“There's an underground church that the world has no idea exists”

That's a quote from Lou Engle in this video — and it's actually kind of true. He thinks it will be a wonderful thing when people see this, and there probably are a lot of Americans who think the events portrayed are perfectly ordinary, and even commendable.

I see nothing but madness.

By picking Sarah Palin for a running mate, John McCain has turned over a rock to expose a festering, primitive insanity in our country. Look on the squirming horror, world, and learn that it does exist!

A further indictment: Juan Cole sees Palin through the lens of his expertise on the Islamic world.

John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

More like this

Thank gawd in November I'll still be here in peaceful New Zealand. I'm freckin' frightened by these developments.

I assume it is "blood-red" colour lipstick!

(aside: application for postal ballot sent the other day, to add my vote in NJ for Obama)

By marc buhler (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

I forgot:

Dear fundies,

1 Timothy 2, 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

So if McSame/Palin get elected, then McSame is the only true Christian in the entire US, because he's the only man that doesn't have a women with authority over her. Scary, hugh?

You people are so out of touch with reality.

By Katherine C. Teel (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

This makes me sick.

Has there been a general breakout of the insane asylums? They are out there and coming to your area soon. If anything, that video is cause for concern and vigilance.

This is why they want to scrub her record and just present her as a cutter of wasteful spending and the mother of a Downs syndrome child.

However, it's now looking like the selling of the luxury jet and the firing of the cook aren't entirely real. And as far as the Downs syndrome child, it sounds nice until you realize she'd like to take that choice away from everyone else and stick everyone with what nature deals out.

How can there be a close race when, according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Ethical_issues

In 2002, elective abortion rates for pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome was about 91-93%. More than nine out of ten wanted to terminate the pregnancy. Some people, especially anti-choice Christians, are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this. Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion."

Now, are those potential nine out of ten people going to like the fact that Palin wants to take away this option? Are they even thinking about that? It couldn't be a 50/50 split if they were.

Katherine C Teel @ 4

Oh, and you and your kind have been touched with insanity.

Palin made me switch parties. I have been Repub for 20 years, now I am a Democrap. I swore I would NEVER vote Democrap until the Clintons were out of power, but this whackjob scares me so badly that I have changed my mind. (and my party affiliation).

If America really wants its leaders rolling around on the floor and speaking in tongues, fair enough. Let's get this video out so people can pay their money and take their choice.

Comment 4 by Katherine C. Teel states: "You people are so out of touch with reality."

I must assume you mean the people in that video - surely you don't mean us rational scientific types, or do you? Very sad - for you - if you do mean the readership here, very sad indeed.

By marc buhler (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

There is more antireligious sentiment on this website than than there is science. At least be intellectually honest enough to promote this website as an Atheistic website and not one dedicated to science.
Oh wait, you guys are too immature and adolesant to do that.

Can't some photoshop wizard out there come up with a picture of a pit bull with lipstick holding a hockey stick?

By Benjamin Franklin (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Give me a break...I'm not a big fan of Palin but she quit this church and moved on after concluding that it was just too weird for her. Unlike Obama who maintained his membership in Wright's insanity for 20 years.

PZ....I'm an evolutionary psychologist at the State University of New York and couldn't be more sympathetic to your brand of atheism. But, methinks you are letting your political fundamentalism cloud your usual evidence-based epistemology. Please.....think. And relax, man.

"At least be intellectually honest enough to promote this website as an Atheistic website and not one dedicated to science."

What, it can't be both?

Lluraa | September 9, 2008 12:10 AM

There is more antireligious sentiment on this website than than there is science. At least be intellectually honest enough to promote this website as an Atheistic website and not one dedicated to science.
Oh wait, you guys are too immature and adolesant to do that.

Yammer yammer yammer... Really? What makes you think you can dictate what does and does not go into this blog? Do you believe you have some sort of magic, editorial power? Or, maybe you're just dense.

I'm thinking that's what it is. You're special. And dense.

Anyway, as to the video, to think that these soft-headed yokels who bless cell-phones could be making policy for every poor, oppressed person in this country. It's fucking terrifying.

Lluraa - right, and I'm sure you'll be checking out the science posts on evidence for evolution, cellular function in zebrafish, etc etc on your frequent regular vists if PZ does what you say, right? Suuuure you will...

By Rheinhard (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Lluraa @ 13

Atheism is most assuredly dedicated to science as religion is not. The combination of the two will always hold your insane religion at bay, and one does not to be an adolescent to encompass the irrationalities of religion, as is so aptly demonstrated by supposedly mature adults. You cannot dissociate atheism and science, just as you cannot dissociate religion and madness.

Give me a break...I'm not a big fan of Palin but she quit this church and moved on after concluding that it was just too weird for her. Unlike Obama who maintained his membership in Wright's insanity for 20 years.

Do you know absolutely anything about her views or what she's said about God?

Regardless, you should only use three "..." rather than four, as in your second paragraph, so I highly doubt you're qualified to be doing much at any university.

Oh, by the way, your use of epistemology in the second paragraph also makes little sense, giving me even more doubts about you.

Intelligence is inversely related to belief in god/s,
this site, being dedicated to science/reason is therefore without god/s, boogyman, unicorns, fairy's etc..

does this stuff depress anyone else to the point that you just want to bomb all churches and nuke the islamic countries?

i know that is not the correct solution,...but damn

Superstition = In Touch With Reality?

It's A Whole New Paradigm for The New American Century!

Curious as to how the right-leaning media will cover this.

Obviously GOP operatives will spin this topic as attacking-her-church or attacking-her-faith. Meanwhile, I'm really curious to see what Sean Hannity does -- given that he has led with Obama's church as the primary topic (and typically the only topic) on his radio show for pretty much the entire year.

How does one defend this? And if one does, is *any* religious practice ok?

By truckboattruck (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Lluraa: What an extraordinarily original thought you've presented here! Your concern is noted. And, FYI, it's "adolescent". Write it five times in a row so you'll remember. The test is Friday. If you need to skip recess to study for the test, please do so.

Lluraa - This site is dedicated to science, its furtherance and to its defense from those who would attack it. Since religious fundy whackjobs like Sarah Palin are a clear and present danger to science, it is well within the scope of this site to eviscerate her arguments, positions, etc. Keep up the great work PZ.

Nibien....read a book rather than count dots.

I was just thinking that it would be nice if this would be an opportunity for average/mainstream folks to see what this small minority is up to when the media exposes it by talking about her...but I'm afraid that the media will avoid all talk about her religion because it feels it's expected to avoid talking about peoples religion and just respect it (as long as it isn't killing people).

What can be done to get the media to think that the average person should know about this kind of thing and cross the line of talking about it?

I would like to propose a new computer term- When one recieves a packet of information or message from a right wing nutjob or religious wacko I refer
to it as a "dinglebyte"- a collection of unneeded bytes that tends to leave a skidmark on ones brain. Thankyou for your time.--

I could only stomach about 4 minutes of that video. Pathetic is the only word I can think of and even that doesn't cover it.

It sprang a vision to mind though. It was like watching a monkey shit fight at the local zoo. Even then, zoo monkey's actually know what they are flinging...

"Some people, especially anti-choice Christians, are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this. Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion.""

FYI, and I'm not accusing you of saying otherwise, but George Will is an agnostic. He said on Colbert that he wasn't decisive enough to be an atheist.

WT | September 9, 2008 12:21 AM

Give me a break...I'm not a big fan of Palin but she quit this church and moved on after concluding that it was just too weird for her. Unlike Obama who maintained his membership in Wright's insanity for 20 years.

She must not think it too weird since she gave a speech there in June.

By truckboattruck (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

The 21st century Ghost Dance of the evangelicals. I'd be very surprised if we don't see these holy warriors take up bombs or guns during the next decade--like Waco, but with the fanatics on the offense. Students on our campus have some frightening tales about the militancy of these groups and their attempts to exert total control over student life at even a secular university.

Oh, for the good old days when the ranting & ravings of Brother Jed and Sister Cindy provided entertainment on a spring afternoon.

truckboattruck....that's the nature of small town politics. Show me a video of her shaking and quaking. Then you'll have a story.

At least be intellectually honest enough to promote this website as an Atheistic website and not one dedicated to science.

Did you read the title?
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

It mentions atheism in the title. There's probably something we could say about intellectual honesty and being misrepresentative...

I'm not certain this is undergound, at least where I live, it would not be too difficult to find services similar to those shown in this video.

Posted by: WT | September 9, 2008 12:53 AM

truckboattruck....that's the nature of small town politics. Show me a video of her shaking and quaking. Then you'll have a story.

Small town politics?? She was the Governor of Alaska when she gave that speech.

And by your no-video-of-her-shaking logic... any member of any organization who isn't video taped directly involved in the disturbing activities of said organization... is free from scrutiny?

By truckboattruck (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

The sad thing is that there is a place like this near my house in JAX Florida. I went a couple times just to watch. I warn anyone else, it will physically make you sick to watch these people. Cults have nothing on these Warriors for God.

I have to go wash my hands now, as they feel sticky and covered in fundy germs.

Zel

any member of any organization who isn't video taped directly involved in the disturbing activities of said organization... is free from scrutiny?

You should be careful, this could mean another candidate who was associated with another church might need to be held to the same standard.

And here we see a cargo cult exposed to cell phones for the first time.

truckboattruck....Alaska is a bunch of small towns populated by people that VOTE - duh.

And, she was not a member of that church when she spoke to its members. You are assuming something that is not supported by evidence. If you have evidence that she was involved in "disturbing activities" then present it. And...scrutinize away.

Exactly, Joel.

The one dude was singing, "This world has nothing for me..."

It's utterly pathetic that a person must seek refuge in illusions to engender a sense of meaning and purpose in life.

By Alan Chapman (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Wait a minute... why aren't we sending these people to clinics where they can get help?
I'm certain that if I went out on the street corner and started flopping around speaking gibberish and crying about how I saw god, I'd be getting a visit from the authorities sooner or later. Is it just the fact that they do it in groups that makes it okay?

Jesus Christ on a stick. Do leftists have copies of the playbook "how to lose an election" or are they just lucky. When it comes to running campaigns the Democrats are playing Checkers and the Republicans playing chess. They sent a big fakeout and hook line and sinker the dems have bought it.

To win Democrats need to stop talking about the off color comments that Palin didn't make and the ones that McCain did (joke in 98 about Chelsea Clinton)

They need to stop talking about Palin's church and start talking about the visit McCain made to Liberty University and willingness to go to Bob Jones.

They need to stop talking about Palin's daughter and start talking about how the McCain marriage is the result of an affair and how he abandoned his disabled wife.

They need to stop talking about the bridge to nowhere and start talking about the Keating five.

They need to stop talking about how he stood up the vietcong and start talking about how he buckled to the Bush administration.

As long as democrats are afraid to attack the war hero and get distracted by a runner up in a beauty pagent this country will remain at war. You disgust me you fucking liberal cowards. You have no idea how to win. Get focused, get mean and beat McCain and ignore this stupid cunt before we have nothing to rely on but Nancy Pelosi and her do nothing congress.

any member of any organization who isn't video taped directly involved in the disturbing activities of said organization... is free from scrutiny?

You should be careful, this could mean another candidate who was associated with another church might need to be held to the same standard.

The difference with that "other candidate" is that there's no need to infer anything about his faith, or his ideas on separation of church and state, because he's explicitly told us what they are, in two books, multiple speeches, and any number of interviews (and if you're going to claim he's been lying, better be prepared to prove it; "extraordinary claims...," after all).

Governor Palin, OTOH, has been carefully (and aggressively) shielded from any such self-declarations or questions ever since the first moment anybody outside of Alaska had any reason to care about her. In her convention speech, she sneered at Obama's memoirs, as if having a paper trail were a bad thing in a candidate for high office.

Then again, maybe it would be... for her.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Yocco...you're enlightened attitude is exactly why McCain will win in a landslide. Unfortunately.

Bill Dauphin.....is one to infer that Obama is a Black Liberation Theologian because of his association with the Reverend Wright? After nearly 2 years of running for president, can you say for sure that he's not?

Actually, this is Palin's 3rd time to become convinced she's found the One True Fairytale. She'd rather not talk about the first two times she was apparently duped (baptised Catholic, re-baptised tongue-speaking fundagelical Pentecostalist).

Will Scientology be her next conversion?

To those concerned with a double standard, and whether this topic is relevant:
Palin has publicly expressed support for teaching creationism alongside evolution. Obama has not. No double standard there.

What is taught in science classes is very relevant to scientists.

Private beliefs are one's own. The effect of those beliefs on the scientific education and future of the country, and indeed the world, are everybody's concern, and so belong on this blog.

WT....F:

In 2002, Palin and her family shifted their allegiance from the Wasilla Assembly of God to the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church, a move that coincided with Palin's run for lieutenant governor, her first bid for a statewide office....Since winning her race for governor in 2006, Palin has also attended a large Pentecostal church in Juneau -- the Juneau Christian Center. She's also worshiped at the Church on the Rock, a sprawling megachurch in Wasilla. - Bryson, G., Sep. 7, 2008, www.adn.com

We need to hear more information from Palin herself. During the 2006 gubernatorial debates, she declared some very strong faith-based views. She appointed a man from her current church to fill a vacancy in the state house and he has tried to inject intelligent design, abortion bans and other radical stuff into Alaska's laws. She sat through a sermon where a man talked about how Jews deserved being terrorized, but later said that she does not share that belief. Many of the people in the church she attends in Juneau take the literal approach to the Bible. This is no six-year stint at a church for Palin, this is a lifetime of being surrounded by radical religious viewpoints.

@Rayven Alandria
I'm glad that you are planning to vote for Obama, but if the basic, old-fashioned Republican platform is what you have believed in, then changing your party affiliation is a very bad way to fix the party's errors in judgement.
I would rather have to debate the relative merits of various government programs based on their cost v. benefit than be relegated to arguing against a hold-out party of delusional god-bots.
I have many rational Republican friends, and I enjoy debating issues with them. I would hate to only be able to debate dingbats.
Seriously, vote for the candidate you feel best about at every election, and if you are able to, try and move your party back towards the more acceptable candidates.

Wow, what's with the sudden rash of bots? I suspect that there are only one or two IP addresses represented there but it's someone who apparently has quite a bit of free time.

Posted by: Joel | September 9, 2008 1:17 AM
You should be careful, this could mean another candidate who was associated with another church might need to be held to the same standard.

Obama's association w/ his church hasn't been scrutinized?!? Well we should get right on that then!!!!1 Oh wait, that association has been scrutinized... to death... for months. Hell, it was the lead story on one of the largest syndicated radio programs in America for most of the year -- not to mention O'Reilly leading with it for all of March or April, or was it May?

Posted by: WT | September 9, 2008 1:19 AM
truckboattruck....Alaska is a bunch of small towns populated by people that VOTE - duh.

And, she was not a member of that church when she spoke to its members. You are assuming something that is not supported by evidence. If you have evidence that she was involved in "disturbing activities" then present it. And...scrutinize away.

The only things I'm assuming are: 1. That she was a member of that church at some point in her life (evidenced by her mentioning her being a member of that church during a speech she recently gave there in June), and 2. That she gave a speech there in June (evidenced by the video of her giving a speech there in June).

By truckboattruck (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Yocco...you're enlightened attitude is exactly why McCain will win in a landslide. Unfortunately.

I'm also pessimistic about the likely outcome of the election, but for different reasons. I think 51% to 49% or thereabouts is more likely: close enough for the Republicans to steal the election for the third successive time through disenfranchisement, rigged e-voting, and other forms of electoral fraud, but allowing the American public the comfortable delusion of democracy when, in fact, they've been living in a corrupt kleptomaniacal plutocracy for at least 8 years. The Abe Simpson/Maude Flanders ticket (aka "McCain/Palin") will win by a fraudulent narrow margin, pay back the oligarchs who own America, and the average citizen will continue to suffer.

It's your in this context, btw.

The more I see of expressions of belief, regardless of the flavor of religion it holds, the more it comes down to the same ritualistic displays that have an effect on the brain and your perception when you're in that state. The constant group pressure, the chanting, the monotone mantra repetitions, the hysterics. It's the same with some Indonesian shaman that can trance his way into cutting his skin without much pain and these people are literally drunk on jesus. Though I bet some are just literally drunk.

WT.

Your claim to enlightment had gotten you nowhere. How have you done in the last two elections? If it weren't for Ross Perot the dems would have to go back to the bicentenial to look to their last win.

And I love how you refute me points. What don't you agree with?

Do you think going after Palin and not McCain is a good strategy?

Do you think our congress has accomplished great things this past two years?

Do you think playing nice and fair and trying to convince people with civil discourse is really a winning strategy.

I don't want the Republicans to win but when it comes to presidential campaigns what I have seen is that they are a party that knows how to play dirty and win and the Democrats know how to sit there and take it like a bitch. I'm inviting you to prove me wrong but the last week has been a strategic failure for the party and its followers.

truckboattruck - So...Obama's membership, for 20 years, has been scrutinized. And your conclusion after said scrutinization is???

And, Palin WAS a member. Not any more. It's possible for people to grow.

Aritina...."being surrounded by" and "believing" are sometimes two different things. Let's wait and hear what she has to say.

What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

Exactly right. There was an interview with an Egyptian scientist not too long ago in Science. The Moslems have 1 billion people, 1 trillion bucks in new oil money, and do very little science.

He blames it on "politicized hypereligiosity". And points out that in times past Islam was in the forefront of science while Europe was in the Dark Ages.

The fundie Death Cultists are simply going down the same road. Palin is proud of her dead moose and proud of not knowing or caring one whit about science. These morons will cheerfully destroy the USA without a second thought.

Oh wait, you guys are too immature and adolesant to do that.

But at least we can spell...or was that tongues?

Emmet....mea culpa. YOUR, of course :)

that's one scary lady.

so the woman with the iron box is also a religious fundamentalist? wow. this is better than finding out that the pope was a former member of the nazi youth. it's almost like christmas time.

- go santa go!

"What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

It was not too long ago that some science blogger (who the heck could it have been?) warned us all from making jokes about Palin being a woman. As Richard Back once wrote "We teach best what we most need to learn."

WT:

READIN' KOMPREHESHUN: UR DOIN' IT RONG!

Bill Dauphin.....is one to infer that Obama is a Black Liberation Theologian[sic]1 because of his association with the Reverend Wright?

My comment that apparently provoked this question had as its only purpose answering this question: No, we need not infer anything about Obama's beliefs because he is clearly on the record concerning them. I actually read his book, and listened to his speeches, and listened to his interview responses specifically about Wright and more generally about what he believes WRT church and state.

After nearly 2 years of running for president, can you say for sure that he's not?

Absolutely. He's been very clear that he's a moderate (and sometimes questioning) mainstream Christian; that he believes strongly in the separation of church and state; that while he values the good works of faith-based service organizations, he will not allow them to proselytize with government funds; and that he specifically renounces (and repudiates and whatever other verbs his interrogators demanded of him) the divisive and confrontational theology of Rev. Wright. And his positions on the issues are consistent with mainstream, center-left, secular Democratic ideas. Because he's on the record (and again, if you think he's lying, prove it), we don't need to guess!!

Sarah Palin, OTOH, holds positions that are consistent with religious right-wing ideas and has answered no questions about her faith or her church-and-state stance. Perhaps if she'd give a freakin' interview, she might alleviate some of these fears. I doubt it, though: Unlike with the Rev. Wright sermon (which Obama didn't even see or hear), that's the candidate herself giving the sermons ('cause that's what they are) that are posted here.

1 Not to be too awful snotty about the language, but "theologian" denotes a scholar or professor of theology, not an adherent. As Obama's formal education is in constitutional law, and that's what he taught as a professor, he's not a theologian of any sort.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

The lies that Palin somehow left the snake handler neopent. Doms is laughable. All 4 churches Palin is associated with are affiliated with Assembly of God. The AOG churches frequently use the term "nondenominational" to hide the affiliation. This is because most Xians consider them kooks at best and subversive traitors at worst.

Palin makes no secret of her wild eyed cult extremist views. Thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, is a Dominionist to the bone, anti-choice, doesn't see global warming happening and on and on.

As the book says, the one they never pay any attention to, "By their words, you shall know them."

The video is certainly scary. As an ex-fundie myself I've experienced some of these kinds of meetings (I'm embarrassed to say). It's very easy to get caught up in the whole group dynamic of these kinds of events, although my own experience (and most people I knew) is that long-term they generally did not result in a better or happier life (and oftentimes, people got very addicted to the feelings and emotions of attending these sort of gatherings, to the point that it was decidedly unhealthy). Clearly, there are some interesting psychological phenomena going on (e.g., being "slain in the spirit"), and it would make a good study. Anybody aware of some academic scholarship that has studied these kinds of behaviors from a psychological perspective?

It makes me ill to my stomach. Absolute nuttery. Preying on the youth, advocating abandonment of self? That's got to be some for of suicide lingo, you know nutter christians are not too damn far from Jonesboro, Waco, whatever nuttery you like. If only we were just monkeys...

By lenny_mule (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

It was not too long ago that some science blogger (who the heck could it have been?) warned us all from making jokes about Palin being a woman. As Richard Back once wrote "We teach best what we most need to learn."

Your concern-tolling may have been more effective if Palin didn't make her own joke about this. That is, what's the difference between a Hockey Mom (her) and a Pit bull: Lipstick.

See, being informed is fun! Try it!

MartinB:

"What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

It was not too long ago that some science blogger (who the heck could it have been?) warned us all from making jokes about Palin being a woman.

Bzzzt! Your critique of blogger snark is wrong on two points:

1. This is a close paraphrase of Palin's own joke about herself, from her big RNC speech.

2. It's Juan Cole's paraphrase, made in the context of his very thoughtful and well-reasoned Salon essay quoted above... not, as you seem to imagine, the immature namecalling of some commenter.

But thanks for playing...

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Can there be anything more existentially weird than misspelling a deliberate comic misspelling?

READIN' KOMPREHESHUN... (@65) should clearly have been READIN' KOMPREHENSHUN. Sorry for any KONFUZYON!

;^)

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

Cults are all about the same. We've all seen them. The Moonies, Jonestown-Guyana, FLDS, Kymer Rouge, Taliban, Al Qaida, Waco, Heavens Gate. They all tap into the same part of the human psyche.

Palin is a wild eyed Death Cultist, a Rapture Monkey who fervently hopes god kills 6.7 billion people soon. She even sacrified her own daughter to her wing nut beliefs.

If she and her 72 year old codger get elected, kiss the USA good bye.

WT, apparently you didn't watch the video long enough to hear Palin claim the Iraq War is a "task from God". Not only is this a wildly irrational approach to war (of all things), but the more reason Iraqi and Afghan Muslims have to believe the US is fighting a Crusade the more they will be motivated to not co-operate, or to fight.

You can see the signs of burnout already. Desperate attempts at keeping hope and interest alive as the cause disintegrates around them.

I wonder how many commenters in this thread will be finding God in the next ten to twenty years? So little intellectual endurance, so little intellectual focus, so little intellectual rigor.

Desperation produces such an ugly stink.

Posted by: WT | September 9, 2008 2:06 AM

truckboattruck - So...Obama's membership, for 20 years, has been scrutinized. And your conclusion after said scrutinization is???

He was a member of that church for political expediency.

I would probably go so far as to suggest that the only reason he gives off the appearance of a religious belief is because it is required for any politician in America.

By truckboattruck (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

I wonder if US-citizens will have as much reason to regret they didn't kill these people when there was still time as the germans did with the national socialist maniacs.

I wonder how many commenters in this thread will be finding God in the next ten to twenty years?

I would guess roughly the same number of people that will be finding unicorns. Pink and invisible or otherwise.

Desperation produces such an ugly stink.

wait.

McCain selects Palin as his running mate, and you think the desperation stinks HERE?!?

stop projecting.

McCain is quite pathetic. In 2000, while running for the nomination, he ripped the GoP a new one while criticizing their placation of the religious right as a support base.

NOW he's the one doing the pandering.

Funny, but I distinctly got that rotten desperation smell coming from his camp months ago, and it still smells the same to me.

this is Alan's thought process, from his own blog:

And as I was typing the above a thought came to me. Namely, that John McCain drops out of the race for health reasons, and the Republican Party agrees to name Sarah as their candidate for the office of President. She then names Hillary Clinton as her Vice Presidential candidate and has the proposal accepted by Hillary and the Republican Party.

you need to stop drinking so much, Alan.

Yocco:
Careful, there, bucko, you're stating the obvious succinctly. No chance for recognition here. First you must preen yourself over how oh-so-sensitive-to-everybody you are, then how-so-very-smart-and-educated you are, then you get to make prissy little 'suggestions.' Avoid any sexist/racist/culturist/etc-ist statements...cause, after all, when you point out the obvious facts of what's going on out in the real world, you'll run in to some people here who are only too, too willing to point out how wrong you are and how right they are.
And, you are right, 100%
Good luck in convincing any around here, though.
Actually 'doing' something about one's rights is so, like, you know, 'getting your hands dirty' type of stuff, ewwww!

Careful, there, bucko, you're stating the obvious succinctly.

actually, it was rather inane and disjointed.

First you must preen yourself over how oh-so-sensitive-to-everybody you are

you're kidding, right?

must be your first time here.

then how-so-very-smart-and-educated you are

stupid is as stupid does.

speaking of which...

will you be posting again soon?

Nope.
Whenever I do post and point out that you are in the minority in America, y'all get prissy and deny the reality.
Reason and rationality are on a very, very, VERY fast slide down. It doesn't matter how many intelligent, educated people y'all personally associate with, that's the reality out in the real world.
Why in the bloody hell do you think that ignorant piece of shit is so popular?
Because she speaks for the MAJORITY of Americans. Deny if you please, but you are not the ones breeding like sewer rats and no matter how much you preen yourself over how clever you are and how stupid she is, that will not change.
Yocco is correct. If you don't get out and fight for your rights, disgusting pigs like Palin will run them right into the ground.
Your post proved his point.

Clearly, there are some interesting psychological phenomena going on (e.g., being "slain in the spirit"), and it would make a good study. Anybody aware of some academic scholarship that has studied these kinds of behaviors from a psychological perspective?

Take a look at Did Muhammad suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy?.
Substitute the prophet/alien/sky fairy of your choice for 'Muhammad'.

It's particularly interesting that the effects of TLE can be reproduced by the conditions created at these church meetings.
You might also want to look at God on the Brain.

Well, WT, what *exactly* has you so riled up? I've heard Wright saying that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it's like to have taxis refuse to stop for you on a rainy night because of being black.
I actually can't see any controversy there.
Wright, I think, wants reparations to the descendants of slaves; I don't think that's practical, and I don't think Obama does either. But that doesn't mean we can't be friends with people who think it's a good idea.

I've also been informed that Obama, having been raised by white relatives and his father's family being non-American, felt he needed to better understand the lives and perspectives of more typical black Americans and therefore joined a black church, which is the hub of a great deal of social life for blacks. Wright's strong political views would at least make him interesting to listen to, even when in disagreement.

Ever had a college course where the professor seemed to have strong but strange opinions, but you also realized you could learn about how people see the world from his class?

If Wright was performing faith healing, passing out rattlesnakes, etc, then I might worry about Obama's judgment. But the fact that a moderate liberal wants to hear what the radicals are thinking while getting his weekly dose of Jesus? Not so weird, imo.

By Samantha Vimes (not verified) on 08 Sep 2008 #permalink

#39 - they're all OVER the place in JAX FL. I started noticing a few months ago that wherever I go in town, I pass either an Assembly of God church or a megachurch that's just as frighteningly weird. (Mandarin Church of Christ used to be right near my house, and I always wanted to step in one day, but was too unwilling to listen to the bullshit to do so. Talk about a megachurch, though. Yikes.)

I used to go to Church of God with my grandparents as a kid and I was weirded out by some of what they did, but it was nothing like this video. I'm really disturbed by it. I mean, I've known about the kind of stuff that goes on for a while now, and "Jesus Camp" (ps: totally about this same Third Wave movement) had some fairly disturbing scenes, but every time I see anything like it, I feel sick, no matter whether I've seen it before.

Something has to be done about these AoG groups so they can stop being so cultish and ruining peoples' lives, but damned if I know of anything to do except keep talking about it and telling people about it.

The SPLC report is a step, but it needs to go further.

Very revealing to hear this guy at the end basically talking about redoing the genocide described in the old testament...

If you don't get out and fight for your rights, disgusting pigs like Palin will run them right into the ground.
Your post proved his point.

your logic fails you.

one, that doesn't appear to have been his point (his point, excising the gibberish, seems to have been a disagreement with attacking Palin over McCain - which, btw, is nonsensical given the amount of attacks that HAVE taken place on McCain), and two, what on earth makes you think none of us actually "do" anything, eh?

because we post here?

guess what, you're posting here too.

That must mean, by your twisted bass-ackward logic, that you are merely projecting your own laziness on to the rest of us.

done yet?

Ooooo, I'm trembling in the glare of your brilliant exposition..
Not.
When I've pointed out that you all are extremely quickly becoming a tiny minority in this country, I've been called paranoid, etc.
Palin, while being an extreme case, still speaks for the overwhelming majority of Americans. And that majority is breeding like rats. Look at how many genetic freaks this piece of human garbage has produced herself. More shit for the dilution of the gene pool.
On this very blog her idiocy was pointed out in beautiful detail. Why hasn't the media addressed this? Why hasn't every representative in Washington been blizzarded by at least e-mails about her idiocy? Why are there not marches in the streets demanding her immediate removal from the race? Why does McCain get away with being such a piece of lying shit himself? Why does only Jon Stewart point out what a piece of shit McCain is? Why aren't there marches about McCain?
Because it's just easier to bitch about it on the net. Yocco's points, despite your juvenile statements about them, are true. Until liberals, atheists, democrats, whatever the hell you want to call them, get down and dirty nasty and fight like hell to get this country back, McCain, Palin, and the rest of the filth of their ilk will simply walk away with it.

LOL at that woman's account of her 'cell-phone anointing' experience. If some random nutter started anointing me mid-conversation I'd be "blitzed" with laughter too!

Actually, Ichthyic, I don't think there is a disagreement here over these basic facts, just in how one needs to go about doing something to correct them...
It just annoys the living shit out of me when I see people snarking each other over syntax, or puncuation, or some stupid shit like that when the facts are that if we don't get up and fight, we will see another dark age descend.
Believing that reason and rationality will prevail in the end is real nipple-rubbing fun, but it doesn't get shit done. Neither does acting superior to people you all don't fraternize with on a daily basis.

This is RELIGION!!!

When I've pointed out that you all are extremely quickly becoming a tiny minority in this country, I've been called paranoid, etc.

which has what all to do with the post you were responding to?

you apparently saw something that wasn't there in Yocco's post, got all frothy, and decided to make a speech that was extremely poorly thought out.

I repeat:

are you done yet?

or is there more to add to your soapbox?

Look at how many genetic freaks this piece of human garbage has produced herself. More shit for the dilution of the gene pool.

did you happen to read THIS thread:

This is how we will lose.

because you must have missed the message, while you were looking for a place to grandstand your nonsense.

do yourself, and everyone, a favor and stop posting.

Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
The irony!
I can't add anything to it!
Stay in your ivory tower.
The republipigs will win because they know how to fight: put in an idiot with breasts that teflon coat her from criticism and leave everyone beating each other up over being sexist and completely miss that she is not fit to breed let alone lead.
If there is anyone, anywhere, who actually believes the republipigs chose her for any other reason they are simply idiots themselves.
Now quit fighting with me and fight this atavism from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Or would that get you too dirty?

Link to the Kenyan pastor who spoke at Wasilla's Assemblies of God church several times and personally blessed Palin.

http://www.wofchurchke.org/

Doesn't appear to be radical.

I couldn't finish watching that shit. Too creepy. Those people are, what's the term, "batshit insane". It just boggles the mind that in the 21st century, people in the west can believe and behave like this. Cell phone anointing, my hairy ass.

I'd say that Lou Engle was pretty damn close to the truth in the statement "There's an underground church that the world has no idea exists"... but it should have been "There's an underground church that has no idea the (rest of the) world exists".

Stupid stuff like this makes me appreciate living in secular (well... compared with the US) Sweden.

By Oskar Holmström (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Canuck said:

Those people are, what's the term, "batshit insane".

From what little I could stomach I consider this statement to be an insult to innocent chiropteran excrement everywhere.

By Lilly de Lure (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

What I find hilarious about these uber-religious Christians is that, on the one hand, they entirely reject being in any sense descended "from monkeys", then they go to church and whoop, holler, grunt, speak in tongues, leap around, roll on the floor, and do everything short of flinging poo at each other as if to prove beyond all doubt what they most vehemently deny.

Both sides have pandered to religion in a disgraceful way this election. God was mentioned so much at the Democrat convention that at times I thought everyone would fall down on bent knee and start to pray. Why would they allow that Elmer Gantry religious huckster Rick Warren to moderate a debate and give him political credibility when none was due?

Now anyone can cut and paste video clips interspersing a candidate with anything. As has been pointed out Pentecostal churches, many of which have a high percentage of black members are very animated in this way, and I guess you get the point.

My own feeling is that this line of attack against her will not play well because at the bottom line, as scary and as wacko as Mrs. Palin's church happens to be to the American people, Mr. Obama's church of Rev Wright is much more so. The fact that he Obama threw Wright under the bus after 20 years does not sit well either.

Too bad we just can't seem to leave religion out of politics.

The republipigs will win because they know how to fight: put in an idiot with breasts that teflon coat her from criticism - Strakh

Like Hillary Clinton's teflon-coated her, you mean?

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Can we stop comparing Palin to a pitbull?

Pitbulls are generally very nice dogs.

These people act like the people who have been to a rock concert, much adrenalin released. People are longing for a better life you can see that.Rock music is not very holy and rock music is not music only syncopation.Rock music was one of the tools to destroy the civilization of atlantis 12,000 yrs ago. It was the flood of Noah.

By Doris Tracey (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

" Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | September 9, 2008 6:41 AM

What I find hilarious about these uber-religious Christians is that, on the one hand, they entirely reject being in any sense descended "from monkeys", then they go to church and whoop, holler, grunt, speak in tongues, leap around, roll on the floor, and do everything short of flinging poo at each other as if to prove beyond all doubt what they most vehemently deny."

Thank you for that mental picture. It just made me LOL.

By druidbros (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Hey, Doris Tracey - put down the bottle of furniture polish and step away from the keyboard. Don't huff and post!

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

WT #15,

Give me a break...I'm not a big fan of Palin but she quit this church and moved on after concluding that it was just too weird for her. Unlike Obama who maintained his membership in Wright's insanity for 20 years.

Well you seem to be more of fan of Palin than what you pretend in your profoundly dishonest comment :

1. She "officially" left the WAG in 2002:
Palin was baptized at the Wasilla Assembly of God at 12, and has attended the church for most of her adult life. When she was inaugurated as governor, the founding pastor of the church delivered the invocation. In 2002, Palin moved her family to a nondenominational church, but she continues to worship at a related Assembly of God church in Juneau.

2. Why do you claim that she left that church because "it was too weird for her". Any evidence for that, or is this just wishful thinking ?
On another hand, how do you explain that she returned as Governor of Alaska to that church in June 2008 (wait ! but that's only 3 months ago!) to make that speech :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_12…

3. "It was so cool growing up in this church and getting saved here,'' Palin told the church audience in June, praising "the umbrella of this church... God has sent me from underneath the umbrella of this church throughout this state"

4. "Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place," she told the congregation in June. "What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

5. Palin painted the war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

6. She also sought prayer on another matter: A $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wants built in Alaska "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

So, all this are declarations from Palin to that church only 3 motnhs ago.

You find fit to accuse Obama of adopting "Wright's insanity", when you surely can't point us to any evidence of any speech made by Obama, 3 monnhs ago, 12 months ago, 3 year ago... that shows that he does.

Can you ? Than please, show some evidence.

But you maintain that despite that recording of Palin's speech 3 moths ago, she doesn't adopt any of "Kalnin's insanity", because that was too weird for her ?

How objective is this ? And you claim to be a scientist ?

And with regards to "Kalnin's insanity" :

a) Kalnins has preached that critics of Bush will be banished to Hell, questioned if people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to Heaven, charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

b) During the 2004 election, Kalnins praised Bush's performance in debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his own preference: "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." Kalnins said. "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time."

c) Kalnins later bristled at the criticism Bush was facing for the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina: "I hate criticisms towards the president, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."

PZ....I'm an evolutionary psychologist at the State University of New York and couldn't be more sympathetic to your brand of atheism. But, methinks you are letting your political fundamentalism cloud your usual evidence-based epistemology. Please.....think. And relax, man.

And you claim to be a scientist ? And to defend "evidence-based epistemology" ?

- How evidenced based is your accusation that Obama agrees with Wright's insanity ?

- How evidenced based is your assumption that Palin doesn't agree with Kalnin's insanity ?

Yes, the far-right-wing spin doctors and their non-evidenced based blathering seems to have really impressed you.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

These people act like the people who have been to a rock concert, much adrenalin released. People are longing for a better life you can see that.Rock music is not very holy and rock music is not music only syncopation.Rock music was one of the tools to destroy the civilization of atlantis 12,000 yrs ago. It was the flood of Noah.

Back in my grateful dead following days I would have paid A LOT for whatever Doris is taking.

Wowbagger said:

Hey, Doris Tracey - put down the bottle of furniture polish and step away from the keyboard. Don't huff and post!

Oh dear, I assumed she was joking. Does my maniac detector need recalibrating again or is your comedy meter on the blink do you think?

By Lilly de Lure (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Hey science folk. Palin is a scary witch who thinks Armageddon is round the corner.

btw it's not "three dots" it's … and is called a horizontal ellipsis, its html entity code is … or … which you can type into the posting box

get your typographical facts right ! :)

btw. insisting on javascript to post is pretty rubbish, it goes to a 404 without it

Lilly,

I can't sense any irony in what she's saying. She wrote a very bizarre post on another thread; combined with this she's coming across as more than just a little creepy.

High on Jebus Juice™!

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Phopas,

My own feeling is that this line of attack against her will not play well because at the bottom line, as scary and as wacko as Mrs. Palin's church happens to be to the American people, Mr. Obama's church of Rev Wright is much more so. The fact that he Obama threw Wright under the bus after 20 years does not sit well either.

I'll refer you to my comment #107, and ask you this same question :

What evidence do you have that Obama agrees with any of Wright's insanity, please find me declarations that Obama has made recently, or within the last 3 years. On another hand, the declarations that I mention in my post above, were all made by Palin (really!), and this only 3 motnhs ago.

Again, you seem to only be interested in propagating lies on Obama, and to close your eyes on Palin when there is indisputable evidence of her religious insanity.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Wowbagger said:

I can't sense any irony in what she's saying. She wrote a very bizarre post on another thread; combined with this she's coming across as more than just a little creepy.

High on Jebus Juice™!

Looking at her other post I regretfully concur. I'll get to work on my maniac detector!

By Lilly de Lure (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

At ~6:12, she seriously claims their church raised someone from the dead. I guess the liberal media doesn't cover that kind of thing, huh?

So many questions.

If I want to do a cell phone annointing ... do those use regular airtime minutes, or do I need special holy ghost minutes on my plan?

If I use an iPhone Touch, can I do a remote laying-of-hands?

If I live in a godless liberal part of the country (like NY) will an annointing incur roaming charges?

Is there any way to tell the difference of someone "texting in tongues" from someone who just can't type?

Wow. These folks are just pathetic. A portal to heaven on the third floor? God asking you to run in a circle? An "outbreak" of blessings spread by radio-waves through cell phones? How is this nonsense any different from the antics of witch-accusers in the 15-1700's? Unfortunately, they wed their personal insanity to a militant world view and see their purpose on this world as forcibly "returning" it to some fantasy based on the myths of a bronze age war god cult.

Oh, and Phopas? For all Wright said, he never told his congregation it was their duty to kill every disbeliever, burn their homes, desecrate their churches, and only marry within the community of "pure" believers. If you watch that video at the top, you'll hear an AoG preacher saying exactly that.

I picked up the book "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair, after watching the (overrated) film, "There Will Be Blood". Anyway, these people really remind me of the church formed by the character Eli Watkins called the Church of the Third Revelation, if memory serves. Scary, fucking, lunacy is all I see of the US on the innertubes.

They need to stop talking about Palin's daughter and start talking about how the McCain marriage is the result of an affair and how he abandoned his disabled wife.

Who cares that it was the result of an affair? There are many factors in marriages and perhaps we are not privy to the goings on in the prior marriage. What matters is if he has been a good husband to the current wife.

When I've pointed out that you all are extremely quickly becoming a tiny minority in this country, I've been called paranoid, etc.

Actually it's the opposite. The numbers of skeptics is rising in each and every poll for the last decade.

This documentation of insanity needs to be publicized far and wide. Too bad that the text slides are shown for far too little time.

Alan Kellogg, what has turned you into a concern troll? May I recommend a short look here? As of the latest polls, Obama has 281 electoral votes, and that's without Ohio ("Barely Republican") or Florida (exactly tied). 270 are required to win.

Enough Americans are fed up enough with the Iraq war that McPain is going to lose, barring really massive and rather obvious fraud.

(And Palin selecting Clinton as running mate? "Sambo beat the bitch", remember? What have you been smoking, and can I get it legally in the Netherlands. Please.)

Back to the video. So there are really people who say "cheeses". Nice to know.

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

#118,

People who are from Dumbfuckistan are those who blame Obama for his ex pastor's speeches, but not Palin for her own speeches.

Phopas and WT for example...

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Bill Dauphin.....is one to infer that Obama is a Black Liberation Theologian because of his association with the Reverend Wright? After nearly 2 years of running for president, can you say for sure that he's not?

Please define Black Liberation Theology. Which elements do you find objectionable? Which do you think characterize Obama's views and programs?

I need therapy after watching that video!!! That video has got to be one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen in my entire life. It is becoming more obvious to me every day how desperate people are to feel a sense of belonging, especially the youth. It should be illegal for these nut job preachers and youth ministers to take advantage of a human beings insecurities and exploit them to their demented world view!!!!!

By Another Primate (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

I love concern trolls.

1.) They have the answer to every problem ever!

2.) If you cannot acknowledge their genius or do exactly as they say, you are a fool and a loser.

3.) And PS, you fools and losers need to stop being so elitist and arrogant!

Our resident concern trolls are in dire need of a dictionary; not just for spelling and grammar issues, but also to look up the definition of "irony".

By minimalist (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Please define Black Liberation Theology. Which elements do you find objectionable? Which do you think characterize Obama's views and programs?

Dumbfuckstanis never ask themselves these kinds of questions.

When prompted, they will answer :

1. don't care
2. whatever Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say
3. did you hear his wife ?

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Samantha (@85):

I agree that it's not so weird for Obama to have listened to "what the radicals are saying": The capacity (and willingness) to pay attention to (which is different from agreeing with or validating) ideas that might be challenging or even offensive is one of the things that's good about Obama, and one of the things that has been disastrously missing during the Bush administration.

In addition, if you looks at the body of his work, and even that one infamous sermon in its full context, I don't think Wright is really all that radical. Much of what was decried as radicalism was really just preacherly rhetoric, which must have been unfamiliar and difficult to parse for people who are used to casual attendance at mainline white churches. But in my previous comments I've tacitly stipulated that Wright is radical, because showing that Obama is not a dangerous radical doesn't require making the argument about Wright: Even if Wright is as bad as everyone says, Obama is OK.

Finally...

I've also been informed that Obama, having been raised by white relatives and his father's family being non-American, felt he needed to better understand the lives and perspectives of more typical black Americans and therefore joined a black church, which is the hub of a great deal of social life for blacks.

...good point, and one which anyone could easily confirm by reading Obama's books and speeches. As I keep saying in this thread, we don't need to guess or infer, because we have credible primary sources for this stuff.

(As an aside, though Palin ripped Obama in her RNC speech for "having time" to write two memoirs, implying that he was sloughing off his legislative duties, I find that her own running mate — whose whole campaign is predicated on his service as a legislator — has written five books, including four in the last 6 years. Go figure!)

Strakh (@91):

It just annoys the living shit out of me when I see people snarking each other over syntax, or puncuation, or some stupid shit like that...

I fear this might be meant, in part, for me. Geeking out over the language is an occupational hazard for me, as I'm an editor in "real life." I try to reign myself in, and only intentionally comment on typos or grammatical errors when either they're entertaining (e.g., Freudian typos and unintentional puns/double entendres... and when I comment on these, I never mean it mean-spiritedly) or when the person I'm responding to has been an insufferable joke. Even when I forget myself and exceed those self-imposed standards, I hope the cumulative substantive content of my comments makes up for it.

In this particular thread, I think the comment I made about language is substantive: There's a real difference between someone who professes a theology (aka a theologian) and someone who sits in the pews (on occasion) listening... and that distinction is important to the Obama/Wright conversation we're having.

(And BTW, I put my shoeleather and money where my mouth is in order to "do something about it" all the time. Don't assume that because someone takes 15 seconds out to snark about a comma error, it means that person's entire life is wasted on trivia.)

maht (@112):

btw. insisting on javascript to post is pretty rubbish, it goes to a 404 without it

??? I've been posting comments here for years, and I can't even spell giavaskrypt!

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Speaking of snarking about errors...

...when the person I'm responding to has been an insufferable joke.

...was intended to be:

...when the person I'm responding to has been an insufferable jerk.

Maybe this one was a felicitous error: What I actually typed was nicer than what I intended to type!

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

The video is nice montage of clips that are conveniently out of context. So much for scientific process, hey PZ. I guess when it bodes well for you a credible representation of the facts isn't necessary? The clips in this video that actually show Sarah Palin are not all that disturbing. Granted, there are A of G folks out there that are quite pyscho, but to make sweeping generalizations about Palin in regards to the behavior of the other people shown in the video makes you look dumb. Using your thought process: there are misguided scientists out there - therefore all scientists must be discredited. There are bad teachers out there - therefore all teachers are bad...etc., etc., etc. Nice logic you fucking 'scientists'.

Man, that was some scary shit.

Most of them seem to be so young too, which saddens me. What a waste of potential to get sucked into a cult like this.

I guess some people will be uncomfortable about ANYONE with serous religious beliefs being in leadership or at least anyone that goes beyond keeping it quiet in their homes. While this video was more 'showey' than my personal faith i find it hard to get outraged or shocked by the video.

By HarlockJDS (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Wasn't Bill Engle the same creepy guy featured in Jesus Camp? This guy is everywhere. 'shivers'...(and not in a good way)

QDA,

The clips in this video that actually show Sarah Palin are not all that disturbing.

Watch first the entire video of her speech from June 2008, then come back and comment.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/palinanity.php

(if you prefer to read, check my comment #107, I've quoted her weirdest declarations from that speech)

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Underground Church?

What is this?

Zion?

Ugh.
I'll read a few more of Robert G. Ingersoll's speeches, and hope that sane voices like his will some day soon prevail in the US.
I am not holding my breath!

Used to be that America felt just like Canada (or Canada like America since we watch so much of your television). Now it feels creepy.

Dumbfuckstanis never ask themselves these kinds of questions.

When prompted, they will answer :

Interesting in this regard are Rick's attempts to break free of this here

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/this_is_how_we_will_lose.php…

(Read this comment and then #496 and #497.) Very strange.

In addition, if you looks at the body of his work, and even that one infamous sermon in its full context, I don't think Wright is really all that radical.

Um, not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

In this particular thread, I think the comment I made about language is substantive: There's a real difference between someone who professes a theology (aka a theologian) and someone who sits in the pews (on occasion) listening... and that distinction is important to the Obama/Wright conversation we're having.

Hmmm... Prior to this, I was really only familiar with (Catholic) LT in the Latin American context. Since I read that comment, I've been trying to think of what lay believers in LT are called in Spanish, and I just can't remember. It's a social movement more than a theological position, so it may be that "Liberation Theologian" can be correctly applied to laypeople in this case. Again, I can't recall. Anyone know?

"This world has nothing for me..."

Indeed. Anything more need to be said about what's driving this?

Yeah, I supposed a lot of people will think this is some type of 'normal' way to act.

Recently I went to church with my mother in law who is dying of brain cancer. Everyone there thought it was perfectly normal to raise their hands and praise god for letting his only son be tortured and killed so that humanity can feast upon his body and blood forever and ever and ever.

They raise their hands and sing praises to this bloody god and his bloody son, and pat each other on their backs for their own bloody participation.

Literal or not, I didn't want to touch these people when they came up to try and shake my hand and be my friend. It was horrifying. I half expected one of them to say "Hello, my name is Lestat".

Ozzy, Insane Clown Posse, and Slipknot have nothing over these people.

Welcome to our nightmare, please step in .. our water's warm.

Yikes.

These people are way scarier than most Muslims, and the fact that one of them is running for a position of power in this country scares the crap out of me.

I'd say I was moving to Canada if Palin ever became President, but these people seem to have infested Canada as well.

Yea I'm glad I'm in Japan. I have my absentee ballot coming at the end of the month, if Obama doesn't get elected I may be staying here for a little longer than intended.

Let's wait and hear what [Palin] has to say.

Yes, let's withhold our scrutiny and criticism until January, when she'll be free to tell us all what she really envisions for America.

Damn, I'm late to the party, again.
Folks, watching that video had me realize that the upcoming elections are actually an important battle in a cultural war. A war we didn't start but which the enemy fights using teeth and claws and tons of shit. But hey, we're supposed to be better than them, right?
So, Strakh @95 etc., while I do appreciate your aggressive stance and find it somewhat sexy, don't use the tactics and weapons the fundies of whatever denomination drag onto the battlefield. Most importantly, do NOT compare people to rats (unless you're giving a biology lecture). That kinda talk scares the living shit out of me.

Kellog the Death Cultist:

I wonder how many commenters in this thread will be finding God in the next ten to twenty years? So little intellectual endurance, so little intellectual focus, so little intellectual rigor.

I wonder how many xian cultists there will be in 20 years. Might be rather low. They may well be able to destroy the USA. In the last 8 years, they controlled much of the USA and have almost wrecked the country. Hundreds of thousands dead in endless wars, the economy is tanking, running record deficits, banks failing, gas is 3.90/gallon.

Few really want to sit on a pile of rubble while chanting Jesus loves you and gutting a rat for dinner. I've always said that fundies will eventually seriously damage the xian religion.

This has happened before. The USA was founded in part by religious refugees, Puritans, Huegonots etc. The constitution is a product of the enlightment, a reaction against the horrors of church power and the mass murders of the reformation wars.

>"This world has nothing for me..."

wait that's shocking? Seriously you'll hear that in pretty much ANY christian church so you better wait until an atheist candidate runs. If pressed on this issue in a forum where he doesn't think it'll be used against him i'll bet you Obama will basically say the same thing because it's a common christian belief that this world is a shell of what it should be and we should look to the second coming to really see the world in it's true glory

Some of you need to get out more. I've seen snake handling and people crucifying themselves. This video is pretty damn low on the crazy scale.

By HarlockJDS (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Who cares that it was the result of an affair? There are many factors in marriages and perhaps we are not privy to the goings on in the prior marriage.

Broadly speaking, I agree that candidates' marriages are usually irrelevant to the campaign... or at least, they should be. In this case, however, McCain has very specifically made his own personal character a centerpiece of his campaign. More generally, in recent history Republicans have portrayed themselves as the party of "family values," suggesting (usually implicitly, but occasionally explicitly) that their opponents (i.e., "libruhls") are less values-oriented — less moral — than they are.

In this context, McCain's marital history is at least informative, if not directly relevant to any specific issue: The story is that McCain's first wife was quite beautiful, but during McCain's imprisonment in Vietnam, she suffered a life-threatening and permanently disfiguring accident, such that when McCain returned home she just wasn't pretty enough to suit him anymore. By all accounts, he started dating other women almost immediately, and while I'm a bit hazy on the details, I gather he moved in with (and perhaps even got a marriage license with) the current Mrs. McCain before his divorce from the Mrs. McCain he was discarding was final.

Now, this makes him a cad, and FSM knows we've had plenty of those as president, including some of the very best presidents. But given the Republican "family values" line of BS, it also makes him a hypocrite. In addition, it reveals a reactive and impulsive streak that I'm not entirely comfortable with in my president.

So no, I don't think his sordid marital history is a disqualifier, or even a central issue. But it does reveal some tarnish on the selfless, courageous, saintly image he's trying to portray.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

I wonder if President Palin will take the opportunity to deliver a television annointing during her first State of the Union address.

I think it's a big mistake to attack Palin for "having ties with the Wassila Assembly of God."

It's also a big mistake to attack Obama for "having ties with Wright's church."

What's relevant is what Palin or Obama say.

And Palin said far too many things, recently, that show undisputably that she's a religious fanatic.

If the mainstream media were really interested with helping the American people to decide for themselves, they would ask Palin questions about her speech in June 2008 to the Wassila Assembly of God, about her views on abortion and what she would do if she were president, about her views on taching creationism in schools...etc

As a casual observer of this race (I'm French), I am disgusted to see that so many Americans seem to be much more influenced by the irrelevant noise made by the professional spin-doctors and other manufacturers of consent, than by the actual ideas of the candidates.

I've never seen this happening to such a detrimental extent in any election to which I've participated or observed in France, Spain or Germany.

I'm quite certain that the only way this can be stopped is by greatly reducing the length of the electoral process.

If this election was more about debates and interviews over a period of maximum 2 to 3 months, and not a full year of irrelevant commentaries and one way speeches, citizens would be much more capable of deciding for themselves in an objective manner, and actually turnout the day of the election.

This s just unbelievable. It's not a democracy, but a farce.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

negentropyeater,

You say Palin was baptized at Wasilla A of G, attended the church most of her adult life...etc.

I've attended the Catholic Church my whole life - using your logic that must mean I'm a child molester. Sorry to disappoint you.

Her association with the Wasilla A of G no more shapes my view of her than Obama's association with Rev. Wright shapes my view of him. It is perfectly understandable (to me, at least) that she would have her pastor of many years deliver the invocation at her inaguration.

Your assertion that her making that speech in May 2008 and delivering it in such a manner that was applicable to HER AUDIENCE AT THE TIME is something that somehow suggests how she governs her political affairs is also not an argument I'll subscribe to. If I'm speaking to a worker's union my speech will be written with that in mind; if I'm speaking to social concerns type group my speech will be delivered so as to address social concerns; if I'm speaking to a church group I'm going to talk about God, if I'm speaking to a chamber of commerce I'm going to talk about economic development. You're critizing her for talking about God to people who wanted to hear about God?

3. "It was so cool growing up in this church and getting saved here,'' Palin told the church audience in June, praising "the umbrella of this church... God has sent me from underneath the umbrella of this church throughout this state"

4. "Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place," she told the congregation in June. "What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

Again, she was speaking to church - stating her belief that God has sent her throughout the state was simply speaking to their interests. So thinks the church is a special place and what comes from this church has great destiny - so what? If she had made these statements at a non-religous event then yes, it may seem wierd.

5. Palin painted the war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Again, I don't see what the problem with this comment is. You think it's wrong to pray that our military is striving to do what is right? It's wrong to pray that our leaders are sending the soldiers out on a task that is from God? (If a person believes in a God that is just and perfect, aren't the words 'right' and 'from God' interchangable?)

6. She also sought prayer on another matter: A $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wants built in Alaska "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

She's not asking people to pray for God to build the pipeline - she's praying for unity between people and companies which in turn would (possibly) facilitate the building of the pipeline. I think she makes it clear what she would like to see done (pipeline built) but she's asking them to pray for God's will to be done. That's not an uncommon thing to ask a bunch of church goers to do. Now if she were to get up in front of congress ask them to pray for God's will to be done to pass this bill or that bill, etc. - that would be wierd.

If you want to discredit her simply based on the fact that she's an outspoken Christian then i guess that's your perogative. However, if your discrediting her based on her policies and administrative abilities, show me the evidence. Quoting her from a speech she made to a church group doesn't hold much water. Especially when your quotes wouldn't be considered controversial by a vast majority of people when taken in the correct context and with half a brain (my opinion - feel free to disagree and/or prove me wrong).

"This world has nothing for me..."

Seen that belief before. The Heaven Gates cult put their last testimonies online before committing mass suicide. It is always a mystery as to how people can believe that there is a spaceship behind comet Hale-Bopp and one can get to it by swallowing a handful of pills and dying.

One woman said exactly that. She said that she didn't really know if there was a spaceship full of aliens. But it didn't matter, the earth had absolutely nothing to offer her. Some people have empty, unhappy lives, see a bleak future, and cults prey on these individuals.

Cults are all about the same, welcome to Cultland.

>"This world has nothing for me..."
HarlockJDS:
wait that's shocking? Seriously you'll hear that in pretty much ANY christian church so you better wait until an atheist candidate runs. If pressed on this issue in a forum where he doesn't think it'll be used against him i'll bet you Obama will basically say the same thing because it's a common christian belief that this world is a shell of what it should be and we should look to the second coming to really see the world in it's true glory

Yes, Christian theology is trash. The more they actually believe it (as this crew does), the more screwed up they are.

Your latter point, however, is most unlikely. I seriously doubt that Obama is a "believer" - he's more likely to say this kind of nonsense in public, where it's politically useful, than in private. Even Bushie doesn't actually believe this garbage; Palin, however, probably does actually "believe".

You need to get out more if you think that priests and political leaders actually believe the pap they peddle. This garbage is for the sheep; many priests/clerics/reverends will tell you that in private (it's "symbolic"! Of what?)

Things like this often remind me of the "Dune" series, (or at least what I remember of it) when the momentum of competing religious beliefs, superstition, power grabbing, etc. was so great they could not prevent civilization from degenerating into a dark age cycle of chaos and ignorance.

Of course, that was only a story.

By RamblinDude (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

SC:

It's a social movement more than a theological position, so it may be that "Liberation Theologian" can be correctly applied to laypeople in this case. Again, I can't recall. Anyone know?

I don't know what lay followers of Liberation Theology (in either its Catholic or Black versions) call themselves, but if they call themselves "theologians," I would say to them, "you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means!"

In common usage, "theologian" refers to a scholar of theology. Some unlettered fellow in the back pew may call himself a theologian, but that doesn't make him one.

More to the point of the current conversation, calling Obama a "Black Liberation Theologian" imputes to him a level of responsibility for those ideas that's not consistent with his actual status as an ordinary member of the congregation.

(Oddly enough, I think I must have done all this analysis subconsciously, but I didn't "surface" it 'til I was called on to defend my original passing comment. Funny how enlightening the process of debating this stuff can be, eh?)

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

As my friend nicely put it:

"If she [Sarah Palin] gets elected, I will like never - EVER - speak to average americans in my life.
Except as to subordinates ... or inferior species."

Though, he is Russian, so I think he already does...

QDS: Again, I don't see what the problem with this comment is. You think it's wrong to pray that our military is striving to do what is right? It's wrong to pray that our leaders are sending the soldiers out on a task that is from God? (If a person believes in a God that is just and perfect, aren't the words 'right' and 'from God' interchangable?)

Yes. I think you are a moral monster if you think that "war is ordained from God".

See: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_War_Prayer

Twain says it more eloquently than me.

Damn it. Now I'm looking askance at my cellphone, half-expecting to get blitzed with fire if I answer the damn thing.
wait...if I may be forgiven for Godwinizing, does this mean that the Nazis anointed Poland and Czechoslovakia?

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To the pleasantly vitriolic post #134:

If all that grunting, chanting, speaking in tongues, and proclamations of a divinely-inspired need to "take back" the world for Christ is being taken "out of context"...

Just what is the acceptable context, then?!

I don't see any situation in which that could be any less creepy and disturbing.

"Actually, Ichthyic, I don't think there is a disagreement here over these basic facts, just in how one needs to go about doing something to correct them...
It just annoys the living shit out of me when I see people snarking each other over syntax, or puncuation, or some stupid shit like that when the facts are that if we don't get up and fight, we will see another dark age descend.
Believing that reason and rationality will prevail in the end is real nipple-rubbing fun, but it doesn't get shit done. Neither does acting superior to people you all don't fraternize with on a daily basis."

You know, when I decided to check out this website, I thought, "cool", open-minded, secular, rational people who love ideas and aren't caught up in "group think" and group identity. These are the famous "cats" I've heard about, the ones that can't be herded...

Ummm, boy was I wrong.

Your basic groupy 'round here needs to believe--

Evolution is true, science is good, John McCain is an old fart from an evil political party (I'm with y'all so far...)Palin has boobs and shouldn't breed or be in politics, religon is crazy, Barack Obama should not be disliked or criticized, imposing a national healthcare system on the half of the population that adamantly doesn't want it is moral and just because, ummm, we say so around here, our rights are important to us but government needs to control us and we need to give it more power, Libertarians (including Nobel prize winning economists) are dumb, crazy people, beer is good, calling people who aren't like us names is good (after all, it helps solidify us as a herd of cats...) and Jon Stewart is god.

Did I miss any?

Let the great movement begin... (and flush when you're through...)

By Scott from Oregon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

"In common usage, "theologian" refers to a scholar of theology." - Bill Dauphin, #159

And "theology" is the study of God...based on what objective evidence?

Here is Twain's translation of "Let us pray for victory":

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them - in spirit - we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen...

If the Christians only had the courage of their convictions, to ask for what they really want.

@#157

odd i've not had a priest tell me that 'This garbage is for the sheep' in private... we must hang around different preachers.

And I'm happy to be considered 'screwed up' by you :)

By HarlockJDS (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

#168:

I guess I've actually talked with more theologians than you have - you know, the kind with doctoral degrees. What a surprise.

Frog @ 161:

Nothing in my post said that I think war is ordained by God. You seem content to mince words and make unjustified assumptions. The quotations marks were a nice touch - as if to suggest I said something even remotely close to that. Thanks.

I think it is always right to pray/hope/expect/encourage (whatever you want to call it) that our leaders are sending soliders, diplomats, and everyone that is working in the interest of the United States is also working in the best interest of humankind - aka, striving to do what is right. For the record, I agree that going into Iraq was overall a poor decision, but I have to hope (pray) that there is a better quality of life for many people in Iraq because of it, just as I have to hope that our politicians in general are doing what is right. Unfortunately many of them do not - Palin, McCain, Obama, Biden won't be the first and certainly won't be the last.

#170

So you talk to theologians with degrees who aren't believers and i talk to theologians with degrees that are. That explains the difference.

By HarlockJDS (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Bill,

I completely understand what you're saying, and why you want to make the distinction between Wright and Obama.* However, the common usage of "Liberation Theology" in Latin America, as I understand it, refers not primarily to a philosophical position among the clergy but to a broad set of social movements including laypeople. I may be wrong.

If the mainstream media were really interested with helping the American people to decide for themselves, they would ask Palin questions about her speech in June 2008 to the Wassila Assembly of God, about her views on abortion and what she would do if she were president, about her views on taching creationism in schools...etc

Our regional cable news (New England Cable News, or NECN) has a story this morning about the bump the naming of Palin has brought McCain in the polls. The story begins: "Freud once asked 'What do women want?' Well, apparently what they want is a woman on the presidential ticket." Depressing.

As a casual observer of this race (I'm French), I am disgusted to see that so many Americans seem to be much more influenced by the irrelevant noise made by the professional spin-doctors and other manufacturers of consent, than by the actual ideas of the candidates.

I've never seen this happening to such a detrimental extent in any election to which I've participated or observed in France, Spain or Germany.

I thought the Spanish media toed the PP line in the 2004 elections. The polls also missed the level of discontent among young people, who turned out in far greater numbers than expected. I hope it's something of a similar situation in this case, with a similar outcome. (Minus, of course, any acts of terrorism. A good cacerolada, on the other hand, might be just what we need.)

*Nevertheless, as a radical, I'm troubled by this distinction between "radical" and "nonradical." That's why I asked the question to WT earlier. I think ideas should be evaluated on their own merit. The word "radical" is used, and has been used for some time, in US politics to discount ideas without considering them. It's an epithet.

QDA:

If you don't understand that "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." can be condensed to "This war is ordained by God", I'm flabbergasted.

For the record, I agree that going into Iraq was overall a poor decision, but I have to hope (pray) that there is a better quality of life for many people in Iraq because of it, just as I have to hope that our politicians in general are doing what is right.

Who give's a flying f*ck about what you hope for? We know that their medical infrastructure has been destroyed, and 100's of thousands if not millions have died. Saddam at his most monstrous never reached that level.

There is such a thing as objective reality. One can count how many children have been blown to bits. Your "hopes" and "prayers" only reflect your personal psychiatric issues.

Palin is a true America, crazy as fuck and proud of it.

Welcome to the asylum...

QDA,

You're critizing her for talking about God to people who wanted to hear about God?

I'm not criticizing her for "talking about God". She can make a relgious talk all she wants. But not if as a Governor (or as President), she is trying to influence people into agreeing with particular government policies (for instance about the war or a pipeline) by asking them to pray that it be part of God's plan.

This is extremely dangerous, in Europe we recognize this very well, it's called facism. Mussolini and Franco were also adepts of this knd of formulas "pray with me that this or that is God's will". Very clever, very efficient, very dangerous.

Exploiting the gulibility and religiosity of citizens for the purpose of getting them to agree with particular government policies is criminal.

And even more so if she were to become the POTUS, with the authority over half of the military power of the entire planet.

When she'll be president she'll go, to the American audences whch are vastly relgious :

"Pray with me that God's plan requires that we abolish the right of women to abort in any circumstances, that we need to educate our youth in schools about how God created the world, that we need to invade Iran, that we should exploit the energy resources to cater for our current needs, etc..."

Whereas Obama has repeatedly said that we, the people, cannot invoke God nor religion to help us agree as a diverse nation about policy decisions, she says and will do the exact opposite : "pray with me that it is part of God's plan !"

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

A few questions I'd like to ask Sarah Palin, and get honest replies to-

- "How old do you think the Earth is, and why?"

- "What do you perceive to be the meaning of 'separation of church and state', and how should it be applied in our country today?"

- "Have you ever read 'The Institutes of Biblical Law' by RJ Rushdoony, and do you own a copy?"

- "What rights that are not enumerated in our Constitution do you feel should be inalienable to US citizens?"

- "If you could change the Constitution, what would you change?"

Now that I think about it, I would like to ask these questions to everyone running for office. I strongly feel that in this day and age, anyone irrational enough to believe in a literal 144 hour creation, 6,000 years ago is incapable of leading, or wisely governing our country.

We, as a people, should demand better!

By Benjamin Franklin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

In other news, Scott (fO) is still a douche.

Why are you still here? Do you LIKE making a fool of yourself?

Scott, if you find it so distressing to visit here why do you keep coming?

My take on Palin is if McCain is elected she'll last about a year before she either resigns "to take care of my family, which always comes first" or because of some Alaska related political scandal. After all she'll have served her purpose by then of sucking in votes from those who will vote for any woman, no matter how bad she is, because she's a woman, and the fundie crowd someone like Palin appeals to.

Praying. What a complete total waste of time.

My father told me a story from when he was a soldier serving in Korea.

One Sunday my father was offered a choice of standing guard duty or attending a sermon offered by a Priest. For anyone who has served, you know this is an easy choice. So he attended the sermon. During the sermon, the Priest was talking about WWII, Nazis, and how because the allies prayed to god they were granted victory over a terrible evil. So being the curious type, my father asked the priest a simple question. "Didn't a lot of those enemy soldiers pray to the same god?" For his simple question, not only was he escorted from the sermon, but he had to stand in front of the company commander and explain himself. Luckily the company commander had a sense of humour and dropped the issue. To this day he still wishes he had opted to stand guard duty :)

You pray for the men and women serving in Iraq, Afganistan and other places around the globe? Thanks for doing nothing.

Do you really care about them? Then send them letters, care packages, let them know your thinking about them as they do their duty as asked of them by their country. Leave god out of it.
Having served myself I can tell you without pause that doing those things mean something. Praying for them does nothing, so get off your holy ass and do something tangible, or shut the fuck up.

Lol. Scott from Oregon finally admits that he is a Libertarian, and cries whenever anyone pisses on the grave of Milton Friedman.

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

SC:

However, the common usage of "Liberation Theology" in Latin America, as I understand it, refers not primarily to a philosophical position among the clergy but to a broad set of social movements including laypeople. I may be wrong.

No, I think you're right... but I also think that makes those laypeople followers of Liberation Theology, not theologians.

Regardless of how the corresponding Spanish (or Portuguese) term might be used in Latin America, when you say "theologian" to an audience of English-speaking Americans and Europeans, you imply a certain authorship of theological ideas.

Barack Obama is in no sense an author of Rev. Wright's ideas (indeed, it's not even clear he's a follower of Wright's theology; one joins a church for plenty of reasons besides theology)... and calling him a "Black Liberation Theologian" implies (intentionally or not) a dangerous falsehood.

Nevertheless, as a radical, I'm troubled by this distinction between "radical" and "nonradical."

I generally agree, both that Wright has been misinterpreted and that radicalism has been inappropriately stigmatized. But at the moment, my overriding concern is seeing Barack Obama defeat McCain and his christofascist sidekick; fighting for Wright's honor or defending radicals would be, from my POV, a non-value-added diversion.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Scott-

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
- Benjamin Franklin

By Benjamin Franklin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Great points about Palin being more like islamic fundamentalists than our founding fathers. She truly scares the hell out of me. It scares me even more that people in general don't seem to be freaked out. Obama should be up by 25-30% right now.

There are religious goofballs out there? Why....I'm shocked. That's a new development. Thanks for the heads up.

I see that there are also plenty of nasty, smarmy, frothing at the mouth atheists around too.

I wouldnt want to spend time with either group thank you very much.

negentropyeater:

Exploting people's interests is how things get done. It's how this election will be won (regardless of who wins); it's how congress gets bills passed; it's how I get my four year old to pick up his toys.

I personally don't believe God gives a crap whether a pipeline gets built or about who gets elected. I imagine we can agree on that. People can pray all they want - and ask me to pray all they want; it won't change the outcome and it won't change my viewpoints; but I'm not going to criticize anyone for attempting to play to my interests. Like I said before, that is how things get done.

I hardly think America is largely religous when it comes to public policy. Most people can and should be able to make a distinction between the two, but I'll go back to my previous statement that IF a person believes in a God that is just and right, then it is certainly appropriate to incorporate that type of thinking into our policy making - whether we say it's "from God" or just the "right thing to do" is of no consequence. I don't think the means necessarily has to justify the end, but the end does have a way of justifying the means. The two go hand in hand when implemented properly.

I admit, I'm probably fighting a losing battle - I just appreciate the differing viewpoints.

There are religious goofballs out there? Why....I'm shocked. That's a new development. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes and one isrunning for vice president. Sorry if the discussion is a bother for you.

Dagger @ 182:

For the record, I've done plenty of those 'tangible' things you refer to in addition to my prayer. You can't prove that my prayer does nothing and I can't prove that it does anything. That said, let's weigh the risks of praying versus not praying. If we assume for moment prayer does make a difference, and people pray, hopefully you can appreciate the benefits of that. If it does make a difference and people don't pray, hopefully you can understand the dangers associated with that. If it doesn't make a difference and people continue to pray, what's the harm? So I've spent some time expressing thoughts and ideas and requests that won't be granted anyway. Making requests that don't get granted is something people do everyday - with your employer, your family, your elected officials, etc. If prayer doens't make a difference and people don't pray...then there are no consequences either way. I guess in that case your right - good for you, but where does it get you? Prayer may not make a difference, but then again it just might. I'm willing to take the risk. I find it unfortunate you disagree. BTW, a sincere thanks for your service to the country.

"There's been a dead person raised...there's a woman with new knees..."

O RLY?

I see Scott is upset his libertarian ideas didn't get any traction here. He presumed he was the second coming, and we would all fall all over ourselves agreeing with his line of bullshit. Scott, if you have to spin your facts, which you had to do regularly, they probably don't say what you want them to say. We saw through you and your arguments. By the way Scott, there is no official party line, no meetings to agree upon doctrine, or any other such thing. This is a very diversified blog.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

QDA@190,

Yawn... the old Pascal's Wager schtick in a new form. How do you know prayer doesn't have precisely the opposite effect to that you intend? This apparently turned out to be the case in the study funded by the Templeton Foundation - in which sick people who knew they were being prayed for had worse outcomes than the control group.

If you don't know you're being prayed for, then of course it has no effect, because magic spells don't work. Did you miss the memo that the Middle Ages ended?

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

>"This world has nothing for me..."

wait that's shocking? Seriously you'll hear that in pretty much ANY christian church so you better wait until an atheist candidate runs.

Is that so in the USA? Because over here you do hear that we shouldn't get too attached to this world, that we should accumulate treasure in heaven rather than on Earth, and the like, but you never hear "fuck this world, I want to die already" like in the video.

If pressed on this issue in a forum where he doesn't think it'll be used against him i'll bet you Obama will basically say the same thing because it's a common christian belief that this world is a shell of what it should be and we should look to the second coming to really see the world in it's true glory

Oh, you think it's about the second coming? I thought it was about heaven and didn't even think of the second coming. Catholic priests hardly ever preach about the end of the world, you see, so I'm not used to that...

Some of you need to get out more. I've seen snake handling and people crucifying themselves. This video is pretty damn low on the crazy scale.

It is one step away from snake-handling. One.

And that's bad enough already!

I'm quite certain that the only way this can be stopped is by greatly reducing the length of the electoral process.

If this election was more about debates and interviews over a period of maximum 2 to 3 months, and not a full year of irrelevant commentaries and one way speeches, citizens would be much more capable of deciding for themselves in an objective manner, and actually turnout the day of the election.

That must be why AFAIK all democratic countries except the US have such a length limit. If parties start campaigning too early, they pay a fine.

Again, she was speaking to church - stating her belief that God has sent her throughout the state was simply speaking to their interests. So thinks the church is a special place and what comes from this church has great destiny - so what? If she had made these statements at a non-religous event then yes, it may seem wierd.

What is truly weird about that speech is that it vacillates between being a party convention speech and a sermon. Over here, the priest would have thrown her out with his own hands for giving such a profane speech in a church. Up to three times per minute Palin jumped between talking about policy and about God. And then, after five minutes or so, it dawned upon me -- she was talking about policy all the time, and to her God is part of policy!

Color me culture-shocked.

I think she makes it clear what she would like to see done (pipeline built) but she's asking them to pray for God's will to be done. That's not an uncommon thing to ask a bunch of church goers to do.

She is saying it is God's will that the pipeline should be built! Did you really not notice this!?!

I thought the Spanish media toed the PP line in the 2004 elections. The polls also missed the level of discontent among young people, who turned out in far greater numbers than expected.

Most important was that M-11 happened so shortly before the elections. Aznar lied transparently about who the terrorists were, clinging to the idea that the ETA was it long after the evidence was found to say otherwise, and this seems to have changed some people's minds. I mean, what do you do with a politician who is caught lying about something important so shortly before an election? You fire him.

For the record, I agree that going into Iraq was overall a poor decision, but I have to hope (pray) that there is a better quality of life for many people in Iraq because of it,

But it isn't.

just as I have to hope that our politicians in general are doing what is right.

But they aren't. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts! From where do you take the right to continue wishful thinking years after the evidence has disproved it?

If you don't understand that "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." can be condensed to "This war is ordained by God", I'm flabbergasted.

I think I've understood what's going on: Palin says "is" and "are" when she means "(should/may) be". Thus, "Pray [...] that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God" means "our national leaders are sending them out on a task -- now pray that this task is from God". Such a charitable interpretation appears defensible to me. Importantly, it is testable: take more speeches by Palin and check how often she says "is/are" when talking about hopes.

But it stays appalling that she believes there's even a possibility that the Iraq war could be "a task that is from God". In other words, she believes there could be such a thing as a holy war. Does that make her more likely to try to start one? I fear it does.

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

If it doesn't make a difference and people continue to pray, what's the harm? So I've spent some time expressing thoughts and ideas and requests that won't be granted anyway. Making requests that don't get granted is something people do everyday - with your employer, your family, your elected officials, etc.

Right, request to real tangible people who say "yes" or "no". You get a real answer.

The harm is a global waste of time. For example. The million prayer meeting from a while back. People were going to travel to DC to pray. Think of the waste of time that was. All the man hours involved that could have been used to actually do something..

There is no evidence that prayer does anything and plenty that it offers no help. People pray every day for things that never come true. Good solid, selfless prayers to bring the end of suffering to others. Yet people are still murdered and raped in Darfur.

Does god ignore the prayers for the people of Darfur but decide to bestow his grace on our American soldiers and our fearless leader?

pffft.

Prayer doesn't do shit.

QDA #190 "That said, let's weigh the risks of praying versus not praying. If we assume for moment prayer does make a difference, and people pray, hopefully you can appreciate the benefits of that. If it does make a difference and people don't pray, hopefully you can understand the dangers associated with that. If it doesn't make a difference and people continue to pray, what's the harm?"

Pascal called. He wants his wager back.

Time and time again the effectiveness of prayer has been studied and always found to be no more effective than just doing nothing. In fact, I think it's worse than doing nothing. It's a huge waste of time and energy that would be best served actually finding REAL solutions to problems.

when you say "theologian" to an audience of English-speaking Americans and Europeans, you imply a certain authorship of theological ideas.

If they're also Spanish-speaking Americans, maybe not. :) Seriously, though, I read "Liberation Theologian" as someone who believes in the tenets of LT. Again, I may be wrong or I may not be representative, but I don't think anyone really believes Obama is a theologian in the sense you're talking about. (Although, again, I understand why you're at pains to make the distinction.)

But at the moment, my overriding concern is seeing Barack Obama defeat McCain and his christofascist sidekick; fighting for Wright's honor or defending radicals would be, from my POV, a non-value-added diversion.

I don't know about defending anyone's honor. I don't think these are mutually exclusive, and I do think that defending radicals and radical ideas is always important (as the criminalization of radicalism at the RNC convention made evident.) But I'm a radical. Our priorities differ to some extent, and that's OK. :)

"WE saw through you and your arguments".

One can only applaud that kind of irony...

Thanks for saying far more in far fewer words than I am capable of.

My point is only to point out that even self-proclaimed rationalists are prone to coagulating into a non-feral group, creating its own set of values and behaving exactly like the religous they all rail against.

Which makes the hypocrisy of many people's anti-religious rants that much more deliciously absurd.

The mind, indeed, boggles...

By Scott from Oregon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Let me add one more thing.

Prayer actually does one thing. It makes the prayer giver feel better about themselves. It is the easiest way to think you are doing something without actually doing anything.

It is the ultimate in selfish acts.

Oops, forgot to close the last blockquote tag.

There are religious goofballs out there? Why....I'm shocked. That's a new development. Thanks for the heads up.

I see that there are also plenty of nasty, smarmy, frothing at the mouth atheists around too.

I wouldnt want to spend time with either group thank you very much.

Wake us all up when Christopher Hitchens, drunk of course, throws a bomb into a church.

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Scott, if you don't like us or our attitude, why do you keep posting here? You have never answered that question in a serious manner. Please do so, in a single post with just one paragraph.
And we did see through your transparent arguments.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Ah, prayer.

What is the point of praying to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being? You can't tell me you never thought about that.

And then there's the Homeric* answer to Pascal's wager. How do you know you're praying to the right god? If you aren't, "every week we just make Him madder and madder!"

* Simpson, that is.

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Apropos of #168, #170 and #172:

My daddy was an Episcopalian priest with a doctorate in theology, which, by definition, probably made him a theologian. About a year before he died, the subject of religion came up; he looked at me and said, "It's all poppycock, you know."
To which I replied, "Daddy, I've known that since I was seven."

To actually hear him say that, in hindsight, explained a lot. He never discussed faith in the home. Like the separation of church and state, he never brought his job home from church or told me what I must think (for which I am eternally grateful). It explained why he merely said , "Oh," after he asked wryly when I was going to have my "heathen" son baptized, and I said , "Never, I don't believe in original sin." It may have also explained his quiet anaesthetization (is that a word?) with gin and its various additives.
When had he lost his faith? Did he ever have it? Was the prospect of starting over needing to support a family too much to contemplate? After all, there were enormous perks in those days with being a priest, especially an Anglican. No money to be sure, but a house with all expenses paid, a built in role in society, and very high social status. I wonder if he ever suspected that his favorite child was a closet atheist? Certainly it was a strange way to grow up, though of all his children, I have been told that I was the "normal" one.
I since discovered, subsequent to the invention of "teh intertubes" and its attendant possible anonymity, that he wasn't an anomaly at all! Many clergy were, and are, atheists (and who stil minister to the sheep); it even appears some popes were atheist. As my own life draws to a close, it is liberating to be able to be exactly what I truly am.

By Lee Picton (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

QDA,

I personally don't believe God gives a crap whether a pipeline gets built or about who gets elected. I imagine we can agree on that.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Palin asking her brand of Christians that they pray that building a pipeline be part of God's plan !
Cognitive dissonance ?

but I'm not going to criticize anyone for attempting to play to my interests.

Why do you assume that it's their interest to build a pipeline or wage a war ?

I hardly think America is largely religous when it comes to public policy.

Sure, and there are no Americans who are against abortion or homosexual's rights purely on religious grounds ?

IF a person believes in a God that is just and right, then it is certainly appropriate to incorporate that type of thinking into our policy making

We seem to have a different understanding of separation of church and state and the constitution !

I admit, I'm probably fighting a losing battle

Would be nice if all Americans, religious or not, would accept to stop this battle against secularism and understand that it was already decided by the founding fathers, who were very enlightened, to stop it more than 200 years ago, for evident reasons.
Do you realise that despite this, this battle is still taking place today in America, could turn into a civil war or into a Christo-facist theocratic movement and that politicians should do their utmost to stop it, and not encourage it like Sarah Palin ?

If you see no risk, are you not being naïve and irresponsible.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

It is often said that the big divisions in human society are between rich and poor, black and white, west and east, liberal and conservative, etc....

But it seems to me that by far the most important division is between the theists and atheists.

A couple of decades back Frank Zappa said that America was clearly heading for a fascist theocracy. Smart man. Looks like he was right.

Good luck.

This is the "conservative" reaction to the damn dirty hippies of the 60s.
Frankly, I'll take the damn dirty hippies any day. They get better drugs.

By bybelknap, FCD (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

This is funny, because this is the church background that I'm from. It seemed insane even when I was a Christian. So much wailing and caterwauling. I don't think it's fair to compare them to murderous Islamic fundies, though. These people aren't all that violent. They might engage in spiritual warfare against non-Christians. The terminology is militant, but all they do is talk together to no one real.

By Aethertrekker (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

self-proclaimed rationalists are prone to coagulating into a non-feral group - Scott from Oregon

Scott, I don't think "feral" means what you think it means. Though come to think of it, I'm not sure anything means what you think it means.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Doris Tracy @ 104

Good grief, I've been reading the wrong history books! Wow, rock music was one of the tools to destroy the civilization of atlantis 12,000 years ago and washed away by noah's flood! How the hell did I miss that? Maybe you mean what sounded like music when one rock was pounded by another? No, that was crap, er, rap music, and the flood was the precursor of hurricane Ike who is now down in the Gulf of Mexico try to recreate atlantis of the Gulf Coast.Come on, tell us that you are just joshing and testing our incredulity quotient. Seriously, are you insane or just filled with despoiled crackers? I mean, this is Pharyngula, not the office of Mad Magazine or the wacko tabloidswho will gladly suffer your dementia.

I am more concerned with Obama's choice of Joe Biden, who, apparently, is willing to start throwing people in jail for downloading mp3s.

Unlike evolutionism/creationism this stuff really matters.

But it seems to me that by far the most important division is between the theists and atheists.

No, the most important division is between secularists and religious nuts.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

QDA @ 190

Glad to hear you've done some tangible things. As I said, those things mean something. Actually a great deal of something. Let me tell you, when you walk into the mess hall and there isn't a single space left on any of the wall because they are all filled with cards and letters from home and you sit in a different spot each day just so you can read those words from people who care that your there, that makes a difference.

Like the Rev said, praying is a selfish act. It only affects you. Why would you ever waste your time doing that? Better that every time you felt like praying, you picked up a pen and wrote a letter to those still serving.

Unlike evolutionism/creationism this stuff really matters.

Yeah fuck all that book learnin' stuff. Who needs science and all that it does. I want to steal music and not worry about consequences.

DM: I think I've understood what's going on: Palin says "is" and "are" when she means "(should/may) be". Thus, "Pray [...] that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God" means "our national leaders are sending them out on a task -- now pray that this task is from God". Such a charitable interpretation appears defensible to me. Importantly, it is testable: take more speeches by Palin and check how often she says "is/are" when talking about hopes.

I disagree. You seem to think that these folks distinguish between what the "hope" for, and what they "believe". I don't think so; the indicative and subjunctive are the same, once you literally believe that the real world is unreal, a shadow and a shell. The "should" is the is, and the is is just an illusion.

Yeah, it's crazy. It's also what their theology says.

Just ask them if they could be wrong -- if they doubt that they are on a mission from God.

@33:

Your turn of phrase gave me an idea.

We need to resurrect Stravinsky (or Zappa, or both) and have them do "The Rite of Fall", based on the US electoral process.

Roughly in parallel to the orginal Rite of Spring, we'd have the following (hell, some of it wouldn't even have to be changed from "Spring"):

PART ONE - The Indifference To The Earth
* Dances of the Young Republicans
* Ritual of Abduction (Extraordinary Rendition)
* The Procession of the Candidate
* Ritual of the Rival Tribes

PART TWO - The Sacrifice
* Mystic Circles of the Daughters of the Candidates
* The Glorification of the Chosen One
* Evocation of the Ancestors
* Ritual Action of the Ancestors
* Sacrificial Dance

Dang. I need a huge budget. Anyone have some extra cash laying about?

By Disciple of "Bob" (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

My point is only to point out that even self-proclaimed rationalists are prone to coagulating into a non-feral group, creating its own set of values and behaving exactly like the religous they all rail against.

Scott, step away from the thesaurus slowly. Quite a few of those words do not mean what you think they mean.

Also, would it be okay if I use you as a reference if someone asks me what a smug libertarian windbag sounds like?

John McCain, who promises peace and prosperity but will deliver neither, wants to be president soooo bad that he has finally kowtowed to the religious right. He is pathetic.

negentropyeater
No, the most important division is between secularists and religious nuts.

And the difference is?

I suspect you and I are in furious agreement.

"Would be nice if all Americans, religious or not, would accept to stop this battle against secularism and understand that it was already decided by the founding fathers, who were very enlightened, to stop it more than 200 years ago, for evident reasons".

It would also be nice if we had a Congress and a potus who also regarded the founders as "enlightened" and restored the balance of power envisioned by the founders.

It would also be nice if we had a populace that weren't fascistic on the inside, desperately trying to get "their" side into the highest office so they could start dictating their desires for awhile...

The danger of granting the federal offices such authority was apparent two hundred years ago, but now we have two major factions vying for ultimate authority without even questioning the validity of the very idea...

The eyebrows wrinkle...

By Scott from Oregon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

WotWot:

The difference is that their do exist folks who are willing to keep their personal neuroses to themselves, among their circle of friends, and recognize it as their personal affliction.

They can be counted upon as allies ("secularists").

Then there are those who demand that we all accept and kowtow to their personal insanity.

No, the most important division is between secularists and religious nuts.

No, it's still between rich and poor. And an egalitarian society will become more irreligious.

SfO,

It would be nice if you would answer my fucking question. What are you afraid of?

Joel - You should be careful, this could mean another candidate who was associated with another church might need to be held to the same standard.

Are you fucking kidding us Joel? A veiled threat to - what? REVISIT the whole Reverend Wright crucifixation on Obama again if we dare persist in looking into Palin's dangerous secessionist, boodthirsty, cultish church affiliations? Oh noes! But you guys have been so RESTRAINED and OBJECTIVE so far.

Go climb back into your clown car with WT and go back to South Wingnutistan you assclowns! And take your concern trolling with you.

By Eric Paulsen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To: BigDumbChimp,
>>Yeah fuck all that book learnin' stuff. Who needs science and all that it does

You got it wrong, man. I am all for the science and books and art and music. You simply don't understand how important the freedom to exchange information is for the progress in all those fields.

Ever heard of Prometheus?

He would be the first on Joe Biden's list of copyright violators.

Dagger:

I 'waste' my time praying because it is something I can do (at times) while doing something else (i.e., writing a letter to the troops, driving the car, and other tangible activities, etc.).

Regarding the Rev.'s comments, IF you can prove that it does nothing, then you are correct - it is a selfish act. But Nick Gotts @ 193 made reference to study in which prayer actually had an outcome opposite that which was intended. If the evidence suggests that it does SOMETHING (intended or not) then your argument that it is "selfish because it does nothing" is not valid. (For the record, I don't think the study that Nick refers to holds any water from a scientific standpoint - too many variables, even if there was a 'control' group.)

To suggest that many prayers are said each day that do not get 'answered', it can also be said that many prayers are said each day that do get 'answered'. (Rev. @ #195) But it is interesting to consider the irony of 'praying' to an all-knowing God... (David M @ #202).

I'm willing to accept the inherent scientific flaws that arise in an arguement for the existence of a God, but I'm not willing to abandon my faith simply because it hasn't been proven. The stakes are too high if God does exist and inconsequential if He doesn't exist. Like I said before, I'll take my chances.

But it seems to me that by far the most important division is between the theists and atheists.

No way. It is the old, old conflict between light and dark. Darkness is making a strong comeback since the enlightment.

"Theists" are by no means a unified block. Ask the Sunnis and Shiites how that works but use email. They are both Moslems and neither has any use for Xians. Or vice versa. In times past up until recently the xians periodically massacred each other en masse over sectarian differences. These days we do not allow them to have armed militias, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, or nukes. So they mostly just call each names.

#104 - Doris Tracey - Your scientific theory has me very confused. Atlantis was destroyed by rock music 12,000 years ago...ok...Then we have Noah's flood...and this happened both times on a 6,000 year old planet. Or are you talking about another planet too?
You may have to slow down a bit Doris, I still write with a fountain pen. Big words like archaeological proof take time.

Seeing all the follow ups, I had to go back and see what Doris @ #104 wrote. WTF?!? That's funny. A bit troubling, but entertaining at the very least. :)

Regarding the Rev.'s comments, IF you can prove that it does nothing, then you are correct - it is a selfish act. But Nick Gotts @ 193 made reference to study in which prayer actually had an outcome opposite that which was intended. If the evidence suggests that it does SOMETHING (intended or not) then your argument that it is "selfish because it does nothing" is not valid. (For the record, I don't think the study that Nick refers to holds any water from a scientific standpoint - too many variables, even if there was a 'control' group.)

I find it quite funny that you choose to reference a study to suggest that prayer does something (even if the opposite intended) and then say the study doesn't say anything?

To suggest that many prayers are said each day that do not get 'answered', it can also be said that many prayers are said each day that do get 'answered'. (Rev. @ #195)

No it can not. post hoc, ergo propter hoc You can not make that connection. Just because something happens after someone prays means exactly nothing. That event may have happened anyway. Without making a direct connection to the cause and effect it means shit. Especially considering all the things that do not happen after prayer. It suggests that prayer has no effect one way or another.

I can however make the connection that time used not talking to yourself and getting out and doing something does have results.

SC:

(After this, I'll shut up about this, I promise.)

Seriously, though, I read "Liberation Theologian" as someone who believes in the tenets of LT.

Can we settle on Liberation Theologist (as in Scientology —> Scientologist? ;^)

I don't think anyone really believes Obama is a theologian in the sense you're talking about.

I agree that nobody who thinks about it believes that consciously, but the insidious thing about language is that it impacts how we understand things at a subconscious level. I'm not saying WT was doing that deliberately in this case, but I'm quite sure others do... and even an accidental usage — think of it as a linguistic mutation — can generate a new meme.

I do think that defending radicals and radical ideas is always important

I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just doing a bit of triage: Winning this election is today's battle; if we fail to win it, the battle to defend radicals and radical ideas will be that much harder (if not lost before it's begun).

I'm quite sure I'm not as radical as you are... but I'm glad you are, and I'll fight for your right to stay that way. But I've got this other fight to win first. Actually, I'm not convinced they're different fights; just different battles in one big war ([shudder]... I hate how easily I've slipped into a war metaphor!).

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

I'm willing to accept the inherent scientific flaws that arise in an arguement for the existence of a God, but I'm not willing to abandon my faith simply because it hasn't been proven. The stakes are too high if God does exist and inconsequential if He doesn't exist. Like I said before, I'll take my chances.

That argument was the height of intellectual cowardice when Pascal tried it hundreds of years ago, and it hasn't gotten better with age.

Here's one: how do you know your God is the Right God? There's thousands to choose from.

WotWot,

For example, I'm an agnostic, and a fierce secularist.

If you look at the founding fathers, they were all secularists, ie considered that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion", but they were a mix bag of atheist, agnostic, unitarian, deist and even Christian.

A majority of American Jews today consider themselves secularists, and yet also theists. So do most unitarians, universalists, some mainline protestants and even some Catholics, those for whom their religion is just not relevant when it comes to taking decisions about a particular policy.

I'm quite certain that Obama is a secularist. I have no clue what his personal religious beliefs are ; he claims to be a Christian but that can mean anything, for example does he believe in heaven and hell, the divinity of Jesus ? Or that the bible is entirely metaphorical ?
He's pledged that his beliefs, whatever they are, would not influence in any way his policy decisions.
He also recognizes that the USA is a nation with all sorts of believers and non believers, and that therefore, they can never find a common ground if their personal religious beliefs, or absence thereof, influences their judgement about common ssues. Which is the basic idea of secularism .

Let's see if McCain or Palin can say the same. I doubt it.
Have they ?

There's about 3 or 4% atheists in America. But there's more than 20% secularists.
I don't think the distinctions between the different secularists are that important.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

And I think what should be ascertained from the study on prayer is not that praying for someone has opposite effects but that it really has no effect for someone.

The people who got worse knew they were being prayed for. That points to possibility of the anticipation of "help from above" without receiving it being detrimental, but the prayer not having an effect one way or another.

That of course would be another study.

Bill Dauphin:

Can we settle on Liberation Theologist (as in Scientology --> Scientologist? ;^)

Sounds good to me. :)

Again, I don't see the two battles as mutually exclusive. And what you consider the central battle I see in more tactical terms. But I agree that they're parts of the same broader struggle. I think we may have landed on some common ground!

Most Americans would see this video as a reason to for FOR the GOP ticket.

We are seriously fucked.

QDA: I'm willing to accept the inherent scientific flaws that arise in an arguement for the existence of all powerful pink fairies, but I'm not willing to abandon my faith simply because it hasn't been proven. The stakes are too high if all powerful pink fairies does exist and inconsequential if They doesn't exist. Like I said before, I'll take my chances.

Is kindergarten out of session?

SC,

No, it's still between rich and poor.

The majority of Americans are neither rich, nor poor.

I agree that the division between the rich and the rest s even more important than between secularists and not. But it's rather dffcult to define "rich" properly. Remember the discussion about Obama's $250K dividing line ?

RIch ? Is it based only on income, or someone who has enough capital to not worry about work ?

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

You got it wrong, man. I am all for the science and books and art and music. You simply don't understand how important the freedom to exchange information is for the progress in all those fields.

Ever heard of Prometheus?

He would be the first on Joe Biden's list of copyright violators.

I'll regret continuing yet another thread in this post but...

If the exchange of information is legal I have no problem with it. Any hindrance to that is despicable.

However if you are stealing music that in any other instance you would have to pay for, it is wrong.

period. I can not see a defense to that.

neg:

No, it's still between rich and poor.

The majority of Americans are neither rich, nor poor.

I agree that even the poorest Americans must look pretty wealthy when viewed from some parts of the world, but...

I agree that the division between the rich and the rest s even more important than between secularists and not.

...isn't this what counts? Regardless of any absolute definition of "rich," I fear it's the divide between the economic bottom and top is what threatens our society. The rich (whatever that means) get richer; the poor (ditto) get poorer; and the middle is disappearing: That can't possibly be a prescription for survival, nevermind social justice.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

The majority of Americans are neither rich, nor poor.

The number of Americans who are poor (not - yet - absolute poverty, but extreme poverty nonetheless) is large and growing. The gap between rich and poor is large and growing. And you have to remember that poor people in the US have virtually no safety net.

I posted a link to "The Economic Tendency of Freethought" on a thread here a while back about the correlation between egalitarianism and the decline of religion:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/cleyre/etf.html

I thought the authors of the study referenced on that thread underestimated the role of antireligious struggles, but that their central point was solid: economic well-being is broadly essential to the fight against religion, especially fundamentalist religion. However, I think VdC was right when she wrote:

I do not suppose for a moment that Giordano Bruno or Martin Luther foresaw the immense scope taken in by their doctrine of individual judgment. From the experience of men up to that date it was simply impossible that they could foresee its tremendous influence upon the action of the eighteenth century, much less upon the nineteenth. Neither was it possible that those bold writers who attacked the folly of "hereditary government" should calculate the effects which certainly followed as their thoughts took form and shape in the social body. Neither do I believe it possible that any brain that lives can detail the working of a thought into the future, or push its logic to an ultimate. But that many who think, or think they think, do not carry their syllogisms even to the first general conclusion, I am also forced to believe. If they did, the freethinkers of today would not be digging, mole-like, through the substratum of dead issues; they would not waste their energies gathering the ashes of fires burnt out two centuries ago; they would not lance their shafts at that which is already bleeding at the arteries; they would not range battalions of brains against a crippled ghost that is "laying" itself as fast as it decently can, while a monster neither ghostly nor yet like the rugged Russian bear, the armed rhinoceros, or the Hyrcan tiger, but rather like a terrible anaconda, steel-muscled and iron-jawed, is winding its horrible folds around the human bodies of the world, and breathing its devouring breath into the faces of children. If they did, they would understand that the paramount question of the day is not political, is not religious, but is economic. That the crying-out demand of today is for a circle of principles that shall forever make it impossible for one man to control another by controlling the means of his existence. They would realize that, unless the freethought movement has a practical utility in rendering the life of man more bearable, unless it contains a principle which, worked out, will free him from the all-oppressive tyrant, it is just as complete and empty a mockery as the Christian miracle or Pagan myth. Eminently is this the age of utility; and the freethinker who goes to the Hovel of Poverty with metaphysical speculations as to the continuity of life, the transformation of matter, etc.; who should say, "My dear friend, your Christian brother is mistaken; you are not doomed to an eternal hell; your condition here is your misfortune and can't be helped, but when you are dead, there's an end of it," is of as little use in the world as the most irrational religionist. To him would the hovel justly reply: "Unless you can show me something in freethought which commends itself to the needs of the race, something which will adjust my wrongs, 'put down the mighty from his seat,' then go sit with priest and king, and wrangle out your metaphysical opinions with those who mocked our misery before."

The question is, does freethought contain such a principle?...

Frog:

If you can find me thousands of years of historical documents that point to the existence of all powerful pink fairies, let me know. Until then, spare me your elementary cheap shots. It only makes me question your credibility.

Icky, #80

Thank you for supporting my case. You have heard of posting categories? Science, evolution, humor, sarcasm. Remember sarcasm, or is your ADS (Alan Derangement Syndrome) too advanced?

Remember the words of Heinrich Himmler, "Some of our best recruits are former communists."

It's difficult to understand how this is happening to America in this informational and scientifically rich age.

I used to think the bumper sticker "god, save me from your followers" was a bit obnoxious, but I'm starting to appreciate it.

If you can find me thousands of years of historical documents that point to the existence of all powerful pink fairies, let me know.

If you think the Bible is a historical document, you HAVE no credibility. Thank you for playing, cut your losses and go educate yourself.

Or keep posting and provide us with cheap intellectual-train-wreck entertainment. Either's fine with me.

---And Lou Engle is rocking back and forth as he speaks just like Adolph Hitler was seen doing at the '36 Olympics. THAT my friends is a sign of psychosis. As if the rest of the video didn't say that already.

SC:

In my experience, the soldiers of the church are always folks who go to church looking for economic support - they need a handout, help getting medical care, help getting government documents translated, etc.

"Atheists" often think it's all about the belief, as some kind of abstract tendency. But most people are practical - they believe what they need to believe to stay in the group, and they stay in the group because they can get help from the dominant members.

You can't convince them rationally, because rationality isn't what drove them to church. Hunger did (metaphorically).

Why the huge support for "Libertarianism" among fundamentalist churches? Because they know that if they cut out the social support from under people, they'll be force to go hat in hand to the church. From there to mind-control is but a short stop - you can only tell a lie so many times before you become convinced it's true.

And aren't the real world advantages of joining the church evidence of god's blessing? You can't expect folks to deconstruct the whole system to ascertain what's really going on.

Stu(pid)V:

I'll opt for the cheap intellectual-train-wreck blah, blah, blah.

I'm interested, how is the bible (specifically the new testament - dead sea scrolls and all that - you took history in 7th grade, no?) not a historical document (or a compilation thereof)?

There's about 3 or 4% atheists in America. But there's more than 20% secularists.

I think your numbers are off substantially. There are wayyy more atheists than that but few are out due to well a hostile environment.

frog @ #248 - Exactly.

BTW, has anyone else noticed the Official Comment Count for the 1,000,000th Comment Contest at the top right of the screen?

I'll opt for the cheap intellectual-train-wreck blah, blah, blah.

I'm interested, how is the bible (specifically the new testament - dead sea scrolls and all that - you took history in 7th grade, no?) not a historical document (or a compilation thereof)?

If you can find me thousands of years of historical documents that point to the existence of all powerful pink fairies, let me know.

Do the Vedas "point to the existence" of Brahman? Do the Icelandic Sagas "point to the existence" of Wotan? Does the Book of the Dead "point to the existence" of Osris? WTF historical documents are you talking about?

QDA:

Name-calling already? Usually it takes longer to admit one has completely lost the argument.

As for the dead sea scrolls; just because a document is old does not mean it is accurate. Do you live by the Iliad?

(specifically the new testament - dead sea scrolls and all that - you took history in 7th grade, no?)

The New Testament? Are you serious? A "historical document"? Evidently you attended 7th grade in the basement of a Baptist Church. The Gospels are fabricated legend based on a mythological figure. There is not a shred of history in them.

Now, you might have a feeble remnant of a tattered point if you had said the Old Testament, parts of which can be roughly correlated with actual events in the ancient Near East, but you're off the rails if you think there was even an honest attempt to produce historically accurate content in the writing of the Gospels.

To: BigDumbChimp
>>I can not see a defense to that.

I once rented a movie that wouldn't play on my laptop. So I had to rip it to my hard drive. According to Joe Biden, I would be a federal felon now.

When this "Expelled" movie comes out on DVD I'm going to download it to see what all the fuss was about. And I'm not willing to pay a dime to those crooks who produced it and who would have free screenings of it for the school students. And I don't think I should go to jail for my interest in being informed about what kind of creationist propaganda is disseminated among the American children and my non-willingness to compensate those who produce it for their efforts.

By the way, am I the only one who read "historical documents" and immediately thought "Galaxy Quest"?

alan the death cult moron:

Remember the words of Heinrich Himmler, "Some of our best recruits are former communists."

Works both ways. Most of the atheists and freethinkers on this blog are former xians, fundies, and even pentocostals.

When xian becomes synonymous with ignorant, lying, violent, and insane, who would want to be one?

And BTW most of the people repulsed by Palin's wild eyed extremist cultism are other xians. The majority of xians in the US are mainline protestant or catholic and they look at this gods army crap like they look at monkeys in a zoo.

As for the facts. Xianity has gradually been losing self described adherents over the decades. It is now at 78%, down from the mid 80s% a few decades ago. If the USA follows the path of most industrialized societies it should eventually end up like such horrible places as the UK, Sweden, or even France. As opposed to such god fearing shining beacons such Afghanistan, Iran, or Somalia.

It could just be that the violence and cult extremism is a sign of desperation rather than health. If cult extremism had anything to offer the average American, they wouldn't have to constantly try to force it on everyone else.

Scott the Libertarian @ 220

The danger of granting the federal offices such authority was apparent two hundred years ago, but now we have two major factions vying for ultimate authority without even questioning the validity of the very idea...

Times have fucking changed, Scott. The country is much bigger than is was when it was founded, the economy has globalized, and our ideas of human rights have changed significantly. If you think the government we had at the founding of the nation would work today, I suggest you expand your study of US history.

RS @ 225

You got it wrong, man. I am all for the science and books and art and music. You simply don't understand how important the freedom to exchange information is for the progress in all those fields.

And how, pray tell, does enforcing a musician's copyright restrict the free exchange of ideas? The work is likely still available at a library, free both fiscally and ideologically. What you are talking about is carte blanche to violate someone else's intellectual property rights.

Personally, I think Biden's proposals are unecessary. Copyright holders already have ample resources to enforce their intellectual property as is. But his opinion is not reason enough for me to not vote for Obama.

Stu:

Yeah, dozens of people over hundreds of years all got together and compiled a cohesive work of fiction. You might be on to something there.

BTW, I admitted in an earlier comment that I was probably fighting a losing battle here, especially considering the dumbfucks I'm arguing with. And you started the name calling - I was just following suit. :)

I never made the claim that the bible was entirely accurate - in fact, I'm certain that parts of it are not. I was making a point regarding the stupidity of Frog's comments @ #237 suggesting that a God doesn't exist because all powerful pink fairies don't exist. Hardly a 'water tight' argument.

RS:

You are actually saying that you see nothing wrong with wanting to see a movie and not paying for it, simply because YOU feel YOU need to see it but YOU do not want to pay for it because YOU don't agree with the premise of it.

I'm just trying to make sure. That is what you are saying, right?

To:StuV
>>That is what you are saying, right?

right

QDA, when people use the same logic you use to prove something, but they prove something "illogical" like pink fairies, it means your premises are bad. The existence of your god, to the exclusion of all others, is a bad premise. We just exclude one more god than you.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

And how, pray tell, does enforcing a musician's copyright restrict the free exchange of ideas?

Oh gee, RS does have a point here. The last time I got a new car, the key was in the ignition so I just drove it off the lot. If it was up to McCain and Palin, that would be illegal and they would actually make me pay for it. That does it, I'm never voting GOP again!!!

QDA: If you can find me thousands of years of historical documents that point to the existence of all powerful pink fairies, let me know. Until then, spare me your elementary cheap shots. It only makes me question your credibility.

Oh noes -- someone who believes that the Bible is a history questions my credibility!

Replace pink fairies with Marduk, Jupitar (aka, God the Father), the Rainbow Serpent, Osiris, Quetzacoatl, or any of the other deities with just as much, if not more, historical depth, you fool. This is elementary - any mythos is a combination of raw historical events with the more important literary and poetic structure surrounding it. Shiiit, Imhotep is a historical person and a deity; and Chango of the Yoruba was a historical king and is currently a god. Better worship Chango, or he'll whoop your ass with lightning bolts! Why take the risk?

Do you even know the distinction between a document of historical significance, and a history? A primary document is not a history! Otherwise, Dianetics beats your story hands down - hell, we've got actually video of their prophet, a birth certificate, and newspaper interviews! There's plenty of living people who have seen his "miracles". Might as well buy your e-meter now.

David, #126

You are driving people away. That's what negativity does, drive people away. The more you bitch, the more you moan, the less people want to hear you. By all means warn people of the dangers, but then shut up about it. Offer alternatives, offer solutions. If Obama offers solutions and alternatives, tell us what they are. What is it about Barack Obama that makes you support him in his Presidential campaign? Will the man be a better President than John McCain? What qualities does the man have that support that conclusion?

Give people a reason to be on your side and you'll succeed much better than by giving people a reason to be against the other side. That's why Sarah Palin is doing so well, she offers hope. What are you doing? You're offering people a reason to stay home on voting day. You are building the enemy into such a position of invulnerability your audience will see no alternative.

And, you give them publicity. You let people know they exist, and how to learn more about them. Guess what people are going to do? You got it, they are going to investigate. They will learn the bad things about the Republican ticket, and the good things. And have no doubt, McCain and Palin have their virtues. Instead of promoting them, why not promote Obama and Biden?

Or are you afraid Barry and Joe are doomed to fail anyway? Are you afraid that the Democratic Party chose the wrong man for the job, so now you're preparing yourself for the loss by attacking the future President of the United States and his running mate. Is it anticipatory disappointment we're seeing here?

Concern or concern trolling. Can you even tell the difference?

QDA:

Did you just call the Bible "cohesive"? The first two chapters are two contradicting versions of the beginning of the universe, for crying out loud! A collection of creation myths and moral parables, arbitrarily picked from a sea of such by a political convention half a millennium after the fact? Have you even read the damned thing?

Are you actually arguing that the existence of the Bible is an argument for the existence of a God? How does that work? Because it sounds like "witches exist because the Harry Potter books exist" fast-forwarded 1500 years.

JimC,

according to Pew forum's latest report, there are 1.6% atheists, 2.4% agnostics, and 12.1% "nothing in particular".

I agree that the % of atheists and agnostics is most probably underestimated by this study.

Do you have any other data to suggest that there are wayyy more atheists than 3 to 4% ?

How much then ?

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To:Natalie

>>What you are talking about is carte blanche to violate someone else's intellectual property rights.

Given the choice between the "carte blanche to violate someone else's intellectual property rights" and throwing people in jail or robbing them off their life savings for a "crime" that cases no bodily injury or property damage I would go with the first.

I'm surprised that the sentence "This world has nothing to offer me" offends so many here. If you look close enough at the lives of the attendants of religious awakenings, you'll find a great deal of despair, incapacitation and future anxiety. How can critique accomplish anything if we refuse to look closer and don't try to understand? Critique devoid of analysis is plain rabble rousing, intrically related to the right-wing propaganda. It's sad to see how similar both sides of the aisle have become, how much the progressives are infected by the very same virus of demonization of the adversary, how often the bigot slur of middle-class hatred against the disenfranchised and hopeless underclass, of which most of the megachurches consist, hides behind the mask of "reason" and "science". I'm not out to find excuses for the fascist tendencies of the religious nuts, but explanations based on the willingness to acknowledge the humanity of those who have fallen for the irrationale.

The hatred displayed by some here (#21 "bomb all churches and nuke the islamic countries") (#77 "US-citizens will have as much reason to regret they didn't kill these people when there was still time")(#89 "And that majority is breeding like rats") is no less than treason against the so easily invoked principles of humanism and rationalism. The bigger picture of segregated populations feeding projections and pathologisations of their pet hate object and the lack of rejection to that sort of hate speech in both sectors is IMHO a far better subject than the lipstick color of Mrs Palin or the epidemic comparison of the adversary with retards or animals. There has been a question about the psychological roots of the pentecostal phenomenon in this thread (Anon #67), but no answer, as far I have seen. It seems to be more important to prey on the superficial exploit of shock images and quotations cut together, like your regular Fox news reel. The only chance to have some sort of effect on this global phenomenon of reemerging fundamentalism is when we get past the cheap scandalization and demonization and start exploring the genesis of authoritarian and supersticious characters. What urges the members of a half-enlightened society to renounce their independence, intellectual integrity, personal freedoms? Is there a way to discern the accessibles from the completely lost and is there a method to engage individuals in the fangs of TV preachers into discussion and reasoning? Or have we already given up to convince and gone over to construe them as an evidence of our always questionable freethinking? Writing from Germany, this reminds me of the fatal errors of leftists and intellectuals during the 20s, who saw the monstrosity of national-socialism spread like fire amongst the working and middle class and did not much more than laugh their elitist asses off, until the ridiculous ideology had them silenced forever. Being right is not the issue here, but getting something done, if possible, this time the right way.

By unGeDuLdig (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

When this "Expelled" movie comes out on DVD I'm going to download it to see what all the fuss was about. And I'm not willing to pay a dime to those crooks who produced it and who would have free screenings of it for the school students. And I don't think I should go to jail for my interest in being informed about what kind of creationist propaganda is disseminated among the American children and my non-willingness to compensate those who produce it for their efforts.

You mean you don't want to get in trouble for stealing because you think it's ok to steal something from people you don't agree with.

Ok

Raven, #150

That's Pope Alan of the Church of Sarcasm and Snark to you bub. :)

Were it not for your unwitting and unintended support I would not be inspired to continue making fun of closet Obama bashers like you.

RS: So anyone, at any time, for any reason can decide to watch a movie and not pay for it. Or is it just you and your reasons?

Given the choice between the "carte blanche to violate someone else's intellectual property rights" and throwing people in jail or robbing them off their life savings for a "crime" that cases no bodily injury or property damage I would go with the first.

Read the whole post before you respond. As I already said, I find Biden's proposals extreme. I also consider them highly unlikely to be enacted, considering that he won't have any more power to enact laws as vice president than he does as a senator.

QDA,

I never made the claim that the bible was entirely accurate - in fact, I'm certain that parts of it are not.

And which parts are entirely accurate then ? And how do you decide then ? That's going to be interesting...
Based on which evidence, when after so many years of trying to produce some, the church still hasn't been able to find any kind of evidence for the actual existence of a historical Jesus ?

And no, the fact that one has found texts which describe this which were written a few hundred years after the purported events doesn't count as evidence. How do you know if this isn't complete fictionous ? Did you ask the authors ?

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

You mean you don't want to get in trouble for stealing because you think it's ok to steal something from people you don't agree with.

Come the fuck on. Copyright violation is copyright violation. It is not "stealing." It is not "theft." It is not "piracy." These terms have real definitions. It is outrageous to compare them to copying a mixtape for a friend.

I'm voting for Obama/Biden. Like Natalie, I'm not concerned. Hell, it will be better to have Biden in the VP office and out of the Senate. He can do less harm there.

But let's not start lying for Biden, okay, Reverend?

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To: StuV

>>So anyone, at any time, for any reason can decide to watch a movie and not pay for it.

Exactly! Unless you mean breaking into other peoples homes to watch their cable.

To:BigDumbChimp

>>it's ok to steal something from people you don't agree with.

It's not ok to steal, but it's ok to watch movies or listen to music, provided you are not causing harm or property damage to anyone (which is pretty hard to do by watching movies or listening to music anyway).

>>So the rule of law means little to you?

Depends on the law, I guess.

To:Natalie
>>Read the whole post before you respond.

I actually I agree with your points, but I thought I'd just clarify my position - I perceive Biden as bigger threat to myself with his defense of copyright proposals than Palin with her personal creationist beliefs.

Frog, #175

And you've been to Iraq how many times? Put you in the hand of fundies and you'd be bombing abortion clinics within a week.

I've heard you before, in the voices who hate, in the writings of those who despise. I've seen you before, in gulag guard and gas chamber executioner. Your's is the voice of the screaming chimp, the face of the raging gorilla. I know you Frog, better than you'll ever know yourself. Your thinking, your behavior is so typical of the raver and the rabid, so indicative of the intellectually and ethically damaged.

You need despair and chaos to complete you, to give you meaning. You need to writhe and screech and fling shit in mindless displays. You are Mao's own pentecostal, and I expect you'll be a Pentecostal in truth before the next decade is out.

It is hate that gives you purpose, and hate that fulfills you. It matters not where your words land, for they nourish nothing. Not hope, not wisdom, most certainly not dialogue and hope. You are an empty wind, making no sound.

Alan, project much?

And your poetry sucks big-time. Bad aesthetics is usually a sign of amorality. Some might suggest that they're actually the same thing. I'll bet you're into "Happy Birthday, Jesus" cakes, right?

It's not ok to steal, but it's ok to watch movies or listen to music, provided you are not causing harm or property damage to anyone (which is pretty hard to do by watching movies or listening to music anyway).

Well you may think that is ok, but unfortunately for you the law does not.

It is stealing. period. If you acquire a product or service that has a cost associated with it intentionally not paying for said product or service you are stealing. Whether you want to rationalize it to make yourself come out better or not. You are causing monetary harm to the company producing the item by not paying for it.

You are a thief in the eyes of the only thing that matters in this. The law.

I actually I agree with your points, but I thought I'd just clarify my position - I perceive Biden as bigger threat to myself with his defense of copyright proposals than Palin with her personal creationist beliefs.

Then you're an imbecile.

Palin does not have "personal" creationist beliefs. She has already declared that she is in favor of forcing those beliefs on other people's children through the nation's science curricula.

She has declared she is in favor of removing reproductive choice from all women, and preventing women from receiving life-saving medical care. No exceptions for rape, no exceptions for mothers' health. No exceptions, period.

These are her religious beliefs, and she has no problem with forcing them upon the rest of us.

We are ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE away from losing reproductive choice. McCain and Palin absolutely will take this away from us. Biden is very unlikely to be able to influence copyright law as a VP.

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Well you may think that is ok, but unfortunately for you the law does not.

It is stealing. period.

It sure as fuck is not, you mendacious shit.

Not even the laws against copyright violations define it as "stealing." It's "copyright violation." And your willingness to lie on this account discredits your opinion.

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

BigDumbChimp: It is stealing. period.

Umm, not to interrupt an argument, but it ain't. It's copyright violation. Theft is a criminal offense involving property; this would fall closer to fraud.

Words matter - don't stretch a metaphor to a breaking point. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter at hand, it's not theft - that's a well-defined word that does not apply to illegal copying of abstractions.

Continue with your bickering, please.

Okay, RS:

What percentage of the population, at a guess, would you think would pay for music and/or movies if they did not have to? (Hint: look up some statistics on China).

Raven, #259

Most of the atheists and freethinkers on this blog are former xians, fundies, and even pentocostals.

I don't think that supports what you think it supports.

1. Their church is called "MorningStar Ministries". The "Morning Star" is a not-so-common name for the Devil.

2. Their little "this world has nothing for me" anthem is built on the "Tritone", aka: "Diabolus in Musica", aka: the Devil's note. Don't believe me? It's C, F, F#, G. Tritone.

Christians my ass.

Well you may think that is ok, but unfortunately for you the law does not.

Also note the implied naturalistic fallacy.

"Because it's illegal, it's wrong."

Fucking idiot.

Some of us (progressives, that is) are trying to change the law so that the cure is not worse than the disease. If you're really completely unaware of the copyfight, go inform yourself. http://eff.org , http://downhillbattle.org/

The fact is that the law right now is outrageously punitive against copyright violations that cause relatively little harm. There are better ways of dealing with this than locking people up and fining them into bankruptcy at the request of the RIAA. It's true that Joe Biden is not one of the good guys in this fight. My argument to KS is that this issue is not as important as reproductive rights, and not as chose to being decided the wrong way as reproductive rights. Also, that we're better off with Biden in a non-policy position like VP than Senator. Your non-argument, "it's the law," is completely fucking useless.

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Correction:

"My argument to RS is that this issue is not as important as reproductive rights, and not as close to being decided the wrong way as reproductive rights."

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To:Grammar RWA

>>She has declared she is in favor of removing reproductive choice from all women

"Palin is supportive of contraception"

>>no exceptions for mothers' health."

"... she would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger..."

What kind of punishments for abortion is she proposing anyway?

>>She has already declared that she is in favor of forcing those beliefs on other people's children through the nation's science curricula.

"Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I can't believe I am defending Sarah Palin.

Raven, #259

A more substantial response this time around.

Let me guess, none of the Christians you know are going to vote for her. Tell me, how representative is your sample?

I don't have many friends because I have problems. I should that isn't the case with you. For good argument helps sharpen thinking and improves argumentation.

BTW just saw a segment on Faux News talking exactly about this issue and saying that the far left bloggers are trying to smear Sarah Palin for her religious beliefs and are "trying to Wright her".
(how could these nasty bloggers do this, she's such an angel !)

Also they defended her speech to the WAG talking about the pipeline and the war (see my post #107) in the same way as QDA here, there's nothing wrong with it, it was just a Christian addressing herself to other Christians.

Of course, Fox News was one of the main propaganda outlets accusing Obama for Wright's speeches, whereas Obama never said anything himself.
But now, they won't accuse Palin for Kalnin's speeches, and find nothing wrong with her own speeches to the WAG 3 months ago.

Fair and balanced !

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

"Times have fucking changed, Scott. The country is much bigger than is was when it was founded, the economy has globalized, and our ideas of human rights have changed significantly. If you think the government we had at the founding of the nation would work today, I suggest you expand your study of US history."

Yeah, you are probably right. And the Christian Coalitions can now organize on cell phones, making it that much easier to get control of the federal government whereby we can all finally live in a dominionist's wet dream...

Who needs limited government when we can have our very own theocracy (after all, times change and the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper...)?

By Scott from Oregon (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Frog, #283

I see the ability to understand others is not a sanity you are afflicted with. Were you a D&D character I'd say a Wis of 2 and a Sense Motive penalty of -20.

Were a woman to walk up to you and tell you to, "Fuck me till my pelvis cracks." you'd read to her from the Hoboken phone book.

A portal to god on the third floor?

Now I have heard of the Christian Science church, but the Aperture Science church?

Good to see Emmet back, his Abe Simpson/Maude Flanders comment had me crying, and not in the same way the video clip did!

By Longtime Lurker (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Still waiting for you to answer the question, SfO, or to explain why you won't.

"Palin is supportive of contraception"

Funny how I talked about abortion and you changed the subject to contraception. And no, she is not. She is a member of Feminists for Life, a group that is opposed to all contraception. Don't listen to what Republicans say. Look at what they do, and what groups they associate with.

"... she would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger..."

Again, a lie. The facts:

http://community.adn.com/node/126122
"Governor Palin has made it quite clear that she is disappointed that this [partial birth abortion] legislation did not pass under Senator Green's leadership."

http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/356245.html
"An amendment to include an exception when the mother's physical health is at risk failed."

So she wanted a mother-killing bill to pass. And she did not care that it did not have an exception for mothers' lives.

What kind of punishments for abortion is she proposing anyway?

Death. That's what happens when abortion is illegal. Do you think it matters whether she imprisons women, or whether she simply prevents them from getting medical care they need? Do you think it's acceptable to prevent women from getting abortions? Do you think it's acceptable to close every abortion clinic in the country, and overturn Roe v Wade (which, incidentally, is the only place a "right to privacy" exists in US law. Do you like your privacy?)?

"Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives."

Did you even think about this before you copy-pasted it? What the fuck difference do you think it is between forcing ID by explicit legislation, and forcing ID upon schoolchildren by allowing their creationist teachers to use public funding to teach it? It's all force, when children are a captive audience. Use your brain.

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Shorter SfO:

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

I've got to go. RS, if you are honestly interested in what Palin and FFL want to do to destroy the constitutional right to privacy, go over to http://pandagon.net and ask.

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To: Grammar RWA

>> >>What kind of punishments for abortion is she proposing anyway?

>>Death.

Really???

Well, I guess it's going to be a tough choice then. Because Obama supports infanticide!

>>Funny how I talked about abortion and you changed the subject to contraception.

I thought "reproductive choice" includes contraception. Was I wrong?

>>Do you think it's acceptable to prevent women from getting abortions?

Actually, I don't. So, don't get too anxious. But I would like to know whether Palin does actually intend to propose a federal legislation to ban all abortions (after overturning Roe v. Wade), or is it just a hypothetical extrapolation?

>>What the fuck difference do you think it is between forcing ID by explicit legislation, and forcing ID upon schoolchildren by allowing their creationist teachers to use public funding to teach it?

I see tons of difference. For one, teachers would have a choice of what to teach, and parents would have a choice of which school to send their children to. Plus, children would be able to opt out of such classes.

To: Grammar RWA

So far, I found this:

Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm

It sure as fuck is not, you mendacious shit.

Not even the laws against copyright violations define it as "stealing." It's "copyright violation." And your willingness to lie on this account discredits your opinion.

Ok Copyright violation. I stand corrected in my use of the "stealing". My apologies. And thanks for the insult. I wasn't lying as much as speaking a bit too much out of my ass. So fuck you very much. :)

My point being that at the moment it is illegal. It is a crime right? Stealing was the incorrect "legal" term.

The fact is that the law right now is outrageously punitive against copyright violations that cause relatively little harm.

I don't disagree that the punishment far outweighs the violation. But the law does exist as it is at the moment. Downloading music or movies or software or whatever that is at the moment that is something that the person who created it expects to be compensated for is a violation.

#271:
Good point. Unfortunately, the religious zealots refuse to listen to reason. I suspect that the majority of their religious leaders are secretly atheists (Wikipedia the Pentecostal child preacher named Marjoe sometime) that are deliberately brainwashing the sheep for profit. However, when that idea is put forward, the religious moderates tend to quickly get up in arms and shout "religious intolerance."
However, videos like the one PZ posted illustrate to Catholics and mainstream Protestants exactly how far over the bend their fundamentalist kin have gone. Mainstream Protestants and Catholics fin the literal Biblical fundamentalists quite horrifying and, well, weird. It is important that the moderates know that Palin is one of the weirdos.

Obama supports infanticide!

Only in the fevered, puny minds of the anti-choice movement.

For one, teachers would have a choice of what to teach

Wrong. It'd be jammed down their throat by fundie school boards and you damned well know it.

parents would have a choice of which school to send their children to.

Really? What public school system are you working with? Parents of children in public school often DO NOT have a choice where to send their children, and you damned well know it.

Plus, children would be able to opt out of such classes.

What the hell are you talking about? Opt out of science classes (or, should this come to pass, more appropriately "science" classes)?

Liar.

Also note the implied naturalistic fallacy.

"Because it's illegal, it's wrong."

Well I assume the artists who are not getting paid for things they create do consider it wrong. When I've had my photos taken online and used against my permission it sure as hell was wrong.

Fucking idiot.

Yes that makes your point so much more eloquent.

Allen: Were a woman to walk up to you and tell you to, "Fuck me till my pelvis cracks." you'd read to her from the Hoboken phone book.

You are a sick fuck, aren't you? Why is it you folks only have violent sexual fantasies? "Pelvis cracks"? Are you in your momma's basement masturbating while watching Saw III, or is it that you hang out with crack whores who know that's what "men like"?

Under every truly Christian male - lies this crap. Raping little boys and "breaking" women. As I said, projection - 'cause it always goes both ways.

Hey, I grew up in an AG church. My father is a missionary. This stuff was just a part of life, I didn't even realise it was odd until looking back on it from this vantage point. When I was in college, I even had a part time job editing the Berean school of bible correspondence courses they were talking about. Funny stuff. If you want a thrill you should check out the AG position paper on evolution. Here is the best part.... CAUTION SPOILER ALERT

The Creation Account Is Factual and Historical

The account of creation is intended to be taken as factual and historical. Our understanding of God as Creator is rooted in a revelation that is historical in nature, just as our understanding of God as Redeemer is rooted in the revelation of God's dealings with Israel in history and in the historical events of the life, death, and resurrection of His Son. All the New Testament accepts it this way. The first man Adam, for example, is recognized as a historical person (Romans 5:14;1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13,14).

Some have contended that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetical and are to be taken as parables. But a comparison of poetical references to Creation (Deuteronomy 32 and 33; Job 38:4--11; Psalms 90; 104:5--9) shows that the Genesis account is not poetry but prose. It should be noted, however, that poetry in the Bible often describes actual, historical events, so the use of poetry does not make an event a parable or myth.

It is significant that although creation events are not stated in modern scientific terminology, they are given in unusually acceptable statements, thus providing a solid record for all peoples in all times (Ephesians 1:18).

In summary then, we see that the Bible points us to God as the Creator in every step of creation. "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3). "For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm" (Psalm 33:9).

Their little "this world has nothing for me" anthem is built on the "Tritone", aka: "Diabolus in Musica", aka: the Devil's note. Don't believe me? It's C, F, F#, G. Tritone.

Hate to get all music-theory-nerd here, but that's a perfect fourth and two half-steps. No tritone there.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

*Headdesk*headdesk* Frog?! Our Frog is some sort of hate speaker.... this from a Unicornist!
*Headdesk*

Sooo God raised people from the dead at that silly church but God didn't have time to cure that man of his obviously severe parkinsons? God's a dick!

Hey frog, looks like you hooked the troll from the black lagoon. It's startin' to stink up the place. ;o)

Illegal downloading of music is considered "stealing" of intellectual property by at least some legal scholars.
To a musician whose income and, perhaps, ability to support a family depends on royalties from the sale of recordings, the effect is the same as if you mugged her after she cashed a paycheck.
I've been known to commit the occasional (koff) victimless crime, but illegally obtaining copyrighted music definitely has victims. To deny that is to selfishly stick your head in the sand.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To avoid appearing too big a scolding prig, I should add that I have also illegally copied CDs. Not only did I know it was illegal, I also thought it was, in the sense described above, "wrong." I did it anyway. I contain multitudes.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To: StuV

>>It'd be jammed down their throat by fundie school boards and you damned well know it.

No, I don't know that. Take the Dover case. The teachers opposed reading that ID disclaimer, and the school board was soon voted out anyway. The similar thing happened in Kansas.

>>Parents of children in public school often DO NOT have a choice where to send their children, and you damned well know it.

No, I don't know that. I know that a lot of parents seek to live in a neighborhood with a good school, thus they do, effectively, choose schools. The other option would be to send their children to magnet schools or charter schools.

Besides, any serious book on evolution has to deal with the issue of creationism anyway. And juxtaposing evolution and creationism can do much more damage to the latter than merely ignoring the subject.

If you force teachers to teach creationism a lot of them would have a hard time coping with the demand - there is just nothing there to teach, really. You if you simply allow them - then the entire issue might fade away in a few years.

>> >>Plus, children would be able to opt out of such classes.
>>What the hell are you talking about?

Just the same way they can opt out of a prayer before the football game. Religious education cannot be made mandatory.

To answer your previous question,
>>What percentage of the population, at a guess, would you think would pay for music and/or movies if they did not have to?

I don't know. About the same as now?

Rev BDC-

I say copyright laws have gotten out of hand due to pressure from the RIAA.

Back in the old days, I could buy a record album, and record it onto a cassette, and play it in my car.

The law now says that I can not buy a DVD, record it onto the hard drive of my computer and play it back in my car.

That just sucks.

By Benjamin Franklin (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

To:Sven DiMilo

>>he effect is the same as if you mugged her after she cashed a paycheck.

>>Not only did I know it was illegal, I also thought it was, in the sense described above, "wrong." I did it anyway. I contain multitudes.

Would you be able to say in the same nonchalant way that once you mugged a few people after they cashed their paychecks, that you new it was wrong, but you did it anyway, because you contain multitudes?

I could buy a record album, and record it onto a cassette, and play it in my car.

But not give the cassette to somebody else who hadn't bought the LP. Of course I agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with copying a legally obtained (paid-for) record to other media for personal use. That's very different from obtaining illegally (not paying for) in the first place.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Would you be able to say in the same nonchalant way that once you mugged a few people after they cashed their paychecks, that you new it was wrong, but you did it anyway, because you contain multitudes?

Nope. I's not a-muggin' (big points to anyone who knows that reference). As a matter of fact, that's what the article I linked above is all about--why doesn't it seem wrong to steal (the authors' words) intellectual property?

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Yet Palin, a product of that church, is someone that half, well a little more than half if we go by the polls, of America fell instantly in love with. It propelled her on a meteoric rise from mother, sportswoman, and business owner to city council member, to mayor, to state governor to now just a heart beat away from leader of the free world.

Too bad you didn't go to that church, PZ. You might be more than just a cracker abusing associate professor at a cow campus extension in a flyover state. But then again, maybe even God is limited in how much of a silk purse He can make out of a sow's ear. A cracker abuser might the most miraculous rise that could be constructed from such raw material. LOL

The problem is that by making laws to protect the ease of use of new technology, the copyright law has become more restrictive. Not to mention the technologies implemented to counter copyright have also gone against the law. While it's legal to make a back-up of a game, it's no longer really possible without having to crack the game: which is illegal to do. Likewise, having a copy on a CD on MP3s may be legal, but having them both on a computer and an MP3 player is illegal.

pee yew!

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Finally went back and watched the second half of that video. That is some pretty fucked up shit right there. It's difficult to imagine that a bunch of people can be so completely screwball. Frightening. And she's running for VP. Oy.

Anyone else beginning to just feel sorry for these religous idiots? I mean, they get born into some nutjob family that takes a 1500 year bedtime fable so seriously (actually not really: they just take the idea of the fable so seriously) that they dont have a clue.
They have no understanding of genes or cells, the origins of man and the universe, and all the other amazing things about reality that we're learning. We're finally at a point where we have some idea of how we/the world/the universe works, and these people cant even begin to comprehend it because they have so indoctrinated themselves into their beliefs, and innoculated themselves from the real world. (seriosly, I met a Mormon who didn't think atomic theory [ie/ all things made up of atoms] could be true!)

#121Posted by: rich | September 9, 2008 8:47 AM
"I'm no wizard... but here you go :P"

http://i33.tinypic.com/2v8rhw1.jpg

LOL!
Thanks Rich, that's one of the purdiest politicians I've seen come out of America for some time. Yet another of America's precious gifts to the rest of the world. : D

By DingoDave (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Ack, I meant to say matter ^ (Not that he would get it anyhow)

Likewise, having a copy on a CD on MP3s may be legal, but having them both on a computer and an MP3 player is illegal.

Fair use is not fucking illegal.

The RIAfuckingA can lie all they want, but that's still fair use and they can suck it.

Breaking protection probably isn't illegal, either, but it depends on what you do to break it.

Dave Scott - Not real smart to tie your blog to your trolling post dickhead. Talk shit about PZ and then come quote mining. Cute.

But not give the cassette to somebody else who hadn't bought the LP.

Unless you paid for private copying in the form of a copyright levy. (You USAians wouldn't have had that for cassettes, but you do have some sort of tax or levy for digital audio recording devices & media.)

I don't think copyright levies make it legal to hand out copies to friends, but there's clearly some sort of gray area here, since why should you have to pay royalties for making a copy strictly for your personal use?

By windy, OM (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Fair use is not fucking illegal.

Fair use has been made illegal. But fair use is both ethical and widespread, so what has happened is that the law has become irrelevant. Instead of having a coherent law that protects fair use and defines clear boundaries; by having technology and law both restricting the ability for an individual to act under fair use, they've made copyright law irrelevant. In effect, they've shot themselves in the foot by not trying to work with new technology. Beyond a certain measure of protection, the elaborate amount of money spent is useless without going into really invasive measures (see: Starforce)

Gad, that's scary. I've heard that Wasilla is the methamphetamine capital of Alaska. These people are clearly on crank. Cranked Out For Jesus. I'm gonna start my own church. Feh.

Because Obama supports infanticide!

So you're a Republican. Vote for McCain like you were originally going to do, RS. Don't come around pretending like you're interested in debating the issues.

No comment 'cause I could only do 20 seconds of the video before getting ill. Sorry!

By eigenvector (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

No comment 'cause I could only do 20 seconds of the video before getting ill. Sorry!

You did better than me, I only lasted 18 seconds. I was way too sober to deal with a video like that!

Oh come on Kel, those people are pikers. Try a tent revival in Tennessee. Now those folks know how to get in the spirit!

Oh come on Kel, those people are pikers. Try a tent revival in Tennessee. Now those folks know how to get in the spirit!

How much of those spirits come from moonshine? (Before the protests start I had relatives who drank moonshine from Tennessee.)

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

I come from Australia, a place where we elected someone who held the world record for beer drinking out of a yard glass. Any deviation from social welfare in the church is frowned upon by the general community. Crazy religious kooks for me at those who believe that Genesis is literally true. Beyond that it's like watching torture porn.

Rock music was one of the tools to destroy the civilization of atlantis 12,000 yrs ago.

And now I have the concept for my next rock opera.
Thanks!

Hurrah, Lluraa (No. 13)!!!

At least be intellectually honest enough to promote this website as an Atheistic website and not one dedicated to science.

No kidding! I was just censored or effectively "banned" from a blog that I read often for expressing that concern about some of the ScienceBlogs. Is that the sort of free-thinking "science literacy" that Seed seeks to promote?

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/09/why_write_about_science_o…

Anyway, some TGIF cephalopoda do not a science blog make.

You want us to believe you came here for the science, Sara? Could you start by explaining the significance you find in Hox genes?

By JohnnieCanuck, FCD (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

This is some serious SERIOUS insanity.

They do not know how bombed they are on the addictive drug of religion.

They would like nothing more than to take everybody with them into oblivion.

And this country is supposed to be so frigging concerned - if not downright paranoid - about security threats and terrorism.

The government agencies responsible for keeping a sober eye on the well-being of the nation against "all threats foreign and domestic" sure do not seem to understand what the crazy hell is being hatched at home in spades.

They ought to be aware of anything that launches so many people into a frenzy of absolutely irrational behavior.

Anybody in the who doesn't see this as potentially dangerous to the welfare of the country is utterly blind...and quite possibly thoroughly absorbed by the insanity themselves.

If this keeps up, we are all doomed. There is no question about it.

The "devil" puts on a pretty face, the faithful swoon and go fucking berserk. Have you seen the Sarah Palin Action Figure yet? By Herobuilders.com?

By Arnosium Upinarum (not verified) on 09 Sep 2008 #permalink

Sara, from the masthead: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
If you can't read, don't complain. LLuraa is also illiterate.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

I don't think copyright levies make it legal to hand out copies to friends, but there's clearly some sort of gray area here, since why should you have to pay royalties for making a copy strictly for your personal use?

I think that's the point. Giving a copy to a friend I believe that isn't technically "personal use" (again I welcome any corrections). It's depriving the producer / artist of that possible income.

From my understanding of fair (personal) use, I can rip my purchased CD's for use with my iPod. I can make a copy for the cassette player in my car. But I must maintain control of all the copies. I cannot make a copy to give to any person outside of the immediate family, and I can't let them borrow anything to make a copy, or send them an .mp3 file.
Fair use, keep it very personal.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Sven: why doesn't it seem wrong to steal (the authors' words) intellectual property?

Because it's not stealing, as I said (and it's not "property"). When you "steal" something, you're taking a tangible object from someone else. At the end of the event, the other person no longer has the object. The metaphor just doesn't fit.

What you've done is deny them a revenue source, which is a separate question of whether we should protect those revenue streams, and by which methods if so (from civil to criminal).

Words mean something, regardless of "legal scholars" etc. To steal brings up a particular image in folks' minds - that image does not fit the illegal transfer of bits from one medium to another. It fits much more closely (but not perfectly) to accounting fraud; but in truth, it is sui generis - it is a virtual problem with real world consequences, but the event does not directly deny anyone of anything; it is in the consequences we have to look, and honestly discuss.

The same problem fits "intellectual property". The problem is one of a "license", not property. The image of "property" is of tangible objects that can be transferred - they have limited availability and are inherently rationed. "Ideas" don't fit the concept of property well at all. What you have is a state-licensed monopoly - like government secrets.

Whether and how we should protect state monopolies on ideas is a worthy conversation; but it is intellectually dishonest to apply as a metaphor concepts from the domain of tangible property to licenses on abstractions. The consequences and reality are different.

QUOTE FROM COMMENTS:
"Some people, especially anti-choice Christians, are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this. Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion."

FROM http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3335

"The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped "

SO..... how is aborting the mentally physically different from sterilizing them???? I'm sure all you "scientifically minded" liberals are against forced sterilization, right????

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

QUOTE FROM COMMENTS:
"Some people, especially anti-choice Christians, are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this. Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion."

FROM http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3335

"The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped "

SO..... how is aborting the mentally or physically different handicapped from sterilizing them???? I'm sure all you "scientifically minded" liberals are against forced sterilization, right????

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Because nobody is forcing anybody to have abortions, dumbshit.

Your parents obviously chose to raise a highly defective tard-baby, so good for them, but it's up to the individual parents to decide whether or not they want to make the effort to raise a drooling, worthless drag on society.

By minimalist (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

(I should clarify that I in no way think the mentally handicapped are, in general, drags on society. Just those of Albanian Toad's particular variety.)

By minimalist (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Everyone gets a choice except the person being aborted, tard-man.

So tell me... how far can the pregnancy go before you think its a person that maybe shouldn't be killed? 3 months? 6 months? 8 months 29 days? What the hell, how about till they're one year old. Babies don't do much till then anyways.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

"Give me a break...I'm not a big fan of Palin but she quit this church and moved on after concluding that it was just too weird for her." -WT

Then why was she there this spring praising the b'jesus out of these people and the things they do, and the masters commision etc., etc? It's all over Youtube. She is Bat-shit crazy.

Scott:

Yeah, you are probably right. And the Christian Coalitions can now organize on cell phones, making it that much easier to get control of the federal government whereby we can all finally live in a dominionist's wet dream...

Who needs limited government when we can have our very own theocracy (after all, times change and the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper...)?

Sure, Scott, that could have happened, but it hasn't. The "big government" you decry so much has
- expanded the civil rights of women, people of color, and the young,
- brought free public education to everyone who wants it, - made a significant dent in elder poverty through the Social Security act
- improved the safety of food, drugs, cars, children's toys, and a whole host of other consumer goods
- improved the lives of the poor through federal laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act
- forbidden child labor

and so on.

It's easy to think the government is a monsterous behemoth intent on nothing more than taking your tax dollars and pouring them into some project that is evil because you don't like it, but you need to look a little farther back than the last 30 years. The life of the average American has vastly improved since the Industrial Revolution, and most of that improvement came to pass because of actions by the federal government, not the state or local governments. And it sure as fuck didn't come from the private sector.

Todd, until a fetus is born, it isn't a separate person (if gestating female dies, the fetus dies, ergo it ain't separate). So personhood starts with becoming a baby, that is being born and becoming non-dependent upon the female. However, since a fetus could live outside the gestating female after 28 weeks or so, some protections that take into account the health of the woman should be inplace. Sounds like what the present system has.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Fair enough.

But take example of capital punishment. Most of us are against it because no matter how strong the case, there is always the chance the person has been wrongly convicted.

I say the same thing with abortion, what if our "decision" about when its a person with rights is wrong? Better to be on the safe side and not do it.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Well, I for one will make sure that the appeals process is reformed so that we only abort [b]guilty[/b] fetuses from now on.

By minimalist (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

:) That was pretty good.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

@Nerd of Redhead - Lots of the spirit comes through moonshine! *grin*

Albanian Todd said:

I say the same thing with abortion, what if our "decision" about when its a person with rights is wrong? Better to be on the safe side and not do it.

If that's how you feel about your own body then feel free not to have an abortion, no one's planning on making them mandatory.

However kindly extend other people the same courtesy and do not attempt to force the results of your own moral musings into other people's decisions as it is they who will have to live with the results of those decisions, not you.

By Lilly de Lure (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

"However kindly extend other people the same courtesy and do not attempt to force the results of your own moral musings into other people's decisions"

But isn't that what all laws are?

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Todd, abortion and the death penalty are two different issues, and to try to link them as above shows a mind incapable of forming a cogent argument for either. You need to keep in mind that we, who do not practice your religion do not have to follow the tenets of your religion in any way or form. If you are against abortion, don't have one. But quit telling other people that they must follow the dictates of your religion.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Albanian Todd, what happens when a woman needs an abortion to save her life?

Why do you assume I'm religious? FYI I'm not at all.

But you don't need religion to follow a basic moral principal that we should all be allowed to to whatever we want as long as its not infringing on someone else's rights. I say toke up, dudes marry other dudes, whatever. No skin off my back.

The only way I differ from you is that I'm not conveniently deciding that in this case the other person is not a person.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Albanian Todd, what happens when a woman needs an abortion to save her life?

I don't know, thats not the case 99.9999% of the time.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

I don't know, thats not the case 99.9999% of the time.

Don't lie. Let's get into the actual facts. For example, in 2007 in England and Wales, 112 abortions were performed to save the mother's life.

What should have happened to those 112 women? Should they have died? Or should they have been allowed to get the medical care they needed?

"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer. You are proposing policy. You have to deal with the ramifications of that policy. So say now, should those 112 women have died, or should they have received the abortions that saved their lives? If you can't answer this simple question, then no one needs to take you seriously.

Ok Halak, if you want to focus on the exceptions.

Given the choice between two lives you pick the one you are most likely able to save. Whether its siamese twins, two busloads of kids, or a pregnant woman.

Most likely it would be the mother, so abortion is the only option in that case.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

It's never so clear-cut, though. As anti-choicers like to point out, sometimes the doctors are wrong, and the woman could have survived. There is no perfect way to discern all cases as "she will certainly live without an abortion" and "she will certainly die without an abortion."

What happens when doctors can only say "she might die without an abortion?"

(There is a point to this inquiry, and I apologize for taking too long to get there. Next post, I promise.)

Ok. If it was my wife I would of course choose the abortion.

Now you can deliver the final blow.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Albanian Todd@356,

A fetus is not a person, because a person only becomes such by social interaction with other, existing persons. This is a gradual process, so even a newborn baby is doubtfully a person, but for legal purposes we need a dividing line, after which we accord the rights of personhood. Birth, when the fetus ceases being, physiologically, a parasite on its mother, and can begin to interact socially with existing people, is by far the most reasonable. Any earlier dividing line is going to mean that actual, undoubted people, specifically women, are going to be forced to continue with a dangerous, often painful, sometimes life-threatening, and if unwanted, horrible experience - pregnancy and birth. An early fetus is no more likely to be even sentient - able to feel pain - than a carrot is; should we stop eating carrots just because we just might be wrong about them not being people?

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

A fetus is not a person, because a person only becomes such by social interaction with other, existing persons. This is a gradual process, so even a newborn baby is doubtfully a person,

Thats pretty cold.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Right. And you already know where this is going.

You've privileged the rights of the woman over any supposed rights of the fetus.

Now, there's nothing wrong with this. It's the perfectly normal response, and it indicates you're not a monster.

But it does mean you acknowledge that a fetus does not have the same moral standing, nor the same rights, as an already-born human.

So back to the question, "what if our 'decision' about when its a person with rights is wrong?" Well, what if we are wrong? We have to err on the side of the already-born person who we know has full moral standing. And that means letting doctors and their patients make the difficult decisions, as the proper choice may be different in each case.

Doctors are already unwilling to perform abortions that are not medically necessary after the third trimester. Partly this is because the operation itself becomes exponentially more dangerous at that point, and partly because this is when it becomes more likely that there is "someone home" in the developing brain. So your concerns are already being addressed, voluntarily by doctors. No law necessary.

This is a gradual process, so even a newborn baby is doubtfully a person, but for legal purposes we need a dividing line, after which we accord the rights of personhood. Birth, when the fetus ceases being, physiologically, a parasite on its mother, and can begin to interact socially with existing people, is by far the most reasonable.

Pragmatically speaking, I don't disagree. But I think this is missing the most important point. It also fails to speak to people who don't believe that rights are purely legal fictions.

Instead, ask, "when should a woman's body become the property of the state?" Anti-choicers will variously say that the state takes ownership of women's bodies between conception and the third trimester. No matter which answer they give, they're wrong: the state never has a legitimate claim to ownership of women's bodies. This is where it's important to keep the focus. Other approaches disguise the ugly fact that we're talking about state ownership of half the citizens.

Halak, I'll think about that some more, its a good post. Usually everyone is too busy fighting these "culture wars" from the only two camps that seem to exist that no one ever mentions why they believe what they do. Bye.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Re: "intellectual property" (as discussed above by Sven DiMilo and RS).

The notion of IP is a Western cultural construct. The Chinese, for example, have no concept of an idea "belonging to the guy who thought of it first". The modern theory, promulgated by the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, and others, that copyright violation=theft fails in the traditional division of theft into robbery, larceny, and burglary: copyright violation cannot be considered to be any of these 3 under any reasonable interpretation. I've never seen an analogy with physical objects that didn't fail, and it's clear from their behaviour (copying digital stuff) that the public, even in the West, have intuited as much.

If one advances the copyright violation=theft argument, one must, at least, acknowledge that it is a modern innovation, adding a fourth category of theft that is not culturally embedded in the same way as traditional theft.

I don't mean to come across as being "anti-IP", since I recognise that there has to be some way of making a living from one's ideas, which requires a legal framework, but it's equally clear that the current patent and copyright regimes have failed abysmally: the cat is out of the bag and there is simply no way of putting it back.

I haven't the faintest clue what the solution is, but it's clearly not more perversion of copyright (as in the ridiculous "Mickey Mouse" laws) or foisting the badly broken US patent system on the rest of the world via WIPO.

..bloody hell, so how is this different from voodoo or other religions that are "primitive"?

..bloody hell, so how is this different from voodoo or other religions that are "primitive"?

Its nice white people and the music is rock & roll.

By Albanian Todd (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Corregium: Regarding my own comment (No. 341) When I contacted the author of that blog, she wrote that she did not moderate my comments and even apologized for the "lost" comment for which she could not assume responsibility. So it was censorship by the technology itself! Stupid Seed!

To others who responded: I still think that there is more spurning and scathing pissings here in this blog than science, and I do not support such tactics. I regret that this is more popular than popular science. Again, stupid Seed!

Sara, this thread is filed under kooks, polics, and religion. What is your problem with us discussing those topics? I get the feeling you think atheists should remain in the closet.

You don't think Seed is aware of what PZ does? PZ has Seed's most popular blog.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

politics, not polics. *Headdesk*

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

Frog (#348) and Emmet (#378) have clearly thought about this much more than I have; I do not argue that current copyright and patent laws are good, and I do not doubt that there are many pitfalls in analogizing intellectual property to physical, tangible stuff. But (as I think all realize) they are most analogous from the perspective of the artist whose rights are supposed to be protected by the laws (yes, I'm sure that current laws are designed to protect the rights of media corporations moreso than artists; that's yet another issue).
I am a cabinetmaker. I craft a piece of furniture and put it up for sale. You take it without paying me. That's theft. You have deprived me of the income I could have received from selling it as well as the thing itself.
I am a singer/songwriter. I craft a song, record it, and put the music up for sale. You take it without paying me. That's not theft, even though you have deprived me of the income I could have received from selling it, just because I still "have" the song? If it was a CD, an LP, or a piano roll and you take it without paying, have you stolen the polystyrene, vinyl, or paper but not the laserdots, grooves, or chadless holes in the medium? And not the song itself? Is digitally encoded music really different from analog forms just because there is no matter involved?
Surely copyright violation has to be viewed as a kind of theft, as is plagiarism?

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

#383 - Nerd of Redhead - Holy shite! It's blog wide typo's all the way down. ;o0

Nick,

An early fetus is no more likely to be even sentient - able to feel pain - than a carrot is; should we stop eating carrots just because we just might be wrong about them not being people?

And what about oysters ? Do pro-lifers defend their rights too ? (btw, I love fresh live oysters)

On foetal pain, and interesting data on viability, good detailed overview here ;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/104…

We conclude that, while the evidence suggests that foetuses have physiological reactions to noxious stimuli, it does not indicate that pain is consciously felt, especially not below the current upper gestational limit of abortion [24 weeks]. We further conclude that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law.

And on viability, I bet you that they'll end up reducing the legal limit to 22 or 23 weeks within the next ten years.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

The IP discussion has been interesting. I think it is somewhat mistaken to say it is wrong because it deprives an individual of income though. In some cases this is certainly so, but not in all, or even probably most. Many people will listen to a piece of music if it does not cost them, though they'd never consider actually buying said music. I think the harm is in depriving an individual of control of their creation. It is a truly unique area that can't be accurately compared to any material crime.

Many people will listen to a piece of music if it does not cost them, though they'd never consider actually buying said music.

But that's the point. You pay for the ability to listen to it. Of course people do things that are free more often than they do things that cost them something. Now some artists think the publicity of letting people record their live shows for free pays out in the ticket sales and in the spread of their music which then brings new fans. But that's the artists choice (well and the management / record company/ etc.. in most cases).

Artist have to be able to have some control over their creations and how they are distributed. IMHO, just because you digitize your creation should not mean that it automatically has no monetary worth and gives every tom, dick and harry right to copy and distribute to people who didn't pay for it to begin with.

Surely copyright violation has to be viewed as a kind of theft, as is plagiarism?

You are redefining theft to include copyright violation, which is fine as long as you are clear that that's what you're doing. No definition of theft has, until recently, included unlicensed copying. Even more recent is the criminalisation of individual copying, rather than "pirating" on a grand scale for profit. Traditionally, copyright violation was a delict or a civil tort, not a criminal offence. The analogy with plagiarism is a case in point. It may be unethical, it may be wrong, but nowhere (that I know of) is it unlawful or does it potentially carry the penalty of a prison term.

Whatever else might be said: clearly, copyright violation doesn't have the same moral resonance with the public as theft simple, otherwise people wouldn't copy stuff.

Artist have to be able to have some control over their creations and how they are distributed.

But they don't. We must deal with the present reality as it actually is, not as we might wish it to be. The cat is out of the bag and cannot be stuffed back in again. Peer-to-peer technologies, to name but one common means of copyright violation, are constantly evolving and, at any given point in time, practically indefeasible. To stop the use of such technology is no more realistic than expunging pornography from the Internet. The MPAA/RIAA/BSA have bought every senator and congressman on Capitol Hill and it has done them no good: they simply cannot change the reality on the ground.

The truth is that unlicensed copying is increasing in social acceptability. If current trends continue, in terms of the disconnect between prosecutions and social attitudes, it is only a matter of time before criminal statutes installed at the behest of the MPAA/RIAA/BSA are nullified by a jury. Then all hell breaks loose.

Clearly, some action is necessary. I have some of my own ideas about it, but they are far removed from the current thinking of lobby groups and legislators. Instead, they are stuck in the rut of thinking that "more stick" is the solution, but they are most assuredly wrong. I'm not sure what the solution might be, but you don't need to know that 2+2=4 to be able to say that it's not =7.

Sometimes it's helpful to READ what one has seen and heard. A transcript for your references:

"LORD, MAKE A WAY...LORD, MAKE A WAY"..."

It sounds like Sarah is straining on the toilet as she grunts that out.

How sexy of her.

She says, "Just be amazed, the umbrella of this church here, where God is going to send you from this church - believe me, I know what I'm sayin'...Alaska is all over the world map right now...there's somethin' goin' on in Alaska..."

Oh yes, there sure is...

Like that idiot's song:

"This world has nothin' for me, I will follow you.

This world has nothin' for me, I will follow you."

Lather, rinse, and repeat the ace earworm compulsively as many times as you can before losing consciousness.

And the "testimony" of a consummately obnoxious woman, MSMC Director Maggie Deller, on the occasion of the great "Cellphone Annointing Miracle" May 1, 2008, after being asked, "Maggie, what happened when you answered the phone?":

[breathlessly, waving a cell phone in the air] "I started feeling FIRE? Then I ran into somebody outside who was on a cellphone and I grabbed her cellphone and I talked to whoever she was talking [to] and that woman got blitzed, with fire, and after, and then on my way home i called two friends of mine, and they started getting blitzed, and it's all through the cellphone, whoa...WHOA" [Promptly falls over EXACTLY like a drunk].

Rick Joyner, Senior Pastor on the mic:

"We've gotten emails from people who've called other people, and there seems to be a special cellphone annointing, and it breaks out on the other end!"

I guess, rather like zits.

Asshole loudmouth announcer:

"PULL OUT YOUR CELLPHONES! PULL OUT YOUR CELLPHONES! CALL SOMEONE WHO NEEDS A TOUCH FROM GAWD!"

Some people should be banned from PA systems.

Severely disturbed crazywoman Anna, a CSCL Freshman, describes a "third floor portal to God" (same date):

[crying hysterically]...He's up on...HE'S UP ON THE THIRD FLOOR! [unintelligible] He gave me this [unintelligible - "hunger"?]...to run around the third floor...we got up there, and the Lord just showed up in a [unintelligible - sounded like "hearse" or "on a horse"] like a MORTAL."

Swoons into complete apoplexy like somebody on a date-rape tranquilizer. Maybe the Good Pastor was chasing her around the third floor? Time for detox in the rubber room.

Speaking of zits, some yuppie moron on a recruitment pitch aimed at young people out of high school:

"The perfect person for a master's commission is anyone that is willing to abandon their life, and abandon their heart, completely, to Jesus."

Great! Sign me up! Sounds like there's a LOT of MONEY in it, as well as PRESTIGE! And the RESPECT you get from something REAL. Best of all? You don't have to learn a goddamned thing.

Better than flippin' burgers.

Yet another incredibly annoying idiot announcing some music on the PA system again (yep, at the Wasila Assembly of God again):

"JESUS WE LOVE YOU!!! JESUS WE LOVE YOU!!! JESUS WE NEED YOU!!! JESUS WE LOVE YOU!!! JESUS WE NEED YOU!!!

JESUS!!! JESUS!!! JESUS!!! JESUS!!!...

Lather, rinse, and repeat the ace earworm compulsively as many times as you can before losing consciousness.

Ed Kalnins, NOTE THE DATE: on June 8, 2008, of THIS YEAR, addressing the Masters Commission graduation:

"When I got the chance to meet our mayor of Wasilla, I said 'this person loves Jesus' - that's the bottom line...she loves Jesus with everything she has...she's a desciple of the lord Jesus Christ before she's a mayor, you know, and I just really, just, a [unintelligible - sounded like he said "honored" or "hunted"] her.

Repeat: "JESUS WE LOVE YOU!!! JESUS WE LOVE YOU!!! JESUS WE NEED YOU!!! JESUS WE LOVE YOU!!! JESUS WE NEED YOU!!!

JESUS!!! JESUS!!! JESUS!!! JESUS!!!...

Maryann Hardiman, CSCL Administrator and TEACHER, weighs in with this:

[In her best instructor's voice]: "Uh, the revival down in Lakeland...and so I started tellin' them, I said, these are some of the miracles, there's been a dead person raised, there's been a woman with new knees...get out of a wheelchair...there's been...[pause to search for something more to make up]...deaf people hearing...yeah, but two of our kids had been down to Lakeland last weekend...well, some of the kids just go over to the left side and they go, WHOA! WHOA! [moans shamelessly while waving arm furiously] so I go runnin' over there, what's over there, well IMMEDIATELY YOU STEP INTO THE RIVER BUT THERE'S WIND, THERE'S WIND, THERE'S HEAT, AND, I SAID YOU GOD [she meant "guys"] GET OVER HERE RIGHT NOW!!!...[interviewer coaching - "did you say there was smoke?"]...well there was THIS MIST...[swallows from nearly choking on her spit]...there was a mist that just came up [looks up blankly as if in awe, affecting tears; interviwer: 'huh']...so we were talkin' about revival and I said, 'look it, it's not just to reignite us Christians, but it's to...DRAW IN the unsaved - we're out to go out the great commision we're go out into the world and make desciples of all men...and they just started prayin', 'God come, God come' and He just DROPPED on us"

A wide-eyed lunatic kid (likely a "Masters Commission" Graduate):

"BASICALLY WE'RE ALL JUST HUNGRY FOR GOD! SO...WE STARTED AT BIBLE...WE'RE LIKE LET'S START EARLY LET'S START LOVING GOD EARLY WHO NEEDS TO WAIT FOR A CERTAIN TIME WHEN WE JUST HAVE GAAAHD HERE."

Shakes his head peevishly, as if he might actually have momentarily realized he was acting like a jerk. He was just excited, I guess.

So the interviewer asks him and his companions, "So what are you guys all in the Bible class or what?" [sic]

In unison: "Yes." [One "yeah"].

Then the lunatic kid's buddy explains: [Unintelligible]...it was about a quarter to one they just, uh, decided to start prayin', Rodney and Isaac here shared their story about how they went down to Florida, and we just, uh, just all come over to one side of the room to start goin' crazy."

Lou Engle in a cut from a movie trailer for "UNDERtheTHRESHOLD", desperately in need of going to the bathroom, growls out in his most sexy-sinister voice:

"I think, uh, the media portrays the church as an angry...uh, rightwing fundamentalist group, that's why we must mix our activism with love, service, creativity, an outrageous pathetic worship so that we may begin to see that, that kind that stuff coming down and they'll say, 'oh, we wanna be like those folks' - Right now they haven't seen the true church - there's an undergound church that the, that the world has no idea that exists...once they get the stage it's over with."

Another nut-case at Wasilla Assembly of God espouses a bit of biblical history:

"Here's what the Lord told the children of the, Israel they're about to go in, they cross the river, they're about to go in, or actually they're about to go in and to inherit the promise that God has for us and for them...he says this...'and when the lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them den you must ste-che-ste-duh [stutters badly] destroy them totally, make no treaty with them, show no mercy - I think that's what we've been doin' - not intermarry with them, do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will bull- will burn against you and willcan quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them as nations, break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down the[something that sounds like "astral poles" whatever that is], and burn the - uh - their idols in fire, for you are a people holy to the Lord." [sic]

Sarah Palin:

"Pray for our military...Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our leaders our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure that we're praying for...

Check out the "Sarah Palin Action Figure" courtesy Herobuilders.com

Finally, the mad musician guy pleads in soothing tones with background strumming:

"God we will FOLLOW you...in ALL that we DO, God...God we WANT you more than ANYTHING...God we DESIRE you...God we LONG for you, I LONG for you God...I LONG for you Jesus...

Ok. Enough already.

"There's somethin' goin' on in Alaska..." alright. Sounds like a little more than a major Vitamin D deficiency to me.

Scenario:

The head honchos at the McCampaign sat around glumly and in silence in front of the tv during the Dem convention.

Somebody walks over and turns the tv off, then says, "It will take a miracle for us to win."

They all stare at each other for a long moment.

Then they all grab their cell phones and produce one.

NEWS ITEMS after the announcement: "BRILLIANT"!!!

By Arnosium Upinarum (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

I have a friend who was horribly sexually abused by his father from a young age. This, naturally, has seriously affected him and he has spent most of his life trying to get his head round the abuse and all it's attendant issues. During this time he has joined so many crackpot 'cults' and read so many weird books that it's not funny. What is it that attracts him to them?
Simply put, he wants something to take away so much pain, so much confusion. His latest is 'The Secret' and I have to bite down sooo much when I get an e-mail from him telling me it's the best thing since sliced bread etc etc, because, even though I know (and I suspect he knows too) that it isn't going to help him acheive what he's expecting it to, it's still nice to hear him positive.
If I try to argue against it I will be straying into far deeper waters regarding the whole abuse issue that there is a real danger I will seriously damage his not too stable mental fragility, he has a desperate need for something that will take that pain away forever.
Here's the root of my hatred of all the leechers like the 'preachers' in the video above who prey on people like my friend. They effectively emasculate any real help he could be getting from true friends, professionals etc and replace it with cheap adrenalin shots that make the face shine and the eyes glow for a brief moment of time whilst his pocket is emptied and his troubles not addressed... and after the buzz wears off I cross my fingers and hope that this isn't the time he succeeds in killing himself.
These people have been leaching off of people since people began, and I won't consider us a civilized planet until these charlatans are finally tarred and feathered off the Earth completely.
The folks in the audience aren't fools, but the people leading them are heartless manipulators who thrive on their own oratory power and self-aggrandisement. They offer a quick fix for things that there is no quick fix for, destroying peoples lives while claiming to be saving them.
And that is why I hate them...they don't have to deal with the freshly stomach pumped friend crying into your shoulders because he failed to die, because his father failed him and he can't cope anymore...

"http://www.wofchurchke.org doesn't appear to be radical."

The pastor of WOFC believes that witches are real and must be fought against. Information on Mr. Muthee's activities in Kenya...

http://www.choicesforliving.com/spirit/part4/kenya.htm

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2008-0710-200706/holv…

Information linking Mr. Muthee to Joel's Army...

http://www.cephasministry.com/joels_army_otis_wagner_ba...

For many years now, Christian evangelists in Africa have been stirring up fears of "witchcraft" and the results of that activity have been tragic...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

That a person who could be one heartbeat away from the US presidency has prayer session with witch-finders is shocking.

By Dark Energy (not verified) on 15 Sep 2008 #permalink