanted to be kept "alive" as a sperm donor. Now I realize that I had better get it down in writing.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 8, 2009 6:11 PM

Maybe Brian Macker is just concerned that an chimp/human hybrid would be able to write better and more well-thought-out posts than him and so render him useless*.

*_{Well, more useless than he already is.}

Posted by: Brian Macker | February 8, 2009 6:14 PM

Janine,

You are ignorant no longer. I can't help you with your other issue.

The comments I first saw by Myers (late 2007/early 2008) on this had no conditions on the experiment. Just that he thought it would be neat to make a man chimp hybrid. I think he deleted the entire article that was posted on in the interest of his daughter. I can no longer find it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 8, 2009 6:21 PM

Macker, proof or it didn't happen. seriously, if you can prove that PZ or ANY Pharyngulite has ever seriously(!) suggested the possibility of human-simian hybrids, I'll eat a broom. this is either pure bullshit, garbled recall, or reading comprehension fail regarding a joke of some sort.

Posted by: DLC | February 8, 2009 6:27 PM

A truly horrible situation. Perhaps more so because it's been dragged out for 17 years.

But, a question: what if someday it becomes possible to regenerate brain tissue and restore higher brain functions again ? I could see it happening sometime in the future.
Of course, this woman wouldn't be the same person, as far as her brain were concerned, but in theory she could be taught to function again.

Note: I am not saying this woman should be left in a PVS j against the future possibility that some such experimental therapy may become available.
This is a situation in the here and now, not in some dimly possible future. A sad case, truly. There really isn't any "good" outcome here, aside from an end to her family's suffering.

Posted by: Stanton | February 8, 2009 6:29 PM

Are you conscious while you're asleep? It seems not. You're actually unconscious. So sleeping people aren't really alive? "Effectively dead" even?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 8, 2009 6:33 PM

aaah, now the weird connection between making human-simian hybrids and the fetuses being clumps of cells makes sense

I was right. pure bullshit combined with garbled recall. fetus != embryonic stemcells; hypothetically informative != we should SOOOOOO do it!!!

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 6:38 PM

Berlusconi simply said in polite words that she has period (i.e. mestruation).

Is there anybody that can understand when someone does not speak as a villain?

Is there any way to interpret his raising that point in a fashion that makes it remotely relevant to the situation that does not imply him to be a villain?

Seriously. What "innocent" sentiment would you have us believe he was getting at?

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 8, 2009 6:46 PM

Nerd, raise a libation in salute to Azkyroth. He lead me in the right direction.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 6:49 PM

"it has to be recognized as an individual with all rights, and it must have a family committed to raising it as a full member."

This wouldn't really be humane, knowing in advance that he/she might have difficulty competing for mates. There should also be humans of the opposite sex that have agreed in advance to mate with him or her, without contraceptives.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 8, 2009 6:52 PM

Berlusconi simply said in polite words that she has period (i.e. mestruation).

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 8, 2009 6:53 PM

Wowbagger - You might explain how the hell you can sing while drunk (nice), and keep your beer in a glass while being upside down?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 8, 2009 6:57 PM

Brian Macker @ #170

I think

That's debatable

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 8, 2009 6:58 PM

Oh, and Macker:

Maybe if you could spell "bestiality" the search function could find it for you.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 7:04 PM

BTW, asshole, the poor women has not been a sentient being in seventeen years. That is dead.

Of course, Piltdown Man's comments show that he has a vested interest in the state of being a "living person" not being defined based on brain activity.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 8, 2009 7:06 PM

Of course, Piltdown Man's comments show that he has a vested interest in the state of being a "living person" not being defined based on brain activity.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 8, 2009 7:08 PM

Thank you, Sven. That'll teach me to make biological noises amongst the biologists.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 7:12 PM

"I'm pretty sure that due to chromosomal mismatch, any chimp-human hybrid would be a mule, anyway."

Probably, but occasionally mules are fertile. But without willing sex partners lined up in advance, it certainly shouldn't be a bonobo. Hmmm, given the length of time until sexual maturity, those old enough at the beginning of the experiment to have consented to be partners might be getting rather long in the tooth. The volunteers will probably have to be found among the freshman class.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 8, 2009 7:18 PM

Pilty - I'd be much more impressed with a quote from Gen. Albert Pike. If you're going Scottish rite.

Or since you're such a frisky Hoax today maybe you should buzz off, and read the Rite of Memphis. It's only 350 pages, plenty you'll enjoy.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 7:20 PM

"Oh, and the libertarian noises."

I know, a limited government libertarian society would have too many ethical restrictions on scientific experimentation for you anarchists.

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 8, 2009 7:24 PM

Piltdown Man:

Pointless blather. I'm sure anybody spying for Stalin 60 years ago was told by their handlers to "obey the law" so as not to call attention to themselves. It's the subversion due to their divided loyalties that's at issue, not whether their true masters tell them to behave.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 8, 2009 7:28 PM

Ah yes, here's the thing about Kerry and communion.

Adding to the fray in February, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke forbade Kerry from taking communion while campaigning in the area due to Kerry's stance on abortion and possibly stem cell research.

Kerry, if you remember, said that while he was personally against abortion, he was pro-choice.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 8, 2009 7:31 PM

Wowbagger - Awwwh. I thought you were gonna say something about scalawags. You do get extra points in sportsmanship though, for not making a wise crack about grits, which would have stiffened the spines of the Rev. & I both. Salute!

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 7:36 PM

Azkyroth#211,

Finding a "right to privacy" and then applying it to override the states in this circumstance is argued to be judicial activism and legislating from the bench. Strict constructionists, no matter where they stand on abortion, find the decision abhorent. It should have been left to the states or to a constitutional amendment giving the federal government this power or establishing this "right".

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 7:42 PM

Askyroth#211,

The "liberal critiques" section of the wikipedia Roe v. Wade article provides a pretty good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Liberal_critiques

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 8, 2009 7:47 PM

PZ Myers @175:

I also think it would be an ethically insurmountable problem to do the experiment to generate a human/chimp hybrid child

Interesting use of "insurmountable" rather than "unacceptable" or "inadmissable".

PZ Myers quoted @181:

I am going to assume that everyone commenting on these threads is opposed to, and would support a legal ban on, the creation of a human-chimpanzee hybrid. Bad assumption. I would love to see the experiment done ...

“You see things; and you say, "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"

I expect that the fetus would not come to term, which is boring

Κύριε ἐλέησον

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 7:52 PM

Finding a "right to privacy" and then applying it to override the states in this circumstance is argued to be judicial activism and legislating from the bench. Strict constructionists, no matter where they stand on abortion, find the decision abhorent. It should have been left to the states or to a constitutional amendment giving the federal government this power or establishing this "right".

Finding a "right to privacy" and then applying it to override the states in this circumstance is a logical consequence of the Supremacy Clause and the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, the 9th Amendment (why do "strict constructionists" always seem to miss that one?), and the ability to make basic inferences combined with reading amendments 3 through 5 and arguably others.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 8, 2009 7:53 PM

Pilty. I've told you before. You're better off not trying to be witty or funny.

Because you aren't

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 8, 2009 7:57 PM

Shorter Piltdown Man's opinion of Freemasons:

My loopy ancient cult run by men who wear dresses and perform arcane rituals and revere an imaginary being is better than your loopy ancient cult run by men who wear aprons and perform arcane rituals and revere an imaginary being!

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 8:14 PM

Azkyroth#220,

The US is a constitutional system, the "supremacy clause" is not like a devine right. It only applies where the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction.

You don't have to agree with those critical of the Roe v. Wade decision, but at least now you have "heard" that it is considered bad law by more than just one end of the political spectrum.

Posted by: thalarctos | February 8, 2009 8:33 PM

One of the authors, Alexander Hamilton, argued against a Bill of Rights (in Article 84), feeling that if rights were listed explicitly, it would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. This objection was covered by the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There's your right of privacy right there.

Thank you, 'Tis Himself; I had not put it together that way previously, but even then, the framers were grappling with the issue of what the domain of knowledge representation would later call closed-world and open-world assumptions.

I had not previously made that connection; thank you for triggering it.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 8:39 PM

The US is a constitutional system, the "supremacy clause" is not like a devine right. It only applies where the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction.

I note that for all your smarmy condescension you are still too intellectually dishonest to engage the rest of the argument.

The 14th Amendment forbids any state government from denying to any inhabitants of the state the rights they are due as citizens of the United States. The Supremacy Clause nullifies any constitutional provision (and, needless to say, any law) of any state which would seek to nullify this (or any other portion of the Constitution or its amendments). The 9th Amendment explicitly states that, contrary to your implications, rights do NOT have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or its amendments in order for the people to possess them. The rest of the Bill of Rights, particularly amendments 3, 4, and 5, clearly imply, and are arguably intelligible only under the assumption of, a general right of the citizenry to live their lives free from unreaonable intrusion by the government - in other words, a right to "privacy." Find an error in this argument or STFU.

Incidentally, the "liberal critiques" section you linked to contains remarkably literal resembling your line of argument.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 8:41 PM

I mean, of course, "remarkably little resembling your line of argument."

Posted by: Tielserrath | February 8, 2009 8:51 PM

This morning's Australian newspaper reveals further catholic thinking on what's acceptable in a priest - Holocaust denial is OK; treating women as equals gets you sacked.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25026470-2702,00.html

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 8, 2009 9:12 PM

As someone who has pledged allegiance to the constitution, I find that I must defend the constitution against what the liberals have done with it more than against the humble circumspection of the constructionists.

I made the same oath when I joined the US Navy ever so many years ago:

I...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same....

That's why I got so angry with Bush shitting on the Constitution. I also noted that many libertarians* were cheering Bush on.

*I except Ron Paul in this, probably the ONLY honorable thing that racist, America-hating bastard ever did in his life

Posted by: melior | February 8, 2009 9:45 PM

As for you calling Ron Paul a racist, you're still full of shit

Why would anyone bother to wade thru a kooky rant from 911-truther Alex Jones, when they can evaluate Ron Paul based on his own words?

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
- Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
- Ron Paul, 1992

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 8, 2009 10:07 PM

As for you calling Ron Paul a racist, you're still full of shit

Why am I not surprised that John C. Randolph pretends that his hero, Ron "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" Paul, isn't a racist.

Yeah, I know that he claims that he didn't write the stuff that appeared numerous times in his newsletters. I also know he claims that he never read the newsletters that appeared with his name on the banner. I know he was endorsed by Stormfront, Vanguard News, and the Nationalist Coalition. I also know that blatant racism was published under his name.

James Kirchick wrote in the New Republic:

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles ... seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Here's a few choice tidbits taken from USA Election Polls:

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” - Ron Paul

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

“we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

“By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Reported by Alan Bernstein of the Houston Chronicle, 1996:

Face it, John, your boy is a racist AND YOU SUPPORT HIM! If you had a shred of honor and decency, you'd disavow him. But you're a libertarian. Honor and decency are unnatural concepts to you.

Posted by: mikecbraun | February 8, 2009 10:19 PM

As for the libertarians on this site, don't worry. Some day, you'll grow up, graduate from high school, get a real job, and see that life isn't so bad. Maybe you'll even get a real girlfriend! Hell, maybe you'll even read some real philosophy and realize Ayn Rand was a fucking hack!

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 10:23 PM

But you're a libertarian. Honor and decency are unnatural concepts to you.

Well, duh. Honor and decency refer to obligations to something other than oneself. Libertarians confuse "freedom" with "never being told 'no'." What do you expect?

Regarding the recent scienceblogs update, I note that the time delay for additional comment submission remains excessive.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 10:26 PM

Strict constructionists seem to think that in a state of nature, mankind lived in the most authoritarian regime imaginable, where their every action was prescribed, and the constitution merely offers a few specific "rights" that represent the maximum permissible deviation from the authoritarian utopia man was naturally destined to live in.

I categorically reject the second theory.

So do "strict constructionists" when attempts are made to place restrictions on behavior in order to actually benefit people.

Posted by: Kobra | February 8, 2009 11:08 PM

It's nice to know that the Catholic Church's criteria for the value of a woman's life focus on the functionality of her ovaries rather than the existence of her mind.

Come on, PZ; you say that like it's their ONLY fucked up priority. Let's review: On top of their fucked up views toward women, the Catholic church thinks a cracker is their god, that throwing said cracker in the trash is worse than the Holocaust, Holocaust-deniers aren't as bad as atheists, etc. Need I go on?

Posted by: Stanton | February 8, 2009 11:29 PM

Come on, PZ; you say that like it's their ONLY fucked up priority. Let's review: On top of their fucked up views toward women, the Catholic church thinks a cracker is their god, that throwing said cracker in the trash is worse than the Holocaust, Holocaust-deniers aren't as bad as atheists, etc. Need I go on?

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 11:43 PM

"Strict constructionists seem to think that in a state of nature, mankind lived in the most authoritarian regime imaginable, where their every action was prescribed, and the constitution merely offers a few specific "rights" that represent the maximum permissible deviation from the authoritarian utopia man was naturally destined to live in."

The founders were not concerned the power of the state, not the state of nature. States had to be restrained, and they hoped the checks, balances and standards and the super majority protections of the constitution would restrain the state. Activists liberal judges have broken the state free of these bounds ever since the time of FDR.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 8, 2009 11:56 PM

Tis Himself#236,

"That's why I got so angry with Bush shitting on the Constitution. I also noted that many libertarians* were cheering Bush on."

I don't know any libertarians that were cheering Bush on. I'm about the only one that could see him in historical perspective and actually liked him. There were many among the liberals daemonizing Bush who were admirers of FDR and Wilson who make Bush seem like an ACLU member by comparison. Most libertarians I knew also deamonized Bush, but didn't have to be pressed too hard to admit that FDR and Wilson were worse.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 12:03 AM

States had to be restrained, and they hoped the checks, balances and standards and the super majority protections of the constitution would restrain the state.

And you figure restricting the rights of the citizens which the government is obligated to respect and uphold to those explicitly enumerated is going to accomplish this how exactly?

(Incidentally, on the public service thing: at least in California, high schools already have a requirement for a certain number of hours of "community service" for graduation. While this seems to have been fairly effective at instilling the feeling that volunteer work is a "chore" or a "hoop to jump through" it does not appear to have lead to any form of tyranny.)

I don't know any libertarians that were cheering Bush on. I'm about the only one that could see him in historical perspective and actually liked him. There were many among the liberals daemonizing Bush who were admirers of FDR and Wilson who make Bush seem like an ACLU member by comparison. Most libertarians I knew also deamonized Bush, but didn't have to be pressed too hard to admit that FDR and Wilson were worse.

In other words, your moral beliefs and political agenda have as much to do with human needs and human welfare as Burlusconi's.

You must be proud.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 12:15 AM

I haven't receive a government service in years other than use of the roads, and those are being rebuilt about twice as often as needed so some politician can claim he brought us jobs.

Aside from, for starters, breathable air, clean water, police protection, building and safety codes, fire protection, sanitation, social stability (big-Ls always gloss over this one), the promise of defense against invasion, and the opportunity to invest and take risks with the knowledge that you are unlikely to actually starve if they don't pan out...

Hmm, what is it you do for a living?

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 12:20 AM

You are quite wrong. The community service requirement was tyrrany.

....

tyr⋅an⋅ny [tir-uh-nee] –noun, plural -nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler. 3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler. 4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. 5. undue severity or harshness. 6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

Origin:
1325–75; ME tyrannie Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 12:36 AM

Is there even a word for this fetish? And I'm really weirded out by the idea of Berlusconi fantasizing about knocking up a brain-dead woman.

"Pragmatism?" I mean, it's not like any other woman would have him...

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 12:37 AM

I am ready to strangle every single goddamned libertarian.

Why don't we just force the blinkered fucks to actually live in a state of nature for a while and require them to make extensive amends before we'll let them back into society when they come running back to it crying?

Posted by: Kengee | February 9, 2009 12:46 AM

Maybe Berlusconi doesn't like women who move around during sex, or ones that my judge his performance.

Posted by: IncaRoads | February 9, 2009 1:00 AM

Bonsai-Mussolini! One cannot help, to ask the state of mind of those who voted twice for this Clown.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 1:11 AM

I have to admit I knew next to nothing about libertarianism before a few months ago - about the only time I'd even seen the word outside this site was on the facebook page of my ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend, where he'd listed it as his political affiliation* - but now I think I know more than enough.

While I actually agree with much of the personal freedom aspects, I can't see how the rest of it would be applicable anywhere other than some bizarre fantasy land where corporations aren't run by greedy scumbags and where they don't do things like allow people who purchase their products to die fiery deaths and pay out the lawsuits rather than do a costly recall.

I mean, I hate corruption and waste and the other less-than-perfect aspects of government - but it's still the best system that anyone's come up with. Until human beings become less greedy and selfish it's the best way to protect those who need it most.

*_{Which, now that I know what it entails, makes me wonder whether or not being in a relationship with me can actually permanently damage your sanity, as has been suggested on more than one occasion.}

Posted by: Stephanie | February 9, 2009 1:13 AM

even if you impregnated the vegetable woman and the resulting infant was born, it would be totally messed up from not having the same sensory experiences a normal fetus experiences in utero. But the christians are all about babies, not what they become.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 1:22 AM

Why would libertarianism be particularly frustrating to you?

Big-L Libertarianism is annoying because petulant narcissism gets old, especially when it hinges on the idea that "freedom" begins and ends with never being told "no."

Willful obtuseness coupled to smarminess doesn't help either.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 1:30 AM

Africangenesis wrote:

Western agreement on what constitutes good governance is relatively recent, and the reality still falls short of the open and transparent ideal. Human greed and selfishness are what makes government dangerous as well, arguably more dangerous than corporations which are already at the mercy of the government and so have checks on their power. If you are speaking of more government management of the economy, central planning does not have a good track record.

I don't think you'd find anyone - here or anywhere else - who wouldn't like a more efficient, more transparent government. I, for one, have many issues with the standard political system and those who make their livings manipulating it.

But my problem is that I can't see how it is that you, unless you've spent your life with your eyes closed, could imagine that a society run on the principles you seem (from the posts of you and the other self-identified libertarians) to espouse, isn't going to lead to a far worse situation than the one we're in.

Especially when we're talking corporations. It'd be like taking one of those Supermax prisons and asking the inmates to run it themselves under the honour system.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 9, 2009 1:42 AM

arguably more dangerous than corporations which are already at the mercy of the government and so have checks on their power

oh, wait... you were serious, weren't you.

ok then, please do tell me, which government are the multinationals restricted by? And which laws exactly can they not circumvent by moving stuff to another country?

not to mention that in the Libertarian version of "government", there wouldn't be enough government to even limit what damage a corporation can do within the country.

Posted by: Kel | February 9, 2009 1:44 AM

What evidence do you have of petulant narcissism other than your mere assertion of it?

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:06 AM

For the Libertarians present: consider the following scenario.

Somewhere in a desert area, some distance from the equator in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere, there is, for lack of a better word, a pit, in the form of a concrete-coated depression in the ground. For the sake of argument, its footprints in the shape of a square, with sides, say, 40 feet in length, and oriented perpendicular to the arms of the compass. All of the walls are 20 feet high and rise straight from the bottom of the pit. On the East, West, and North sides, and for about the first 5 feet of the South side in either direction, there is an additional 20 feet of concrete wall; on the South side (where the angle of the sun leaves a significant area under the wall in shadow) there is merely flat ground above.

It's summer, and with the sun beating down and the wind shut out, it's hot in the pit. Fifty people have been placed in this pit and abandoned, with food and water enough to keep them alive, technically. A bunch of them have staked out positions against the South wall of the pit, and there's no free space in the shade here. A few of the people in the shade, who happen to be at the east and west ends of the wall (where there's also additional wall above the pit) are offering to take turns with others for free; others are considering offering their places to others in exchange for those others' share of the food and water. The rest are sitting back, smiling smugly and thinking that they've done pretty well for themselves.

Then, a ladder is dropped into the pit. I don't feel like working out the trigonometry problem, but it's just barely long enough so that, if it was placed right against the South wall, it would allow everyone in the pit to climb up and out. However, this will require someone to move from the part of the South wall below the opening in the higher section of the wall. The people who don't have spots by the wall get ready to set the ladder up and climb out, but find that no one in the right area of the South wall is willing to move. Their reasons for refusing aren't really relevant: they be tired, they may feel so hot already that going into the sun for a moment would be unbearable, they might believe that whatever's outside the pit will be even worse, they might simply feel like being contrary. Perhaps they doubt that the ladder really is tall enough to get them out, and demand to see "proof" of this before they move, then brush it off when the others hold the ladder up straight to illustrate its height. One or two might offer to move if given everybody's share of food and water, but with the desert to cross even after they get out of the pit, the others aren't willing to agree to this. A few people attempt to reason, cajole, browbeat, or threaten the people in the shade who refuse to move, but those people smugly respond that they're entitled to their spots and they shouldn't have to move if they don't want to since they "aren't harming anyone."

I think it obvious to any sane person that, even if one takes "freedom" to be the paramount good, that the people in the pit will be more "free" after they have climbed out (and also that the claims on the part of those in the shade that they "aren't harming anyone" are absurd). Yet, the version of Libertarian tenets that has been prevented to me dictates that this state of affairs would be profoundly immoral, since it requires them to force one or more people to move out of the shade, away from the wall, thereby imposing on their free choice. If this line of reasoning sounds absurd, well, that's because it is. I invite you, keeping in mind that this is an allegory and some elements are simplified slightly or glossed over, to draw the obvious connections.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:20 AM

Under what circumstances could it possibly be legal to impregnate an unconscious woman anyway?

Well, there's no entry in the Constitution specifying a "right to not be impregnated without one's consent..."

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:32 AM

Observing that problems can develop in the other direction is not an answer to the contradiction I posed.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | February 9, 2009 2:37 AM

Any corporation is an artificial legal being totally at the mercy of government. The minute a government doesn't recognize it, it doesn't have the power to move assets within that country anywhere. It has ceased to exist within those borders. Perhaps governments will run into trouble with other governments if they exploit corporations in this way, or perhaps governments risk frightening investment by other corporations away.

oh.my.

you've removed yourself completely from the real world into the world of pure theory, haven't you.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:58 AM

So what "evidence" convinced you that every competent climate scientist on the planet is wrong?

Posted by: Kel | February 9, 2009 3:00 AM

It just seems that AGW sceptics are quite a proportional of libertarians, and it far outweighs the current scientific scepticism on the issue. And that's what bugs me, it's that the scientists who have worked on climatology for decades who have studied the evidence in far greater detail than you or I are saying it's true, and it seems that the allegation from many libertarian circles regardless of qualification is that those scientists are incompetent or reading the data wrong. What's even more surprising is that it comes from libertarians who are normally on-board with science, and from those who normally hate conspiracy theorists.

I guess what I'm saying is why do libertarians think they know everything?

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 3:10 AM

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:58 AM

So what "evidence" convinced you that every competent climate scientist on the planet is wrong?

Posted by: John Morales | February 9, 2009 3:19 AM

AG @287,

Azkyroth,
Irrational human behavior can thwart any system.
[...]
Which is to be preferred a system that allows individual follies but thwarts collective follies, or one that concentrates power so that collective follies become more dangerous.

You mention 3 factors:
C=an instance of collective folly
I=an instance of individual folly
M=power is concentrated and that makes (can make?) collective folly more dangerous (to an unspecified degree)

The alternatives are:
1.(I & C)
2.(I & ¬C)
3.(¬IF & CF)
4.(¬I & ¬C).
5.(M)

It's a problem, especially since I don't know much about M, only that M↔¬(I & ¬C)*.

Can you justify having to choose between only 2 and 5 and ignoring 1, 3 and 4?

* Though that's an assertion I disagree with.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 3:21 AM

Morales...

Translation plz?

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 3:31 AM

Azkyroth,

"Support for "human activity is plausibly not a cause": not so...at all, really."

AGW is plausible. I fully expect it to come in somewhere between 20 and 60% of the attribution. In the lower half of this range it will be swamped by natural variation, in the upper half of this range, we get another century like the last if solar activity returns to normal levels, above this range we get into the climate sensitivity range of the climate models, but their projections are still likely way off, because some of their documented errors come back to haunt them with a vengenence in a few decades of simulation, biasing their projections too high.

Solanki's statement about GHGs predates the wealth of model diagnostic literature associated with the AR4 and that has continued to be published since. In addition his only earlier analysis was just a simple correlation analysis that did not factor in the thermal inertia of the oceans that was acknowledged in the TAR but not really well quantified until a year after Solanki's statement. This is not about argument from authority anyway.

Posted by: John Morales | February 9, 2009 3:37 AM

Azkyroth, he's putting forward a false dichotomy, even in its own terms.

I also have a problem with his term "collective folly" - I'm guessing he means "folly collectivelly decided on" rather than "multiple simultaneous cases of individual folly", but he doesn't make it clear.

AG indulges in vague and sophistic language.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 3:52 AM

John, Collective folly is folly by collective identities or justified by collective identities such as nation states, religions, racies and ideologies. The rise of nation states in the 19th and 20 centuries, the religious crusades and the muslim jihads, the war between aryan Germany and the marxist soviet union, the imperialism of Japan, the cold war that exploited ethnic differences and national aspirations, etc.

Individual follies in a free society are hopefully balanced by the benefits of individual risk taking, invention and enterprise.

Posted by: John Morales | February 9, 2009 4:10 AM

AG, I figured. But..

Individual follies in a free society are hopefully balanced by the benefits of individual risk taking, invention and enterprise.

Might it also be, however, that collective follies in a free society are hopefully balanced by the benefits of collective risk taking, invention and enterprise?

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 4:24 AM

Kel#305,

The IPCC statement is:

"It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming."

"very likely" corresponds to 90% confidence in the statement. The statement has been interpreted to mean and and intended to mean that nearly all the recent warming was due to AGW. The IPCC also made projections with their models about future temperature increases and claimed certain risks were likely if no action were taken.

There is no evidence to support their level of confidence other than the models in the attribution, and multidecadal projections are unjustifiable with the documented model errors.

The current evidence doesn't justify their level of cconfidence, attribution or alarm. But AGW is plausible and significant, but even just 20% attribution is significant without being any cause for alarm. The solar hypothesis is also plausible, despite being poorly understood, because there are good correlations of the climate with solar activity in the past, although the correlation seems larger than is thought to be explainable by the estimated variation in radiative forcing. The level of solar activity seems too high to be a mere coincidence. We need advances in models and understanding to credibly attribute the recent warming.

Posted by: windy | February 9, 2009 5:06 AM

I should have perhaps clarified that by collective follie, I wasn't referring to the decisions by the leaders of the collectives, but to the dangerous human vulnerability to collective identity.

And how is this vulnerability avoided in your system?

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 5:27 AM

Kel,

"The scientists involved seem to think that there's reason to be confident. Again, what makes you think you know how to better interpret the evidence than the scientists who have trained for decades who look at them? "

The scientists involved are not supposed to "think" there is a reason to be confident. They are supposed to have evidence. You should review my posts on "The Usual Lies" thread. It should be clear that the scientists peer review statements of the implications of their own results call the models into question. The "consensus" is a fiction, so it isn't just me. Just see if anyone can back up the IPCC AR4 statement. It wasn't backed up at the time it was written, and even more problems with any such statement have been published since then.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 5:42 AM

John Morales,

More laws imply a larger government wielding more power. The impact of bad laws are greatly reduced if the government is small and weak. If you look at the current US, the federal government adds little to what the states provide. It is a bit more efficient at collecting revenue, when it then feeds back to the state with strings attached. About the only time you don't want the federal government weak and limited is when under attack by another strong government. So really the shrinkage of the federal government should be accompied by an attempt to shrink governments everywhere, so that they can't get away with mutually justifying their larger size.

Posted by: John Morales | February 9, 2009 6:25 AM

AG,

More laws imply a larger government wielding more power.

More laws imply a larger government wielding more power.

The impact of bad laws are greatly reduced if the government is small and weak.

I note there's "power" in the sense of the scope of and authoritativeness of decrees available, "power" in the sense of control over legislature, and "power" in the sense of de-facto enforcement of law.

I don't care to speculate about the US, I'm an Aussie.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 9, 2009 6:36 AM

The worlds climate modelers will probably fit within one auditorium, and I doubt they would say AGW is "true", because undoubtedly they would acknowledge most of the diagnostic literature I am relying upon. - Africangensis

Complete crap. Almost all climate scientists, modellers and others, consider that increased greenhouse gas levels account, once feedbacks are included (africangenesis's dishonest "30%" claim neglects the well-understood positive feedback that warmer air holds more water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas), for all the warming since 1970. Almost none believe the sun had anything to do with this. Anyone who wants to know the real state of climate science should look at what climate scientists actually say about it, not at the words of an ideologically-driven cherry-picker such as africangenesis, who recently showed on "the usual lies" that he was ignorant of basic modelling terminology, and apparently thought that a warmer sea would hold more carbon dioxide. I have challenged him repeatedly to post his lies on the recent thread on climate modelling at RealClimate. He won't, because he knows damn well he'd get shredded.

Posted by: John Morales | February 9, 2009 6:48 AM

Bernard,

Sorry for this interjection, everybody else.

Posted by: clinteas | February 9, 2009 7:25 AM

As I posted 2 days ago:

I propose a new Internet law called Bojan's law(after the unconscious drunk I have just dragged out of a car into my Emergency Department) :

"As a internet discussion involving politics grows longer, the probability of it being hijacked by Libertarians approaches one."

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 7:40 AM

Knockgoats#320,

If you know what you claim to know, you should be able to challenge me here. Even when corrected you continue to make ignorant statements.

Yes, cold water can hold more CO2 in solution, but the fearmongering about the oceans becoming more acidic are based upon more CO2 in the ocean, otherwise it wouldn't be more acidic. We are well below the saturation point for CO2, so the fearmongering about a more CO2 causing a more acidic ocean and hurting coral reefs and other calcium shelled creatures for instance is plausible, because CO2 levels in the oceans can increase. You should try to understand the fearmongering at least.

You know darn well, that my 30% claim has always been about the direct effects of CO2 and has always openly neglected the water vapor positive feeback. That is because it is the "net" feedbacks that are important and the net feedbacks may well be negative despite the strong positive water vapor feedback. You've have been corrected on this before. Water vapor is also a positive feedback to solar warming and to decreases in aerosol cooling. The others are welcome to see the discussion on "The Usual Lies" thread, and on other threads, where peer review evidence is cited.

You misunderstand so much, that I think you mustn't have been following the threads closely. realclimate.org is highly censored. Evidently you haven't found anything on that thread that addresses the issues raised by the model diagnostic literature. You are welcome to seek answers there to issues raised here, cut and paste if you like. I doubt you will receive answers there that you can defend here, unless of course, their answers are correct, and I'll quickly acknowledge that. They aren't wrong on everything there you know. They just try to hand wave or gloss over too many issues that can't be ignored in a model of a nonlinear complex system. Don't expect them to concede many points. The haven't been intellectually honest about the problems with the Mann hockeystick and are still scrambling to defend it.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 9, 2009 8:02 AM

Windy#325,

Those are legitimate points. A tendency towards collective identities was probably selected for in our evolution, and may well be responsible for the extinctions of neanderthal in Europe and home erectus in Asia, and well as the first Americans and any number of other modern human groups. We've discussed this here before, with recent hypotheses questioning the population bottleneck explanation for the small effective population size of humans. The hypothesis put forward was that there was little outbreeding and that effective population size was decreased as different groups were extinguished.

Mrs Tilton,

Somalia is more like left anarchy than limited government libertarianism. Note the lack of respect for private property.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 9, 2009 8:15 AM

The most damning indictment of Libertarianism might be that, even in a matter of this kind of gravity, self-interest allows someone like AG to hijack this thread with self-indulgent Me, Me, Me arguments.

Even AG's limited attempts to engage with the actual subject of the original post quickly degenerate into indulgent, abstract discussions of interspecies breeding ethics.

It isn't like there aren't alternative, and appropriate forums for this kind of discussion, AG. For fuck's sake; there is a time and place to argue one's corner, and time and place to bow out for the sake of decency.

Posted by: spurge | February 9, 2009 8:30 AM

AG

Just because no one wants to listen to your bullshit does not make this a "fawning, confirming, unchallenging environment"

I know that it is hard for a selfish person such as yourself to understand but it is not all about you.

You derail thread after thread with completely irrelevant Libertarian bullshit.

"If you want to be on the side of the evidence, all you have to do is be open minded and seek to understand."

That is rich coming from an AGW denialist.

Don't bother to reply to me as I will be ignoring you again as PZ has requested.

The host of this blog has told you twice now to shut up.

What part of that is confusing to you?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 9, 2009 8:40 AM

AG, did you read the original post?

You've managed to railroad this topic into a defence of your own personal ideological beliefs, where a better person would have refused to take the bait (if bait it was, rather than a reaction to provocation). You've allowed your beligerent defence of libertarian ideals to get in the way of a discussion about Catholic moral imperialism, and much, much more importantly, the rights of a person in life and death.

I'm all for organic development of comment threads, but this is just a little too distasteful - you've managed to divert this thread as far as arguments about global warming and the size and role of federal government.

(And it is abstract, insofar as, it is an entirely hypothetical discussion based on rights which have no agreed formulation or formal status. It is also insultingly trivial in its real-world implications, in the context of this post.)

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | February 9, 2009 9:11 AM

Rrr,

plus, the word "libertarian" is, like "liberal", subject to significant regional variation. In the usual usage here in Europe, libertarians aren't dorkish Republicans congratulating themselves for thinking they're openminded about gays and dopesmokers, they're people with black flags and a fond nostalgic regard for Buenaventura Durruti.

(Myself, I used to be a libertarian and am now a liberal; in each case, not necessarily in the sense that AG would use the terms.)

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 9, 2009 9:35 AM

Certainly not yours.

I do remember posting directly on-topic. By the time I arrived, you'd already ruined the thread.

Yeah, yeah; not your fault. Strangely, many threads on Pharyngula end up as a discussion of libertarianism, with you at the centre of them. I'm sure it isn't your fault in those cases, either.

As I said, baited or not, a better person would resist.

Do you have anything to offer on the original topic?

Aside from my opinions on the Catholic Church, which are germane to the original post (and given above)?

It seems very obvious to me that life and death in a case such as this should be a matter for the next of kin and the medical professionals providing treatment. Well-intentioned meddling by other agencies is bad enough, but this kind of cynical, sanctimonious exploitation is truly horrible. That anybody would choose to draw, or be seen to draw, equivalence between value of life and reproductive capacity, simply compounds the insult.

Which direction do you think this thread would have gone, if it hadn't been hijacked?

?!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 9, 2009 9:52 AM

I see AG again hijacked a thread with its morally bankrupt libertardian sophisms after PZ asked it to leave. I see a plonking in its deluded future.

Posted by: Stimpy C Cat | February 9, 2009 10:13 AM

so, a woman is little more than a fetus/baby receptacle in Berlusconi's eyes. How very "pro-life" of him. He puts the creation of a new life over the enjoyment of an existing one.

Posted by: Natalie | February 9, 2009 1:32 PM

I am strangely (creepily) reminded of the Spanish film Hable con ella/Talk to her.

Posted by: Lilian Nattel | February 9, 2009 2:39 PM

That brings gross to a whole new level.

Posted by: DominEditrix | February 9, 2009 3:46 PM

Nature 1, Berlusconi 0; the body of Eluana Englaro has ceased to function. Her grave marker can read "Died 1992; buried 2009".

This is why I have a living will and power of attorney for health care. The Biophysicist and I have agreed that a PVS is not where we want to be. Plugs will be pulled, no nourishment provided and nature will take its course.

Posted by: Lin | February 9, 2009 4:19 PM

(If she weren't, how would she be capable of having babies?) Since she is married, the original owner of the rights to her reproductive system -- her father -- has transferred them to her husband, the new owner. So the fact that she cannot consent to bearing a child (or do anything else at all) is irrelevant. Who cares what she thinks, even if she could think?

Excuse me?

How about: No.

The owner of the reproductive system is the woman in question. No one else has a right to her body, be they husband or father.

That kind of thought process is absolutely inhumane, not to mention misogynistic.

Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 4:39 PM

. I don't agree, though, that getting rid of religion would necessarily do away with such grotesqueries; people so inclined would just find or concoct some other ideas to explain/justify their attitudes & actions.

What's your evidence that religion is not a motivating factor in the formation of their beliefs and attitudes?

Posted by: Donna | February 9, 2009 5:04 PM

The Catholic Church just simply can't mind its business. Italians don't care what the church thinks or says (and politicians are a joke. The only reason why those people are in the positions they're in is because nobody else wants them!).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 9, 2009 5:12 PM

well, it looks as though I'd better not tell you about my ideas for Irish babies...

Mrs T,

I hate to tell you this, but I suspect that Jonathan Swift already had that idea.

Posted by: Terry C -Glad Bush Is Gone! | February 9, 2009 5:21 PM

To all of the individuals who are defending the Vatican and Berlusconi:

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with all of you.

Posted by: fcaccin | February 9, 2009 5:34 PM

These people and their supporters are certifiably insane, if not outright evil.

Posted by: Santoki | February 9, 2009 10:38 PM

ok, I have to admit, this post made me LOL

Posted by: Terry C - Glad Bush Is Gone! | February 10, 2009 7:34 AM

We had a case in the US a few years ago. A comatose woman in a nursing home was starting to look more and more pregnant with each passing week.

Turns out she was. She had been raped by a worker there. DNA tests led to the scumbag being identified and prosecuted.

Her parents didn't want the pregnancy terminated - they wanted to raise the result of the rape because it would be part of their daughter. How disgusting is that?

Anyway, she had the kid....and mercifully it killed her.

Posted by: Flavio | February 10, 2009 11:24 AM

I am ashamed of how my own country is dealing with this case. Not surprisingly I moved to the Netherlands.

Eluana Englaro eventually died yesterday.

But the parliament, once again in control of the catholic church, is passing a law to prevent anyone from stopping the treatments on comatose patients, even the ones that already decided not to be kept alive by machines.

Italy is becoming more and more like Iran, in the heart of Europe.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 10, 2009 2:17 PM

stop the treatments on comatose patients, whose basic brain functions are shut down and have no chance to wake up

People like this?

Posted by: Sonya | February 10, 2009 5:19 PM

Just goes to prove the Vatican could care less about women as long as they produce offspring - preferably male offspring. Sick bastards!

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 10, 2009 5:29 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp @371:

Yes pilty, the case of someone in a degenerative coma for 17 years and someone a few hours after an accident are exactly analogous.

Mr Dunlap wasn't in some kind of vegetative coma - he was 'brain dead'. Now either 'brain death' is Death with a capital D or it isn't. If it is, then it doesn't matter if you've been 'brain dead' for a few hours or for several years - you are Dead and everybody knows Dead people don't come back to life. That's why you're allowed to withdraw their life support and slice them open to harvest their organs.

In traditional Christian culture the only sure sign of death (ie that the soul had left the body) was the onset of decomposition (hence the significance of John 11:39). Which is why priests would baptize recently deceased infants or pagans.

Posted by: Keenacat | February 10, 2009 5:45 PM

Actually, Med school told me that the only sure signs of death are
- livores mortis
- rigor mortis
- injuries incompatible with life (e.g. decapitation)
and (later on)
- decomposition and some similarly unsavory changes.

The time span inbetween brain death and those signs is called intermediate life, but nobody can return from intermediate life if brain function has ceased.
Now, the question is:
Who assessed Mr. Dunlaps alleged death on what criteria?

See, he says he HEARD the doctor say something. You can not hear (much less understand) anything if your brain function has ceased.

There is definitely something fishy about this case and I absolutly disbelieve that the guy was brain dead in the first place.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 10, 2009 5:58 PM

Hoax, I am justified in thinking that there was a mistake made rather then thinking that prayer brought the person back from the dead. I know, I am taking a strict materialist view here. How closed minded of me.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 10, 2009 6:05 PM

intermediate life

That's even better than PZ's "effectively dead", lol.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 10, 2009 6:09 PM

Piltdown, if it was a miracle, how are we to know that it wasn't because a nearby Hindu prayed to Ganesh to heal her? How do you go about showing that it could only have been your god that intervened as opposed to one of the many others?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 10, 2009 6:15 PM

Pilty, his picture is in the dictionary next to the definition of "failed evidence".

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 11, 2009 3:46 AM

The german term "Intermediäres Leben"

The Germans do like their terms, don't they? Lebensunwertes Leben comes to mind ...

Posted by: Keenacat | February 11, 2009 7:40 AM

Wow Pilty, you Godwined REALLY hard. Congratulations.
But nice to know there are no proper arguments left on your side.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 11, 2009 5:06 PM

Till Eulenspiegel up to his lustige Streiche again?

Those particular Germans, the ones who came up with that phrase, were lead by a devoted Catholic

Someone should have told this devoted Catholic it was a mortal sin to blow your brains out.

who was inspired by the model of utter, fierce loyalty to the Catholic Church, and also inspired by the utter condemnation of everything outside of the Church.

On what do you base these assertions?

+++

(Re your PS - I have just finished reading Bp Williamson's letter. I'll address your queries on the thread dedicated to His Eminence asap.)

Posted by: John Morales | February 11, 2009 5:18 PM

Piltdown: photographic evidence.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 11, 2009 6:01 PM

Those particular Germans, the ones who came up with that phrase, were lead by a devoted Catholic

Someone should have told this devoted Catholic it was a mortal sin to blow your brains out.

Gosh! A Catholic acted in a manner inconsistent with Catholicism! How novel! How unprecedented! Quelle surprise!

who was inspired by the model of utter, fierce loyalty to the Catholic Church, and also inspired by the utter condemnation of everything outside of the Church.

On what do you base these assertions?

Oh, merely his own words. Your own statements about the glories of the Church and the nobility of monarchy are quite often strangely similar to them.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."

[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."

[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

Und so weiter

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 12, 2009 6:00 AM

Owlmirror @394:

Gosh! A Catholic acted in a manner inconsistent with Catholicism! How novel! How unprecedented! Quelle surprise!

There have plenty of people who were baptized Catholics and went on to disregard Catholic teaching. The British politician Clare Short, for instance, who called herself a "cultural Catholic" while supporting abortion. Or the ex-Dominican Matthew Fox, who publicly rejected Original Sin and eventually left the Church to get in touch with his inner dolphin. Not to mention that irascible, slightly crazed anti-Semitic German fellow who kick-started the Reformation.

But you called Hitler a "devoted Catholic". "Devoted" as in devout as in someone who takes their Catholicism seriously.

Wowbagger @395:

Hitler probably dinnae make his porridge the right way either - the wee gadgie Sassenach...

Plucked at random from a Pharyngula thread:

It pisses me off as an atheist to be lumped with Stalin and Mao ...

Is that the distant skirl of pipes I hear?

John Morales @392:

Piltdown: photographic evidence.

Evidence of what?

Hitler and Nazis greeting Church dignitaries and photographed with churches in the background or even inside churches ...

I could post pictures of Hitler greeting the French head of state, standing proudly in front of the Eiffel Tower or standing with a reverential demeanour before Napoleon's tomb. Perhaps Hitler was really a fervent French nationalist.

I could post pictures of ex-President George W Bush standing at the Wailing Wall wearing a yarmulke or sitting in the Oval Office surrounded by Lubavitcher rabbis. Is that proof that Dubya was a practising Jew?

Pictures of Nazis with Christmas trees ...

Well that clinches it. Proof positive that the Nazis were all devout Catholics or Lutherans or neo-pagans or something.

Owlmirror @394:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

Frances Kissling would doubtless say the same thing.

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

The beauty and spendour of traditional Roman Catholic liturgy is proverbial. Anyone with the slightest aesthetic sensibility is liable to be impressed - doesn't make them "devoted Catholics".

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

I don't know anything about this "Christian Social movement" - do you? Was it Catholic? Whatever it was, this quotation rather suggests he disapproves of its lack of "racial knowledge".

"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

This could mean anything. No mention of Catholicism or even of Christianity, just vague waffle about "spiritual conviction" and "spiritual base".

Now then ...

"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it." [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

Very well. Taken together, these quotations do indeed suggest that Hitler was influenced, at least in part, by the Catholic Church's militancy & dogmatic intransigence. I concede the point.

I hope you would concede, however, that it doesn't follow that Hitler was a "devoted Catholic" or that Nazism derived from the Christian religion. I admire the militant fervour of many Muslims but I'm not thereby an admirer of Islam.

Moreover, while he may have admired or been inspired by certain aspects of Catholicism, there are at least as many aspects that he fiercely denounced, as I'm sure you're aware.

Finally, Hitler was influenced by many currents of thought, from Wagnerism to Ariosophy. It seems to me there was very little intellectual coherence to the man, who was prepared to be all things to all men as it suited him.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 12, 2009 7:09 AM

Pilt,

I admire the militant fervour of many Muslim

Wow, Plity has Fatwa envy. Who would have guessed?

/sarcasm

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 12, 2009 9:09 AM

Yawn, Pilty is such a bore. And with his long winded post after being warned against such by PZ, maybe we will be free of his idiocy. Pilty, your god is imaginary, existing only between your ears, and your chuch is a vile institution that needs to be disbanded for the good of humanity.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 2:56 PM

I hope you would concede, however, that it doesn't follow that Hitler was a "devoted Catholic"

Y'know what? Fine. I concede that Hitler was not a "devoted" Catholic.

or that Nazism derived from the Christian religion.

This, however, I will not entirely concede, since at least the folk-anti-Judaism that Nazism proudly promoted can be traced back to the theologians Martin Luther and John Chrysostom and others, and even further back to the gospels themselves. Hitler's own religious beliefs become irrelevant once you have to take into account the fact that the religions of the people of Nazi Germany who joined the Nazi Party and the Nazi military organizations were Protestant and Catholic.

I admire the militant fervour of many Muslims

Oddly enough, so did the non-devout Catholic dictator.

Hitler expressed admiration for the Muslim military tradition and directed Himmler to initiate Muslim SS Divisions as a matter of policy. According to one confidant, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity."

Posted by: Steve_C | February 12, 2009 5:45 PM

Actually the numbers of Catholics has been dwindling as the numbers of godless has been growing. The godless/agnostic outnumber catholics in the US.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 5:53 PM

Thus Spoketh The Hoax

Any attempt to eliminate the Church has exactly the same chance of success as an attempt to eliminate the Jews (and for the same reason).

Is being a catholic passed on from the mother? And do you think other peoples want to put catholics through a Holocaust?

Posted by: Steve_C | February 12, 2009 5:56 PM

I was wrong. Rechecked the census. Catholics are about 26% of the population. Atheist/Agnostics are 15%.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 6:02 PM

Thus Spoketh The Hoax

Well Lenin did set up an outfit called the League of Militant Godless. As far as I know there was no League of Militant Dragonless.

While I am hesitant to show support for anything Lenin did, it is not like millions of people were guided by their collective belief in dragons.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | February 12, 2009 6:16 PM

Dawkins, Myers, Harris, Hitchens et al don't just think religion is false - they think it's dangerous to the point of being evil.

So tell us again, Pilty, about how the Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS in Africa. How the good priests and nuns are instructing Africans on proper condom use and providing condoms free of charge.

Let's not forget how the Catholic Church, together with the Mormon Church, fought to get equal rights for gays in California. I was certainly impressed with how these two denominations, often at odds with each other doctrinally, forged an alliance so that gays and lesbians could enjoy the same rights of marriage that the rest of us enjoy.

It's inspiring how evangelicals and fundamentalists are insisting that public schools teach only science instead of a 2500 year old creation myth.

Yes, religion has always been purely a force for good in the world. There is the occasional backsliding however. The Inquisition (excuse me, the Holy Office) hasn't burned a heretic at the stake for several years. You might have a word with your local bishop, tell him to get Rome to stop goofing off.

Posted by: SC, OM | February 12, 2009 6:38 PM

Tiso, Pavelic, Salazar, Franco, Pinochet, Trujillo, the Duvaliers,...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/pope-m04.shtml

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 6:54 PM

Thus Spoketh The Hoax

Finally, Hitler was influenced by many currents of thought, from Wagnerism to Ariosophy. It seems to me there was very little intellectual coherence to the man, who was prepared to be all things to all men as it suited him.

Finally, a statement in which the Hoax is right.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 12, 2009 6:59 PM

Finally, a statement in which the Hoax is right.

Posted by: Stanton | February 12, 2009 7:39 PM

Oh Nerdy, Nerdy, Nerdy.

The Catholic Church has outlived Nero, Julian the Apostate, Attila the Hun, Mohammed, Ogodai Khan and his Amazing Mongol Hordes, Luther'n'Calvin, Voltaire, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. We've seen 'em come and we've seen 'em go.

And of course while you liberal atheist types are busily contracepting and aborting yourselves into demographic oblivion, we'll be outbreeding you. I wonder how many new Catholics were brought into the world in the time it took you to write your last post?

They got the guns but we got the numbers ...

Yet, people think that atheists and liberals are supposed to be the inhuman monsters. How strange.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 7:57 PM

The marxists probably gave us atheists a bad name.

No, the Marxists gave Marxists a bad name. Their lack of belief in gods is as relevant to what they did as their lack of belief in Atlantis, Drop Bears, The Wendigo, Das Vampyr, Elves, Pixies or anything else that doesn't exist.

And you've admitted before that you're not an atheist, Africangenesis. So using statements like 'us atheists' is being disingenuous, to put it politely.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 12, 2009 8:13 PM

Yawn, AG, go away. You add nothing, so why show your irrelevancy by posting?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 12, 2009 8:17 PM

Funnily enough, it's only ever theists who make the distinction.

Posted by: Africangenesis | February 12, 2009 8:24 PM

Wowbagger,

Your dismissal of the marxists denies their historical association with atheism and the suppression of religion. Just yesterday, we were posting about the "new scientist"/economist map. Some of the areas low in religiosity were due to Soviet suppression of religion. We may think their atheism is irrelevant, but they didn't and neither did the people oppressed by them and opposing them in the cold war. Humans may well be less than optimal. When god oriented religiousosity is denied, something may be sought to replace it in most people. Marxism and environmentalism, and a host of new age pseudo religions may end up filling the vacuum.

Posted by: Stanton | February 12, 2009 8:38 PM

Also, please explain why the Soviets and Marxists' suppression of religion makes atheists morally reprehensible ties directly to the subject of this blog entry, which is about the Italian Prime Minister refusing to pull the plug on a brain-dead woman because, after consultation with the Vatican, her ovaries are still functional.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 9:43 PM

Africangenesis,

If you were actually interested in the relationship being atheism and Marxism beyond its handiness to you as a contentious talking point you mightn't be making these nonsensical claims. But if you want to pretend I'll go along. Why might the Soviets have suppressed religion? What reasons would they have? Is it because they dislike the idea of people believing in gods?

No, it wasn't - as I suspect you know full well. It was because the church was a) a political power that could oppose them, and b) it was a part of the old regime which they wished to remove in its entirety. They removed what they suspected would undermine their system. The so-called 'atheistic' aspects of Marxism were about eliminating the competition. And Stalin - since he trained in a seminary - knew better than most about how intricately linked the church was to the power structure in Russia at the time.

The soviet and marxist subsets taint the atheist superset in the minds of many.

Marxism only 'taints' atheism in the eyes of liars and fools, since it is only liars and fools who accept that atheism had any impact whatsoever on why the Marxists did what they did. Honest, discriminating people know better. Perhaps if you could produce atheists who had no other discernible ideologies to impart the need for power and evoke the behaviour that leads to genocide and antitheism then you'd have a point. Can you do that?

The past atrocities by Catholics taints today's catholics in the minds of many.

The past - and continuing - atrocities of Catholics taints the minds of many (though not as many as it should) because it is a belief system that claims adherence to it makes you a better person than someone who doesn't. It also provides the believer with a book full of precedents for mass-murder and genocide; the dogma also allows for those who commit such crimes to not only be forgiven and but rewarded with eternity in paradise after death.

What inspiration, do you suppose, the absence of belief in gods provides? How would it do that? Do atheists believe there is a heaven they can go to as a reward for their actions?

If modern humans are less than optimal, and have this propensity to religious type beliefs, then if may be fair to ask atheists what has replaced their god belief, and if their atheism is in their face and fervent, it may be fair to warn them and others of what other fervent atheists have done.

What if nothing has replaced it? Why do you assume that when something is taken away - or was never there in the first place - it needs to be replaced?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 15, 2009 7:26 PM

Janine @406:

Any attempt to eliminate the Church has exactly the same chance of success as an attempt to eliminate the Jews (and for the same reason).

Is being a catholic passed on from the mother?

Er no, I meant that both were of divine origin, hence immune to human attempts to destroy them.

And do you think other peoples want to put catholics through a Holocaust?

Why not? The Nazis did.

'Tis Himself in sarcastic mode @412:

Dawkins, Myers, Harris, Hitchens et al don't just think religion is false - they think it's dangerous to the point of being evil.

So tell us again, Pilty, about how the Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against AIDS in Africa. How the good priests and nuns are instructing Africans on proper condom use and providing condoms free of charge. Let's not forget how the Catholic Church, together with the Mormon Church, fought to get equal rights for gays in California. I was certainly impressed with how these two denominations, often at odds with each other doctrinally, forged an alliance so that gays and lesbians could enjoy the same rights of marriage that the rest of us enjoy. It's inspiring how evangelicals and fundamentalists are insisting that public schools teach only science instead of a 2500 year old creation myth. Yes, religion has always been purely a force for good in the world.

In other words, you share the view that my religion is a force for evil in the world. What I see as good, you see as evil and vice versa. This is why there can be no dialogue, no common ground. It is truly a cultural war.

Wowbagger @413:

... the second someone persecutes a person for their religion then they are adding something to their atheism (antitheism, in your example), aren't they? Atheism alone cannot inspire anything, because it is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in gods. It is not hostility towards theism, it is the lack of it.

That's superficially plausible, but I don't buy it. Just because something has a 'negative' content (ie a rejection of belief in God) it necessarily follows that people won't persecute to defend and promote it.

A non-belief in God doesn't arise in a theoretical vacuum, nor does it exist and act in a cultural vacuum -- perceived facts have moral implications and beliefs (or the lack of them) have cultural consequences. In practice atheism is often accompanied by antitheism.

... many religions have books in which they are historically precedented to commit atrocities, an ideology by which to measure the righteousness and right-to-life of others (usually it's that they have neither), and - most importantly - the knowledge they can be forgiven (or even rewarded in the afterlife) for any crimes they might commit.
Extremely powerful motivators which are - of course - completely absent from atheists. No-one tells us it's okay to wipe out entire tribes or all but 8 members of the whole human race. We don't have verses that we can interpret to mean we can persecute an entire race for an act that the existence our non-belief depends upon.

Again, superficially plausible. In practice non-theists will easily find their own Absolute of choice to give its imprimatur to atrocity. Race, class, history, progress, reason, science, democracy, liberty, equality, fraternity ... all of these have at one time or another been courts against which there has been no appeal.

Funny, you never provided me with the statistics that demonstrate Italy's profoundly higher birthrate than other, non-Catholic European nations - why is that, exactly? Oh, that's right, because Italians, despite being a profoundly Catholic country that encompasses the Vatican itself, abort and contracept at about the same rate as everyone else. As do Catholics in most other countries.

Pukey Lukeys condemn themselves to the same demographic doom as liberal secularists.

And even if what you say were true, are you saying that no-one who's ever been born to Catholic parents has avoided indoctrination or successfully shrugged it off later in life? Are there no ex-Catholics?

Bound to be some leakage.

And as for your success via numbers, well, I think the Hindus might have something to say. Let us know when you're ready to trade in your Bible for a copy of the Bhagavad Gita.

I said we'd outbreed liberal atheists, not Hindus or Mohammedans.

+++

SC @414:

Tiso, Pavelic, Salazar, Franco, Pinochet, Trujillo, the Duvaliers,... http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/pope-m04.shtml

wsws = World Socialist Web Site ("Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International ")

Por Dios, por la Patria y el Rey

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 16, 2009 6:35 PM

This thread's dead, but I feel I need to add this. Piltdown wrote:

Again, superficially plausible. In practice non-theists will easily find their own Absolute of choice to give its imprimatur to atrocity. Race, class, history, progress, reason, science, democracy, liberty, equality, fraternity ... all of these have at one time or another been courts against which there has been no appeal.

But history tells us that adhering to a religion is no barrier to atrocities for those reasons. So, for all the reasons you give as a motivator for atheist violence, I can add religion on top - which gives the win for 'group with the most reasons to commit atrocities' to the religious, because it will always be the other reasons 'plus one'.

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 16, 2009 7:23 PM

This is why there can be no dialogue, no common ground. It is truly a cultural war.

only if it's idiots like yourself against everyone else.

seriously, go ahead, carry your firebrands into battle.

see how well you do.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 17, 2009 3:51 PM

Yawn, short Pilty, I believe in god. You don't. I win.
Pilty, you have never proven your god, just alluded to that imaginary being. That means your bible and your theology are nothing but fiction. Live with it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 17, 2009 8:18 PM

Religion (at any rate the Christian religion) subjects man to a higher Law that cannot be legitimately transgressed on grounds of race, class etc.

So, all of those people cut to pieces or burned alive for the sake of the Christian religion... was that upholding this "higher Law", or were they all illegitimate transgressions?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Who can confidently say it does (or did) not exercise a miitigating & civilizing force on the violent human passions?

Perhaps. But Christianity is vastly inferior in this regard to the Eastern religions that espouse nonviolence. Especially since Christianity has verses in its scripture that directly call for violence.

Say, wasn't someone calling for the death of all readers of the Guardian? Could it be that someone has a religious veneration of the Daily Mail? I guess religion just failed to mitigate and civilize, there.

Someone once said that while an English Christian might war against France in the name of St George, and a French Christian might war against England in the name of St Louis, neither would seriously entertain the notion that the two saints themselves were slugging it out in heaven.

I think this "someone" was seriously underestimating the superstitious mythologizing that the human mind is capable of (as demonstrated by you yourself).

Charles Darwin declared the black races to be closer to the great apes than Caucasians.

I could have sworn that one of those religious laws you claim are so damn great was against bearing false witness.

  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/was_darwin_a_racist.php

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 18, 2009 2:10 PM

Janine @441:

Charles Darwin declared the black races to be closer to the great apes than Caucasians.

What a fucking tiresome lying ass motherfucker.

No, it's the gospel truth.

Owlmirror @442:

Charles Darwin declared the black races to be closer to the great apes than Caucasians.

I could have sworn that one of those religious laws you claim are so damn great was against bearing false witness.   http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/was_darwin_a_racist.php

I'm not bearing false witness. The thread you linked to doesn't really address the passage I'm referring to. Sure, PZ does say:

Also, one should be familiar with Darwin's writing about "civilized" Europeans wiping out "savages." In the first place, "savage" in that day and in Darwin's context simply means 'not living in European-style cities, with tea and the occasional Mozart.' In the second, and more critical place, Darwin advances the argument noting that (in the case of the Tasmanians, especially), the "savages" are the group that is better fit to the natural environment, and hence superior to the Europeans, evolutionarily. Darwin does not urge these conflicts, but rather, laments them. How ironic that creationist quote miners do not recognize that.

One well-known passage in which Darwin talks about civilized races exterminating savages is this:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.

As PZ quite rightly points out that there is no evidence that Darwin is here advocating genocide. He's just stating what seems to him to be a likely outcome of historical trends. He may even, as PZ suggests, be lamenting this state of affairs.

Unfortunately, the particular passage occurs in the context of a discussion on the incompleteness of the fossil record:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

There's no mistaking the meaning here -- negroes and Australian aborigines are closer to gorillas than Caucasians.

And it's no good saying this unpleasant view has no necessary connection with Darwin's theory of evolution. There is a most definite connection -- the very concept of evolution makes it possible to subvert our common humanity by placing peoples on different rungs of the evolutionary ladder. It permits one to envisage certain groups of people as being less removed from previous stages than others and therefore less fully human.

Christians of Darwin's time may well have regarded Africans etc as degraded savages, but they were so regarded because they had yet to be exposed to the benefits of Christianity. There was no question of Africans being less than human.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 5:52 PM

Eastern religions, eh?

Would that be the Hinduism that gave us the caste system, suttee, thuggee and the Bhagavad-Gita, which urges a warrior to follow his dharma and kill with a clear conscience?

Just like Catholicism gave us pogroms and Crusades, and setting heretics on fire, and the Inquisition, and massacres of Protestants and Jews, and plenary indulgences so as to urge a warrior to follow the will of God and kill with a clear conscience?

Or the Buddhism that persecuted the native Tibetan Bon religion?

I note that Bon still exists, while Christianity exterminated the local pagan religions.

Perhaps the variety which the Japanese samurai found so congenial?

Dude, you are the one who admires militancy.

All that kill kill kill in the name of God; Deuteronomy 13 & 17; Numbers 31; "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword" and all the rest: every violent verse, that's all yours. You worship a proudly bloodstained butcher.

The principle of ahimsa predates Christianity and is far more widespread in the East among Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus than "brotherly love" is in the West.

And while of course there were and are those that reject ahimsa just like you reject "brotherly love" for Muslims and other non-Catholics, well all I can do is point out that cruelty, anger, and violence are endemic in humanity, and Catholicism, by its own track record of deaths, is certainly not the cure for those faults.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 20, 2009 2:24 PM

Wowbagger @ 436 again:

So, for all the reasons you give as a motivator for atheist violence, I can add religion on top - which gives the win for 'group with the most reasons to commit atrocities' to the religious, because it will always be the other reasons 'plus one'.

It's just dawned on me what an arbitrary way of looking at it this is. I could just as well argue that the relatively recent ideological cause of liberty added 'one more' reason for violence on top of religion.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 20, 2009 2:58 PM

((Oops, last bit should have read:

Catholicism, by its own track record of deaths, is certainly not the cure for those faults.

Perhaps not, but I don't see secularity doing any better. In any case, Catholicism is primarily a mechanism to get to Heaven, not a manifesto or programme for making a heaven on earth.))

Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 4:20 PM

Wow. Did the pharmacy close early today. They've all gone off their meds.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 22, 2009 4:44 PM

Since you believe that the biblical concept of corporate guilt is a human invention rather than a divine reality, it follows that specific humans - the people who conceived and wrote the biblical books - were to blame for unleashing this peculiarly monstrous idea on a hapless world. And, to the extent that their descendants still uphold this biblical teaching, they share their ancestors' guilt.

I specifically denounce collective inherited racial guilt, and you go ahead and proclaim collective inherited racial guilt for inventing the idea of collective inherited racial guilt (and accuse me of supporting it)?

Really, you take a rhetorical shotgun, brandish it triumphantly and aggressively, and shoot your own feet off. With both barrels, yet.

Who were/are these people?

*eyeroll*

Right-wing Catholics, of course, who insist that they are the sole authoritative inheritors of the biblical canon, and that killing people of different religions is right and proper.

Christians might have bought into these ideas and some of the more traditionally minded ones may still do so.

Right. Like you, citing Deuteronomy 17 and Numbers 25.

But it was the Jews who first came up with the concept.

Nope. As you would know if you read up on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Middle-Eastern mythology. Not to mention even a basic work on anthropology and/or the social psychology of religion.

Yes, you have just accused THE JEWS of inventing one of the cruellest, nastiest ideas ever conceived by man.

Nope. That's all you, again.

Say, Pilt, as you lie there (staring at the sky wondering where your feet buggered off to), can you answer a quick question:

How often do you go to church? Daily? Weekly? Weekly, but more often if you can?

Frankly, Owlmirror, I'm disgusted that you should be openly spewing such blatantly anti-Semitic hate on the internet. I've half a mind to tell that nice Mr Foxman about what really goes among the more fanatical members of the Darwinist community.

Pilt, the record of your many disgusting statements is embedded in Pharyngula's comments, and can probably be found online elsewhere as well. Are you sure you want to call attention to them? Especially the ones about the Inquisition? Not to mention that you are on the record as supporting the SSPX and the anti-Semitic Bishop Williamson, you delusional psychotic religio-fascist moron.

Just wondering.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 23, 2009 3:41 AM

Piltdown,

If history teaches us anything it's that civilisation is a very thin crust covering a magma of violence, irrational hatred & lust which can erupt in any place or time.. Proponents of religion, of course, make the claim that adherence (as long as it is to their particular brand of woo) reduces this, but reality has proven them wrong - over and over and over again. In fact, an honest reading of history shows the chief contribution of religion to have been as additional fuel, turning what would have been small fires into raging infernos.

Fixed it for you.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 23, 2009 4:43 AM

I daresay there's a socio-psychological explanation of my psychosis. Hey - there might even be an evolutionary explanation.

Of course there is. Those who, when the swords were held to their throats, the torches thrust against their huts and their infants dangled above the packs of wild dogs, answered 'Yes - I believe in Jesus*,' weren't slaughtered, and therefore passed on their genes.

Congratulations, Piltdown - your ancestors had evolved the common sense to fear torture and death. Praise the Lord!

*_{They may or may not have added 'The Prince of Peace', depending on exactly how many savage beatings they'd suffered.}

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 23, 2009 6:44 AM

Wowbagger @456:

If history teaches us anything it's that civilisation is a very thin crust covering a magma of violence, irrational hatred & lust which can erupt in any place or time.. Proponents of religion, of course, make the claim that adherence (as long as it is to their particular brand of woo) reduces this, but reality has proven them wrong - over and over and over again. In fact, an honest reading of history shows the chief contribution of religion to have been as additional fuel, turning what would have been small fires into raging infernos.

By that reasoning human society would have become less violent as it became more secular.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 23, 2009 7:43 AM

I see Pilty is still showing us the prime reason religion is irrelevant to modern life with his continuing inane posts. Pilty, time to give it a rest. Fade into the bandwidth.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 24, 2009 5:18 AM

Owlmirror @ 459:

Or a Catholic who tries to live by the precepts of the Inquisition can be said to share the guilt of Torquemada and Arnaud Amalric - the guilt attached to following the Inquisitorial creed?

Yes, that's the sort of thing, although obviously from my perspective the Inquisition was an admirable institution.

Of course, your attribution of guilt to the Inquisitorial ideal still implicates the Jews, given the concern for doctrinal purity evinced by the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 17: 2-13).

Stop trying to pretend your anti-Catholicism isn't rooted in anti-Judaism. Really, you'll feel better for it.

Whenever I hear the words "anthropology" or "social psychology", I reach for my rosary.

Why? I had not heard that there is anything inherently demonic about those fields of study. Is there something you're not telling us?

I would say they're demonic only insofar as they derive from the general Enlightenment project to make mankind rationally transparent to himself without the benefit of divine revelation. I suppose one could in theory envisage a "Christian anthropology" or "Christian social psychology" that rejects the presuppositions of secular modernity, but it probably wouldn't be recognizable as such to modern-day practitioners of those disciplines!

Perhaps religious traditionalists belong to a subgroup of humanity whose evolutionary distance from the apes is less than that of secular liberals? Or maybe they've started to evolve back in an anthropoid direction?

If I had a rosary, I might be tempted to reach for it. Seeing you trying to clumsily parody evolutionary psychology is like watching a duck try to waltz.

Then help this poor waddling duck by explaining where it's going wrong. Does evolutionary theory admit the possibility of human subgroups diverging into separate species or does it not?

What would Darwin say? After all, he believed different groups of humanity were at different evolutionary stages -- didn't he?

I am sure that it has already been explained to you that what Darwin believed does not matter because evolutionary biology no longer includes the parts that we now know he got wrong.

So where exactly did Darwin go wrong in this instance? Merely in his particular belief that blacks were closer to gorillas than Caucasians -- or in the general thesis that different groups of humanity could be at different evolutionary stages?

How often do you go to church? Daily? Weekly? Weekly, but more often if you can?

Why do you ask?

I'll tell you after you tell me. Wouldn't want to skew the results....

How can me knowing the reasons for your query skew the results? Do you think I'd be tempted to lie if I knew why you were asking?

Posted by: CJO | February 24, 2009 6:03 PM

Of course, your attribution of guilt to the Inquisitorial ideal still implicates the Jews, given the concern for doctrinal purity evinced by the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 17: 2-13).

Stop trying to pretend your anti-Catholicism isn't rooted in anti-Judaism. Really, you'll feel better for it.

Disingenuous, Pilty. Rabbinical Judaism is no less than Christianity the progeny of Second Temple Judaism, practiced in Palestine from the end of the Babylonian exile to the destruction of the temple and the temple state of Judea in 70 CE by the Romans. The kind of "doctrinal purity" embraced in 2nd Temple Judaism is in support of an Ancient Near Eastern temple state. The Deuteronomistic code is a mixture of priestly rules for ritual purity and civil strictures codified by a scribal intellectual elite. "Doctrinal purity" of the sort enforced by the Inquisition bears no relationship to this whatever.

To make the charge of anti-Judaism stick, you'd need to define Judaism more rigorously. When a modern uses the term, it almost certainly means post-1st century Rabbinical Judaism, not 2nd Temple theocracy. The two cannot be identified. Of course, the Catholic heirarchy at the time of the Inquisition was about as anti-(rabbinical) Judaism as it's possible to be, so I guess I can understand why the urge to tar with that particular brush.

So stop trying to pretend your Catholicism --the entire history of Christianity, really-- isn't rooted in anti-Judaism. You'll feel better for it.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 24, 2009 6:18 PM

So stop trying to pretend your Catholicism --the entire history of Christianity, really-- isn't rooted in anti-Judaism. You'll feel better for it.

On that - I've never heard the Christian rationale for why the Jews did not accept that Jesus was Messiah. It's always struck me as odd that Christians would consider them to have gotten everything else right - creation, commandments, genocide with God's approval etc. - but, when it came to the crunch, picked the wrong side.

Because if it's that God chose for them not to, then that's a pretty good indicator that Christianty is founded on the principle that God had abandoned the Jews in favour of the newbies, and therefore being against them is doing God's work.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 26, 2009 5:35 AM

Wowbagger @465:

Limiting ourselves to the 20th century, the major conflicts which spring to my mind are the Second Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the First Gulf War.

Er, Pilty? Perhaps you'd better get your mind's spring oiled - it's a little rusty. We're in the twenty-first century now. Did you miss that? I guess when the most important events in your life happened over 2,000 years ago you don't tend to pay that much attention to what's happening in the present. Are you trying to say that wars from between 15 and 100 years ago are caused by today's secularism? That's a pretty impressive feat; I didn't realise that secularism had retrospective influence, or came with its own inbuilt time machine

No, they were caused by the secular ideologies of the 19th & 20th centuries, jut as the Napoleonic Wars were caused by the secular ideologies of the 18th & 19th centuries. Secular ideologies were a major force long before the 21st century -- and the fact that you want to concentrate purely on the present suggests you're reluctant to acknowledge the blood that was not shed in the name of religion.

You know what's important about the (overwhelmingly religious) conflicts I listed? They're happening today. Where's your list of secular conflicts happening right now, when secularism (in the West at least) is increasing?

The conflicts you listed do indeed have a strong religious component insofar as they all involve Islam in some form or another. But they also have a strong secular element, namely the Western powers the jihadis are fighting. It's a clash between religion and secularism; and since a case can be made that Western arrogance & meddling played as much a part in provoking the conflict as Islamic aggression, the blame cannot be laid entirely at religion's door.

Oh, and WWII was, for the most part, between Christians allied with other Christians (and Japan) against other Christians allied with Communists; Christians killed many, many millions. How is that an argument for your side?

The fact that religious people fight in a war doesn't make it a 'religious war'.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 26, 2009 6:15 AM

John Morales wrote:

No, but it illustrates that Christians are warlike, and have warred with each other, contrary to their claims.

Beat me to it, John.

I would also add that the fact that, when religious people fight in a war when the central figure of that religion preached a gospel of pacifism and forgiveness and explicitly condemned acts of violence, it not only exposes them as hypocrites but also undermines the claims made for the religion being a positive influence on humanity.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | February 26, 2009 7:13 PM

CJO @466:

The kind of "doctrinal purity" embraced in 2nd Temple Judaism is in support of an Ancient Near Eastern temple state. The Deuteronomistic code is a mixture of priestly rules for ritual purity and civil strictures codified by a scribal intellectual elite. "Doctrinal purity" of the sort enforced by the Inquisition bears no relationship to this whatever.

Oh I don't know ... "priestly rules for ritual purity and civil strictures codified by a scribal intellectual elite" sounds to me like a pretty good description of the "ecclesiarchy" of pre-modern Christendom.

And I don't see any significant difference at all between the aims and methods of the Inquisition and the passage from Deuteronomy:

When there shall be found among you within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, and transgress his covenant, So as to go and serve strange gods, and adore them, the sun and the moon. and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded: And this is told thee, and hearing it thou hast inquired diligently, and found it to be true, and that the abomination is committed in Israel: Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned.

To make the charge of anti-Judaism stick, you'd need to define Judaism more rigorously. When a modern uses the term, it almost certainly means post-1st century Rabbinical Judaism, not 2nd Temple theocracy. The two cannot be identified.

True, but modern Jews do claim a continuity - they still see themselves as Israel, God's Chosen. And some look forward to a restoration of the old patterns of Temple worship.

So stop trying to pretend your Catholicism --the entire history of Christianity, really-- isn't rooted in anti-Judaism. You'll feel better for it.

I've never denied it. it seems the most obvious thing in the world that Roman Catholicism and Rabbinical Judaism must necessarily be at odds, because Church and Synagogue both claim to be the sole legitimate heir of the Temple. Each regards herself as the one true Israel, hence each poses a fundamental 'existential' threat to the other that is not duplicated in their relations with any other religion. Hence the 'bad blood' that cannot be expunged by fawning words from recent (doubtless well-meaning) popes.