If I had more time during the week I would be publishing more content daily.

Anyway, here's some odds-n-odds sitting on my back-burner.

Tell Obama No to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I like the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, however the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jr. as head of the EPA or anything science based would be a disaster on the grounds alone that he is an anti-vaccination crank and promulgator of pseudoscience. I can only hope that President Elect Obama has not yet properly vetted this man.

Also Kennedy Jr. would just be too polarizing on these issues. We need a science guy in the White House where science informs policy, not someone playing politics with science like the Bush White House. Kennedy Jr. as head of EPA would be a bad choice. Now Gore for the EPA I think would be great, but would probably be to political of a choice.

Read more about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Orac, over on Science Blogs.

If good, science-base policy is a concern of yours, please contact the transition team and respectfully inform them how you feel. Rejecting Kennedy over this appointment is beyond partisan politics.

My letter:

Dear President-elect Obama and team,

Robert F Kennedy Jr should not be the head of the EPA nor should he direct health policy of any kind.

President-elect Obama made the statement to Scientists and Engineers of America that he would restore "scientific integrity" to the White House and in policy.

Robert F Kennedy JR would be a step in the wrong direction for his anti-science, anti-vaccination views.

President-elect Obama, I voted for you because I believed you would follow through on that promise to the SEA.

Thank you for your time,

MC Pickard

As always, it is the job of the people to govern and be the watchdogs over politicians in a democracy.

Besides, I can not stand Kennedy's voice – however that man ever made it on radio is beyond me...

Vatican Defends Beautification of Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, otherwise known as Hitler's Pope, is on his way to becoming a saint.

In a move that I can only imagine is a bit of c.y.a, the Vatican will not open it's WWII archives on Pope Pope Pius XII stating that it would take another six or seven years to catalog all 16 million documents.

If you can rub two brain cells together, you have to wonder why they would make this move to canonize the former Pope on incomplete evidence?

The Catholic Church, lead by Pope Benedict Ratzinger - a former Hitler Youth and protector of pedophiles, is making this move to protect the Catholic Church from future and past criticism of the church's complicity in the extermination of the Jews. I can hear it now...

"Look the man is Saint  for chrissakes, I don't know what your talkin' 'bout."

On the decision, Vatican's Number 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, stated that the selection is an internal affair and "a religious matter that requires respect."

Really, they are telling you to shut up.

Just because this is a religious matter, like religious beliefs, does not protect that belief or actions from criticism or ridicule.

By the way, the criticism is being lead by Jewish groups.

(Source)

Pope Meets With Muslim Scholars
In a move to patch religious division and establish understanding, the Pope met with twenty-nine religious scholars of each religion.

"We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all"

They also issued a a joint declaration that "appealed for respect for religious figures and symbols."

I know the discussion is between the two religions, but sorry, just because you believe that you can communicate to an invisible sky friend and wear funny robes to parade your ignorance and believe that a cracker can become Jesus' flesh after you utter magic words, or that images of Muhammad are sacrosanct, it does not mean that I have to show you respect. These are ridiculous beliefs which has caused unimaginable amounts of human misery through the centuries.

Again, ridiculous beliefs require only one answer, ridicule. Respect of your beliefs does not eclipse my freedom of thought, expression, and speech. You'll just have to live with it.

However, one thing that both Catholics and Muslims can largely agree on is that "justice for all"  does not apply to the gay and lesbian. For evidence, witness the inequality for homosexuals and women in respect to the Catholic Priesthood.

Hypocrites. Every damn one of them.

Incidentally, the Pope was correct two years ago denouncing Islam as irrational and inherently violent - but so is Christianity. I wonder why the Pope would leave that out?

(Source)

Apparently, God can not will McCain to win this election alone.

This weekend in Iowa, Arnold Conrad – a former pastor, declared in an invocation prior to a McCain rally that ...

"There are millions of people around this world praying to their god -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that his [McCain's] opponent wins [Obama], for a variety of reasons..."

Okay, leaving aside this man ignorance, both Hinduism and Buddhism are religions, not names of deities. Furthermore, while Hinduism recognizes Jesus' divinity, Buddhism can be practiced without supernatural beliefs and is conditionally ATHEISTIC. Yes, that's correct, no belief in God is required to be a Buddhist. (In some cases, even I qualify as a Buddhist.)

In the case of Islam, Allah, is an Arabic word meaning "the one" and is not a name, and is the same God of Judaism and Christianity. Christians believe that Christianity replaces Judaism. Muslims believe that Islam replaces both Christianity and Judaism. Abraham is the patriarch of all three religions.

How is McCain a liability to God? The pastor explains...

"And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."

Oh my. This erection... I mean this election, is a matter of whose God is bigger! The implication, of course, is that Obama is an outsider as are his supporters, because they pray to different gods.

Xenophobia anyone? Is seems that Conrad is continuing the McCain campaign tradition of stirring up unnecessary divisiveness. In the United States, religion is a more effective wedge-tool than politics.

By the way, what country does this pastor live in? Americans are overwhelmingly Christian in heritage as Obama is a practicing Christian.

Anyone with a little Biblical instruction can read between the lines in this sermon. What are good believers instructed to do when someone "serves other gods?" Chapter 13 of  Deuteronomy instructs that you should "surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword"  and "utterly destroy" it while re-asserting again that should it be done at the "edge of the sword."

Conrad speaks in the language of religious warfare. If McCain does not win, God is diminished. **

After the election, perhaps former Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, can give God a hand with a product he used to "pitch" for.

(Source)

 

** "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."  (Champan Cohen)

The end?

Nope. Even though the end of the world has been prophesied since Daniel was first penned, and later given illustrative reality by the Mad Monk John's ranting polemic against the Roman Empire. For some reason, that book is some great revelation? By the way, isn't funny that many, many Christians pray for the mother-of-all holocausts? Unfortunately, for the eschatologist in our midsts – the world has not ended.

In the meantime, there is news in the world that is hopeful, ridiculous, and some that is just plain 'ole despair that makes this rationalist laugh, cringe, and cry.

An Atheist President? A British PM?
Sometimes its damn, right hard to be an atheist in a society of hyper-religiosity. When your not being called a liar to your face, snickered behind your back as arrogant, damned to hell, or discriminated from office... your still one of the most despised minorities in the country. Gays are just as likely to despise you as much as Fred Phelps!

However, every so often this atheist will read something that just makes my day. In light of the debate whether or not to disestablish the Anglican Church, AC Grayling points out several advantages of an atheist PM over a Christian – like Tony Blair.

Any of his observations equally apply to the United States.

• Atheist leaders are not going to think they are getting messages from Beyond telling them to go to war.
• Atheist leaders will be sceptical about the claims of religious groups to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good...
• Atheist leaders are going to be more sceptical about inculcating sectarian beliefs into small children ghettoised into publicly funded faith-based schools...
• Atheist leaders will, by definition, be neutral between the different religious pressure groups in society, and will have no temptation not to be even-handed because of an allegiance to the outlook of just one of those groups
• Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation.
• Atheist leaders will not be tempted to think they are the messenger of any good news from above, or the agent of any higher purpose on earth.

Imagine electing a President who was not a Christian, who did not bend-over-backwards to satiate those that ground their politics in the oracle of their religious beliefs? Perhaps, we could then approach matters with more temporal urgency.

File this one under hopeful.

What's in the Water Joe?
This video has made the rounds on the skeptical blogs for the last couple of weeks.

It's still just too good to pass up.


- Watch more free videos

This gal is the mother-of-all conspiracy theorists. Ever argue against a conspiracy theorist? Frankly, you can not win. Evidence against the conspiracy, in the mind of the person, is also positive evidence of the conspiracy. This goes for every media, 911, global warming, moon-landing, anti-vaccination nut out there.

And you wonder why there is concern by educators and in the business community over the U.S.A not being a leader in math and sciences, while Jesusland relentlessly grips our country in its faith-based pseudoscience?

That aside, I think this video demonstrates the appalling lack of scientific education in our country. Or national priorities have us more invested in the question of whether or not the Decalogue states murder or kill. (Actually its both - depending on what sect's interpretation.)

File this one under ridiculous.

Ask a Sociologist, or a Catholic Priest?

Remember the spinning head of little girl in the Exorcist? My head spins when I read this stuff. Are we to take this Priest seriously? Basically, every social ill is positioned as a repudiation of secularity. Satan, apparently, has dug his cloven heels into modernity, according to this Priest.

"Even heterosexual promiscuity is a perversion; and intercourse, which belongs in the sanctuary of married love, can become a pathway not only for disease but also for evil spirits."

What I love the most about this article, which spun-up my irony alarm:

"Fr. Davies also warns in his book against so-called New Age and occult practices, as well as trendy exercise and "spiritual healing" regimens derived from eastern religions."

Uh, yeah. Which religion believes that when you mumble magic words, bread and wine automagically becomes someone's flesh and blood...that you eat? (See 1215 Latren Council) Which sectarian variety of that same religion allows it's children to die because of the doctrine of faith healing? Trendy exercise? Yeah, Satan figured out that Yoga is a great way to turn the pious Christian away from Jesus. Such is the unintelligibility of faith.

File this one under ridiculous.

What doesn't offend Islam?
Apparently, everything. Birthdays, anniversary's and mother's day. They offend Islam's 'righteousness' according to a Saudi Arabian top cleric, rebuffing the statement made earlier by a lesser religious official.

How righteous can a religion be if it is offended by a Hallmark holiday?

File this one too under ridiculous and despair.

As I was cleaning my car over the weekend, I heard intermittent segments of a NPR story about a Chicago-area stand-up comedian who immigrated from Pakistan to attended college in the United States. I am a little unsure of his name even after a google, it was either Azhar Usman or Mohammed Amer that was interviewed.

As a student, away from the pervasive religious environment of Pakistan, this would-be stand-up comedian came to terms with his Islamic beliefs. Muslims share a similar belief that many Christians have about the Bible, that the Koran is the innerrant and literal word of God – or God's own words. After all, Christians, Jews and Muslims share the same belief in the God of Abraham. At college, our comedian learned to think critically and systematically about Islam which helped him to see the absurdity of the Koran, and to reject that notion of the Koran's inerrancy.

When asked by the interviewer, doesn't his deconversion confirm the fear and suspicion by many Muslims that once their children go to American schools they become "liberalized" by Western culture and leave the religion of their parents? Funny thing, this is exactly the same kind of criticism that fundamentalist Christians likewise make about American colleges. I had an ex-girlfriend, a fundamentalist Christian, who said the very same thing. If I recall correctly, he answered yes.

To the Muslim and Christian critics of American colleges, the answer is true – of course. Studies have shown that the more educated you become, the more likely you will abandon theism. (There are notable exceptions of course.)

Why?

Once a person develops their critical thinking, that person can become quite invigorated in challenging everything that was assured to you, as a child, as unquestionable. To the newly minted skeptic, every belief becomes a new test case in examining a claim's reliability. For me, thinking critically became a compliment to my natural curiosity of the world.

The interviewer went on to ask the comedian if he had any sort of theistic belief after his deconversion. He answered that he was now an atheist.

When you examine the content of the blogs at LCL, there is nothing but criticism of other beliefs, such as the endless debates pitching conservatism against liberalism, or the skepticism regarding global climate change. Since our public discourse is equally as rigorous to these secular beliefs, why is religion beyond reproach and examination? Therefore, I want to ask the Christians who read my blog a series of questions - but anyone can feel free to chime in.

Do you feel that this comedian threw the baby out with the bathwater? Do you approve of this comedian's deconversion? His athiesism?

If you approve of his athiesism, should he then convert to Christianity? Why? If it is reasonable for this comedian to question and reject Islam, why is it not reasonable for the Christian to question his faith and perhaps ultimately reject it?

Change your religion? Just ask a judge.
I was reading this story yesterday with my draw dropped. Could you just imagine having to go to court in the United States if you decide to change your beliefs?

Enter the case of Noorashikin Lim Abdullah, who after divorce, decided to revert back to Christianity. Malaysia (60% Muslim) has a legal system of two types of courts. One secular and one Sharia. Abdullah's request was rejected on the basis of her present name. (She changed it converting to Islam to marry.) The court's decision is rather silly, but what is even more ridiculous is the notion that one should  go to court and ask appeal where the matter of your personal conscious and convictions are involved.

I guess, she has to remain a Muslim now. Disgusting. She should be allowed to de/re/convert at will.

As I've stated before, secularism is the accommodation for which all religions are allowed to practice freely. Most Americans get this. Some American's use the courts to Christianize on the taxpayer dime, claiming that when they lose they are being oppressed. Jesus....

Imagine that in  USA, that in matters of religion we had a separate court system? What would that court system look like? Liberal Universal Universalism, or conservative protestantism of Pastor Fred Phelps or even of a Reconstructionalist variety?

Yikes!

(Source)

Islam. Peaceful?
From the department of fear to offend the religiously intolerant and on the toes of the great cracker incident, we now have to fear more religious backlash. Since when must we respect anyone's sacred beliefs?

Random house has announced that it will not publish, journalist Sherry Jones book about one of Mohammed's bride's for fear of offending Muslims and inciting violence.  Stating "...we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

Once again, we see that adherence to either Biblical literalism (cracker) or Koranic literalism shows just how hostile one can become to society.

(Source)

There is an argument that maintains if the atheist is wrong and God is real and they die and end up in hell, they've lost. But if God is not real, and there is no afterlife, they have lost nothing. However, this same criteria can also be applied to every religion out there. Christians risk the Muslim hell by worshiping of Jesus. And Muslim's risk the Christian hell for not worshiping Jesus.

I submit this video for your protection.

To paraphrase Sam Harris, honor killings are not an aberration of religious faith, but the logical application and consequence of it.

Police said 54-year-old Chaudhry Rashad was so angered that his daughter, Sandela Kanwal, planned to divorce her arranged-marriage husband that Rashad killed her after a heated argument at the family's home, FOX News affiliate MyFoxAtlanta reported.

Whereas the liberalism of Enlightenment Rationalism reformed and modernized Christianity, Islam is largely stuck in the dark ages. Any religion which treats its people as property, or like cattle, is a bane to human existence. 

Story