Are you a sceptic! Can I get an Amen!
Guess I would rather be a cynic than a patsy! (sorry Pat)
Labels: sceptics circle
- EVERYONE SEEMS NORMAL UNTIL YOU GET TO KNOW THEM! - Middle aged hetrosexual, WASP male. Middle of the road, reasonably sane and reasonably employed. Labels: sceptics circle Labels: pissed Labels: jewish federation of seattle
- PERSPECTIVE -
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Are you a sceptic! Can I get an Amen!
Guess I would rather be a cynic than a patsy! (sorry Pat)
The Truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Howard!
Why the Israelis are so sceptical about Qana
If you are wondering why Israelis are so sceptical about what really occurred at Qana, the answer is quite simple:
The Massacre at Jenin (that wasn't). From wikepedia "The battle attracted widespread international attention because journalists, particularly in the UK, falsely reported that a massacre of Palestinians had taken place during the fighting, and that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF, allegations that were later shown to be baseless."
For weeks there was a media frenzy with grieving relatives interviewed, coverage of funerals, and claim after claim of atrocities, each worse than the last, that Israel supposedly committed.
The media continued to report as fact that hundreds of innocent people, mainly women and children, had been brutally, cold-bloodly murdered despite being shown evidence that funerals were being faked such as being shown this video caught by a drone flying overhead.
This clip would be funny if the accusations being thrust at us had not been so serious: the supposedly dead person keeps falling out of the funeral shroud he's being carried in --and then getting up to climb back in again so they can proceed along. He falls out again and again.
It took some 6 months for the independent investigations by human rights organizations to make clear that no massacre had occurred. Of course, by then the damage was done in the media.
No one was covering the story of the "massacre that didn't happen" --the "massacre that didn't happen" didn't get weeks of airplay, it got a small mention if it got any mention at all. You can still hear many people in the U.S., Germany and elsewhere talking about the horrible Israelis and how they cold-bloodly mowed down hundreds of innocent children in Jenin a few years ago.
More recently we had the Hamas accusations that Israel bombed a rally and killed and injured nearly two-scores of people, including many children. We claimed it wasn't so.
In this instance, the Palestinian Authority came out and supported Israel and stated very clearly that it was a Hamas car at the Hamas rally that was filled with rockets and weapons that exploded due to Hamas negligence, thus killing the children and adults who were gathered around it.
In fact, over this two week period of time Hamas claimed we bombed a house and several other targets and Fatah came out and said nooooooo those were additional accidents in which bomb-makers accidentally exploded themselves and their family members.
Why did Fatah suddenly become so honest? Well you see, this was right before the Palestinian elections...you know, Hamas vs. Fatah...
A lot of the news clips that make it onto the nightly news of reputable news channels such as CNN, NBC, BBC, and so forth, showing theoretical Israeli aggressions and horrible activities against the Palestinians have also been shown to be....fabricated.
The supposed massacre caused a major turnabout in world diplomacy. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suddenly canceled her plans to fly to Beirut, saying "my work towards a ceasefire is really here [in Jerusalem] today." The implication was clearly that the onus was now upon Israel. French President Jacques Chirac condemned Israel's "unjustified action which demonstrates more than ever the need for an immediate ceasefire," Jordan's King Abdullah called it an "ugly crime," and other world leaders echoed these sentiments.
Though Israel emphasized that Hizbullah was to blame for waging its rocket war against Israel from within a civilian population, Foreign Ministry officials repeated their "deep regret at the loss of innocent life in the campaign against Hizbullah," and were forced to promise a "thorough and comprehensive examination."
However, the incident may have been all one big fraud, staged by Arab elements for the world media in order to lead precisely to the situation described above.
The central piece of evidence leading to this conclusion is the fact, mentioned by IDF officials from the very beginning, that the building collapsed a full seven hours after the Israel Air Force bombing. Why, then, would the residents inside not have been evacuated in the meantime? As Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel of the Israeli Air Force told reporters Sunday night, “It is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it.” Without additional evidence, Eshel merely left open the possibility that Hizbullah terrorists, or explosives they left behind, caused the explosion.
"Indeed," writes Robert Spencer for Front Page Magazine, "it strains credulity that not only did these Lebanese civilians remain in a house that had been bombed for eight hours, but peacefully went to sleep in it after the bombing – since the victims were all apparently sleeping, despite continuing Israeli air bombardment in the area, when the building collapsed."
Gen. Eshel also said that the building was used by Hizbullah to store explosives. This was supported by a letter by Dr. Mounir Herzallah, a southern Lebanese Shiite, who wrote that Hizbullah terrorists came to his town, dug a munitions depot and then built a school and a residence directly over it.
In addition, as Reuven Koret writes for Israel Insider, the bombing of the area occurred in three waves. The first bombs, according to CNN correspondent Brent Sadler, did not hit the building in question, but rather landed "20 or 30 meters" away. The second strike hit targets further away, and the third strike, around 7:30 in the morning, landed over 400 meters away. The first reports of a collapsed building arrived a half-hour later.
Another CNN correspondent, Ben Wedeman, noted that there was a larger crater next to the building. He observed that the roof of the building was intact and that the building appeared not to have collapsed as a result of the Israeli strike.
Thus, the building was used to store explosives, was apparently not destroyed by the bombing, and sheltered dozens of women and children throughout a night of bombing. The identity of the victims was also not clear, except that they were not the original occupants of the building; a National Public Radio correspondent reported that they had left. "The victims were non-residents who chose to shelter in the building that night," Koret writes, and who were "'too poor' to leave the town, one resident told CNN's Wedeman. Who were these people?"
Hear Koret speak about the Hizbullah manipulation on IsraelNationalRadio.com.
As an aside, the hospital in Tyre, Lebanon, and Human Rights Watch both reported today that 28 people were killed in the Kafr Kana bombing, and not twice that number, as originally reported.
Other facts brought by Koret and Spencer:
* Sometime after dawn a call went out to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. Though Hizbullah has been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.
* Lebanese rescue teams did not start evacuating the building until after the camera crews came. The absence of a real rescue effort was explained by saying that equipment was lacking. There were no scenes of live or injured people being extracted.
* There was little blood, CNN's Wedeman noted, concluding that the victims appeared to have died while they were sleeping - despite the thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras were removing the bodies from one opening in the collapsed structure, and journalists were not allowed near it.
* Rescue workers carrying the victims on stretchers occasionally flipped up the blankets so that cameras could show the faces and bodies of the dead. But, Koret noted, the ashen-gray faces of the victims gave cause to think that the bodies looked like they had been dead for days.
* Photos of the rescue operation transmitted all over the world are "extremely suspicious," Spencer writes, citing work by EU Referendum showing numerous anomalies in the photos. "Most notably," he writes, "the dating of the various photos suggests that the same bodies were paraded before reporters on different occasions, each time as if they had just been pulled from the rubble. [In addition], some workers are wearing different gear in different photos, yet clearly carrying the same corpse."
* The Christian Lebanese (French-language) website LIBANOSCOPIE has charged that Hizbullah staged the entire incident in order to stimulate calls for a ceasefire, thereby staving off its destruction by Israel and Lebanese plans to rid themselves of this terrorist plague.
Spencer concludes, "Americans and Westerners are not used to dealing with carefully orchestrated and large-scale deception of this kind. It is time that it be recognized as a weapon of warfare, and an extremely potent one at that."
So this is why we scrutinize and ask a lot of questions when claims of mass deaths are reported...
posted by Yael K
On a serious note! PLEASE READ THIS!
This is not about the “occupation.” This is not about creating a Palestinian State. This is about whether there will be a state called Israel. Sixty years after Arab nations greeted the UN resolution on November 29 1947 with a declaration of war, nothing much has changed. They attacked this time for the same reason that they did sixty years ago.
At first, it was the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians. We put a stop
to that in 1949, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
Then it was the Palestinians, who bamboozled the world (and many of us Israelis) into believing that they just wanted a State, and that their terror was simply a way of forcing us to make one possible. We fought the terror in 1982 (Lebanon), 1987 (Intifada) and even after Camp David and Oslo, once again in 2000-2005 (the Terror War). And then, we actually tried to make the State happen. We got out of Lebanon to put an end to that conflict. And even more momentous, we got out of Gaza, hoping that they’d start to build something.
And now, it’s Hezbollah. Or more accurately, Syria. Or to be more precise, Iran. What’s Iran’s beef with Israel? Territory it lost? It didn’t lose any. Anddoes anyone really believe that Iran cares one whit about the Palestinians and their state? That’s not the reason. We know it, and so do they.
Now, the bitter reality of which Israel’s right wing had warned about all along is beginning to settle in. It is not lost on virtually any Israelis that the two primary fronts on which this war is being conducted are precisely the two fronts from which we withdrew to internationally recognized borders.
We withdrew from Gaza, despite all the internal objections, hoping to move Palestinian statehood—and peace—one step closer. But all we got in return was the election of Hamas, and a barrage of more than 800 Qassams that they refused to end.
And then they stole Gilad Shalit. Not from Gaza. Not from some contested no man’s land. From inside the internationally recognized borders of Israel. As if to make sure that we got the point—“There is no place that you’re safe. There is no place to which we won’t take this war. You can’t stay here.”
Because as much as we have wanted to believe otherwise, they have no interest in building their homeland. They only care about destroying ours.
Six years ago we pulled out of Lebanon. Same story. In defiance of the UN’s resolution 1559, Hizbollah armed itself to the teeth, and as we watched and did nothing, accumulated more than 10,000 rockets. And dug itself into the mountains. And established itself in Beirut, effectively using the entire Lebanese population as human shields. And, assuming that there was little that we could or would do, it attacked on June 12, killing eight soldiers, and stealing Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Not from Southern Lebanon. Not from Har Dov, a tiny hilltop that’s still contested. But from inside Israel. Inside a line that no one contests.
Unless, of course, they contest the idea of the whole enterprise. (Israel) Which they do. And which is precisely the point.
Allan W Janssen
Let's get the Middle East back into perspective here!
One of my main bitches is that Israel withdrew from Lebanon 18 years ago and during this whole time Hezbollah etc. etc. have been digging in amongst the general population of South Lebanon with the co-operation and support of Iran and Syria and the indifference or inability of the Lebanese Government to stop them, and EVERYONE knew what was coming!
Another assault on Israel
Then I ran across this piece and it basicaly speaks for itself!
An Israeli Defense – A Letter to the Leaders of the World
Ladies and Gentlemen, leaders of the world. I carry these words from Jerusalem, as a response to the difficult scenes displayed from Kana. Every human heart contracts when viewing these scenes. There are no words powerful enough to provide comfort with this type of a disaster. And still, I look you straight in the eye and say loud and clear: Israel will continue its military operation in Lebanon.
The Israeli Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are being fired at hospitals, old-age homes, and kindergartens in Israel. The IDF has been instructed to continue to hunt down Katyusha reserves, launching pads, and gun barrels through which these savages bomb and attack Israel.
We will not hesitate, we will not apologize, and we will not be weakened. If Katyushas continue to be launched into Israel from Kana, we will continue to bomb Kana. Today, tomorrow, and the following day. Here, there, and everywhere. The children of Kana could have been sleeping peacefully in their homes, uninterrupted, had the demonic messengers not taken over their land and turned our children’s lives into hell on earth.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time you understand: The Israeli State will not longer be stomped on. We will no longer allow anyone to take advantage of highly-populated areas as a front to bomb our citizens. No man will be able to hide behind women and children with the sole purpose of murdering our women and children any longer. This anarchy and irresponsibility is over. You can denounce us, you can boycott us, you can stop traveling to Israel, and if it will be necessary we will stop traveling to your country.
I am the voice of six million Israeli citizens who are being bombed, symbolic of the six million Jews who were exterminated and cremated into ashes and dust by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these atrocious and sinful acts were barbarians lacking in any human decency who had one simple goal: To obliterate the Jewish race off the face of the earth, in the words of Adolf Hitler, or to erase the State of Israel off the world map, in the words of Mahmud Ahmadinijad.
And just like you didn’t take things seriously then, you are ignoring them now. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen. Never again. We will never again wait for the world to rescue us from the gas chambers. We will never again wait for a salvation that will not come. We now have our own air force. Israel can now stand up to those who want to kill us.
They will no longer be able to hide behind their women and children. They will no longer be absolved of all responsibilities.
Every place from which missiles are fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for our attacks. It needs to be said clearly, one time, to the entire world. You are welcome to judge us, ostracize us, boycott us, and defame us. But kill us? Absolutely not.
Four months ago, Ehud Olmert was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the post of Prime Minister, based on his plan to unilaterally withdraw from 90% of the occupied territories, which are part of the heart and soul of the Jewish people, with the sole purpose of ending most of the occupation and allowing the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and pacify the tensions until the conditions for a permanent settlement between us would be ready.
Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the internationally recognized border and gave the Palestinians an opportunity to build themselves a new reality. His predecessor, Edud Barak, ended the long-term Israeli presence in Lebanon and withdrew the IDF to international lines, allowing Lebanon to flourish, develop, and base itself as a democratic country with a strong economy.
What did the State of Israel receive in return for these? Did we have one moment of peace and quiet? Was our outstretched hand greeted with an encouraging handshake? Ehud Barak’s peace initiative at Camp David released upon us a wave of suicide bombers who shattered and blew up more than 1,000 citizens, women and children, into pieces.
I don’t remember any of you this enraged back then. Could it be because we didn’t allow close-ups of the dismembered teenagers at the Dolphinarium? Or the broken lives of those celebrating Passover who were butchered at Park Hotel in Netanya? There’s nothing we can do, that’s how it is here. We don’t display dead bodies in front of TV cameras. We mourn quietly.
We don’t dance on the rooftops when the children of our enemies are killed. We express true sorrow and remorse. All these are the animalistic rituals of our enemies. Today they are our enemies. Tomorrow, they will be yours. You’re already acquainted with the murderous flavor of this terror. You’ve tasted it. You will taste it again.
And look at Ariel Sharon’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip. What we get for it? A shower of Kasam missiles on otherwise-peaceful towns, suicide bombings and attacks, and the kidnapping of a soldier.
I don’t remember you reacting with such panic and fear at that time either. And here, for the past six years the withdrawal from Lebanon has been struck with the words and crimes of a dangerous Iranian messenger; an extremist who has taken over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem and ultimately Paris and London.
An enormous infrastructure of terror has been established by Iran on our borders, threatening our citizens, getting stronger in front of our eyes, waiting for the moment when Iran becomes a nuclear stronghold, waiting to bring us to our knees. Don’t get me wrong: we are not going down alone. You, the leaders of the free world, the enlightened world, are going down with us.
So today I would like to put an end to this hypocrisy. I can’t remember such a reaction to 100 citizens being killed each day in Iraq. Sunnis killing Shi’ites who kill Sunnis, all of whom are killing Americans, and the world is silent. And I am having a difficult time remembering a similar reaction when the Russians wiped out entire villages and set fire to large cities in order to depress the mutiny in Chechnya.
And when NATO bombed Kosovo for nearly 3 months, and crushed a civilian population, you all looked away. What is it about us, the Jews, the few, the persecuted, that awakens all of this cosmic justice? What is it that we have that the others don’t?
I stand here before you today, loud and clear, with my head held high, looking you straight in the eye, not apologizing. Not giving in. Not whining. This struggle is for our freedom. For our image.
For our right to have a normal life within our recognized and legitimate borders. This is also your struggle. I pray and believe that you will understand it now. Because if you don’t, you might regret it later. When it is too late.
Do plants have cognitive powers?
From My book God-101;
If you look at Eastern Religions or the "Religion of Allan" it seems that ALL things have a connection with the Universe.
Call it cosmic conciousness or any of the other names it's been given, (Including GOD) this force is all pervasive and manifests itself according to the degree with which it is able to express itself in individual objects.
It seems we humans are at the top of the food chain, so to speak, while lesser animals can plug into this "force" to a smaller degree.
A good analogy woud be that humanity manifests God the best, followed perhaps by the great apes, dolphins etc all the way down to something like mice and then even less aware animals from there.
All living things are part of the Etheral awareness to a greater of lesser degree. For example a tree would still be connected to "God" but in a very very primitive way - as would bacteria etc.
It has been conjectured that even inanimate objects such as the rocks and the sea and even the earth as a whole are all part of this universal harmony and we are all but a small part of it and keep fluctuating between our corporal existence and then back to the Etheral plane.
Since this "God" force is all encompasing even the Universe itself sings and resonates with God's harmony and is one of the meanings of the term "Music of the Spheres"
Allan W Janssen
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book "The Plain Truth About God-101" (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com
The grumpy old guy speaks!
Not only that but where the good blogs have dozens of comments on a post or thread, the religious ones can have HUNDREDS!(All agreeing with each other of course. A mutual support group. "CAN I GET AN AMEN!")
I don't mean just any religious theme though. I am talking about a Southern Baptist, fundamentalist, creationist stick your head in the sand or better yet a bucket of shit style religion!
I mean that it seems for every serious or original blog there are literally dozens of psuedo-intellectual sites that keep hammering away at what the church has brainwashed them to believe!
I mean there are questions and statements and proclamations and pronouncements and pontifications and decrees and revelations and superfluous superciliary bullshit that would make a normal grade school student blush with shame at their superficiality and pretentiousness!
I mean that, unfortunately, if the old adage that "water seeks it's own level" is true then we really are appealing to the lowest common denominator here in north America and I guess we only have to look at what is offered on television to confirm it!
Your Faithfull Scribe
Allan W Janssen
(The way I have been going the past few weeks people are going to start referring to me as "The grumpy old guy!" Maybe it's the heat?)
Jesus saves, God invests!
We decided it would be a good idea to get him to paint a mural on the showroom wall. (You know, a nice little Bavarian village in a valley in the Alps with a church steeple in the middle. All cosy like!)
My Father approached him about it and asked him how much he would charge to do the work.
His answer was; "I don't know, I will have to ask "God" and get back to you.
"Fair enough," we said, and waited for his reply.
A few days later he came back, gave us a good price, and my Father said; "Go Ahead!"
A few years later business was good and we opened up a branch office in a small town not too far away, and once again we approached our artist friend and asked him how much to do the wall on that showroom. Same answer; "I will have to ask God and get back to you." O.K. fine!
A few days later he again came back to us but this time quoted a price that was twice as much for a job about half as big!!!
My Father looked at him and said; "O.K. but you go tell God that this is the last job you're getting from us!"
Allan W Janssen
God Almighty, a sane person in the Middle East!
"Let's just see how stupid they really are!
I first got interested in religion when I was a young teenaged recruit for Scientology in 1967.
I quickly caught on that it was a scam and then a few weeks later L. Ron Hubbard came to Toronto from his boat in the Caribbean. (Sea-Org)
I overheard him talking to one of the other guys about some new "tenants" they were going to introduce to the "faithful."
The guy said, "Ron we can't tell them that! It will never fly, these people aren't completely stupid you know!"
To which Hubbard replied, "Let's just see how stupid they really are!"
(By the way - Hubbard might be dead - but I'll bet he's still laughing his ass off!)
Just so you know.
If I ruled the world!
Here it is a Sunday afternoon and I have not been out all weekend because it is too hot! Instead, I sat in front of this damned computer, wrote in my own blog, and visited all sorts of others from literally around the world.
A realization slowly started to form in my feeble little brain that there are uncountable points of view on any major subject, with a particular emphasis on politics and religion.
Not only that, but the vast majority of people whose thoughts I read about on their “blogs” seemed to be totally out of their minds. (Or at the very least, seriously mis-informed about that of which they were speaking!)
In other words, they were full of shit!
This got me thinking about my dear old Mother who once said to me in a fit of pique and self-righteous indignation; “If I ruled the world, things would be a lot different!”
This sent me into a daydream about how I could go about solving all the big problems in the world and just for the hell of it, here I go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, we might as well start with politics and close to home, which for me is here in Canada.
There are two big problems here. The first is Quebec and all their whining about how they are distinct and different and this and that.
It never stops - and they keep talking about getting out of Canada for a better cultural and economic life! (This in spite of the fact that someone, [Churchill?] once said; “The French are the greatest second raters in the world!”)
That is an easy problem to solve. We do not let them separate. We kick them out!
Separatists in Quebec keep telling the population how the province could do better on its own both culturally and economically. (Never mind that Quebec receives far more than it gives to the Federal government.)
They also would then be a country with 10 million people in a sea of over 300 million English-speaking people - and without the support of the Canadian Infrastructure.)
Could they pull this off? Of course not.
Just so there are no hard feelings - when they leave we will even give them Labrador so that they might find some more oil and minerals for their economy.
BUT, we need a connection to the Eastern part of Canada so we will take, (remember there are more of us than them) the South Shore to avoid partitioning the country.
For any non-Canadian who does not know, the South Shore is the part of Quebec on the south side of the Saint Lawrence River that extends in a small band from Ontario to New Brunswick.
This, by the way would also automatically solve the problem of bilingualism! There would not be any - so all the cereal boxes would be in English again.
The other problem is multi-culturalism. WE DO AWAY WITH IT!
Where the United States is described as a huge “Melting Pot;” Canada has stressed retention of national characteristics for recently arrived immigrants and this has led to chaos in certain parts of society.
When my relatives came here from Europe in the fifties it was a case of learning the language and fitting in with society.
The big thing was that you did it as a Canadian, and you did it according to the laws of this Country, not the laws of the place you came from!
These days everyone wants to pick and choose what sort of Canadian they want to be.
People from India want to join the Royal Canadian Police but insists on wearing their turban instead of a Mounties hat - on religious grounds. It does not occur to them that if they do not like it they just do not join. NO, instead we have to alter our institutions and customs to suit them instead of the other way.(Plus they would look like real assholes with a hat perched on top of their turban!!!)
Indian Sikh schoolchildren claim that they can take a dagger to school because it is their custom and religion from “Over There,” and why should they have to change just because they are “Over Here!”
Sikh extremists blow up Canadian airliners because ther are pissed about conditions back in India!
Muslims want to be able to impose an Islamic “Sharia Law” on their people instead of abiding by the laws of Canada, and when they are turned down, scream discrimination.
Then young Muslims and their families live here, collect welfare and all the social benefits the country has to offer them, live far better than they ever could have “back home,” and then plot to perform terrorist acts to further their cause of Islamic Fundamentalism. (A couple of dozen of them in Toronto of all places! What the hell do they have to bitch about the Canadian way of life.)
People come here, get their Canadian Citizenship and immediately go back to the country of their birth.
Then twenty or thirty years later, when there is ethnic or religious strife where they are living again, the first thing they do is plead with the Canadian government to bail them out and give them free passage back to Canada.
(As of this writing, it just happened again in Lebanon!)
SO,the solution is the end to Multi-Culturalsim, if you're going to be here, you're going to fit in here! Never mind the baggage from "back home, we don't need that shit"
There, that solved some of the major problems here in Canada. In Part two; we will straighten out the Middle East, and after that the rest of the World. Stay tuned!
Your Faithful Scribe
Allan W Janssen
And by the way!
I would like nothing beter than to send some of the "Boys from New York" to have a serious talk with them!!
Your pissed scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Allan in Wonderland
You have to wonder if the liberals, radicals and the “thought police” on campus do indeed all come from different planets. I heard a couple of stories today that left me both shocked and amazed at the society we live in.
There is a well-known and respected University in Madison, Wisconsin that employs a professor who teaches Muslim studies. He is lecturing on the 9/11 terrorist attack.
This in of itself is nothing to get too excited about until we learn that he is teaching students that the attack on the World Trade Center was actually a C.I.A plot. Not only that, but that there were also bombs planted in the building to make sure it collapsed and all the Jews who worked in the building were told to stay home that day.
He claims all this was done to bolster George Bush and the White House by giving them an outside source with which to rally the population.
Now as soon as this became common knowledge the University naturally sent in a Provost to investigate the matter and have a talk with the professor.
A week or two later a press release was circulated stating that not only was the University not going to censor him because that would interfere with his academic freedom, but had actually hired him on for a second term.
We now take you from the Heartland to the East Coast where at Harvard, or Yale or some such place, there is a professor who is teaching “Sociology of Gender.”
He had to nerve to suggest, and it was only a suggestion by the way, that more research should be done to into the possibility that males and females process information differently.
(I could have told you that, I only have to talk to my wife to know!)
This outraged not only some of the Femi-Nazi’s but also many of the other freethinkers in the school. The end result was that the Professor was literally run out of town and is now looking for another job.
It’s just like Alice in Wonderland, things get curiouser and curiouser!
Your confused scribe;
Allan W Jansse
Beats me too!
A SWAT team searched the federation building, looking for any other victims, anyone hiding, or any other possible shooters police spokesman Rich Pruitt said.
Authorities said one person, a Pakistani Muslim, was arrested!
Police are said to be baffled about the motive….
….baffled I tell you.Your Scribe
Allan W Janssen
With all the conflict over religion and politics in the Middle East and elswhere I put out a petition a few days ago that we should have a policy where the only crime is interfering with someone else's rights.
This would legalize suicide, freedom of religion, abortion, (since your are not affecting SOMEONE's life, - a fetus is not a person) etc. etc.
In other words you could do whatever you liked as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. The classic case for this would be; "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre!" (Interference -156)
Here is the site and Petition;
That we adopt a system of non-interference with other human beings. In other words-do what you want, just do not interfere with anyone else!
Examples; Slander someone -interference "201", Assault someone -interference "98" - First Degree Murder -interference "1".
Some criteria needs to be established. For example in the case of abortion it would have to be determined by common consensus when a fetus is considered a human being!
This would also make suicide legal as long as you don't hit someone on the sidewalk under the building you jumped from (Interference-92!)
Which brings me to this quote a ran across that sums it up quite nicely.
"I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the only warrant and the sanction." Your religion stops where my rights begin. Deal with it. - Anonymous
Allan W Janssen
You're not gonna believe this!
If you need me I will be at home with the doors locked and a shotgun trained at the entrance. The hoards will be attacking anytime now!
Your humble and confused scribe
Allan W Janssen
Should we take the Bible literally or figuratively!
**At the end of the first century C.E. The “Alexandrian School of Thought,” of which Origin and Clement of Alexandria were part, taught that there were three possible approaches to be taken to the scriptures. (That there were already discussions of this magnitude and significance tells us a lot of the early Christian movement.)
The first approach was the literal translation, the second was symbolic, or allegorical, and the third was spiritual.
The first (the literal) was described as simplistic and solely for the un-educated. The second (symbolic) was the use of parables to convey a deeper meaning, and third (spiritual) was to transcend the mortal plane and bring us closer to God.
Unfortunately at that time, as now, the un-washed masses cried out for a ready-made, simplistic, popular faith. A faith that can best be described as closer to a romance novel than any serious attempt at theology, history and philosophy.
This is also the reason that the "Resurrection" was proclaimed as the basis for Christianity.
(It was a con thought up from ancient Greek mythology by Paul. He's the one responsible for the Christianity we have today. Not Jesus!)
This version of the "Faith," when combined with the Roman gift of organization and brute force, led to the "Christianity" that has been handed down to us.
It seems to be the consensus among New Testament scholars that "Jesus” preached a message that teaches a way of behaving and living that applied to a first century reality.
However, the words of "Christ" are another matter.
If the sayings and parables of "Christ" are examined closely with the purpose of separating those words that were actually uttered by “Jesus” from those that were later attributed to him, we see a vast difference in the context, meaning, and purpose between the two.
The sayings of “Christ” display a metaphorical and allegorical context that suggest someone slightly removed from the everyday world.
The biblical words of "Jesus," however, were indeed a direct reflection of their place and time. (Just as today, we are all products of our own time and age)
The actual sayings of the historical "Jesus,” which upon close examination shows only a handful of thoughts and parables, are so simple and basic, with such underlying truth, that they can be applied to the human condition of any age. -A.W.J.
Please, Please pay attention to this> It is probably the closest you will ever get to the truth behind Jesus and the whole religious thing.
Don't blindly accept what other people try and tell you, go and find out for youself.
"Faith" can very well turn out to be a false God!
Your Humble Scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Till death us do part; which could be sooner rather than later!
So far my wife has talked about nothing but the ramifications of this marriage and how it will affect the wedding.
You see, he is Jewish and she is Muslim!
Now I should be quick to point out that neither one of them is a devout Jew nor Muslim, plus Johnny (we still call him that even though he is a grown man now) is paying for the wedding himself, so there is not much the relatives can say.
Nevertheless, you can bet your ass that there is going to be a LOT said behind closed doors. As a matter of fact there is even the possibility that some of the relatives (or a lot of them) will not be coming to the wedding or the party after!
Since I have been asked to say something during the reception I decided it would be a appropriate to share this quote from my book “The Plain Truth About God-101.”
It is said that once upon a time a King gathered together a few men who had been born blind. They were asked to describe an elephant, but each one was presented with only a certain part of it.
To one was presented the head of the elephant, to another the trunk, to another its ears, to another the leg, the body, the tail, tuft of the tail, etc.
The one who was presented with the head said, "The elephant is like a pot!” The one who was presented the trunk answered, "The elephant is like a hose.” The one who touched only the ears thought that the elephant was a fan, the others said that it was a pillar, a wall, a rope, a brush, etc.
Then they quarreled among themselves, each thinking that he was the only one right and the others were wrong.
The obvious truth is that the elephant is a unity of many parts, a unity that they could not grasp in their ignorance.
According to the pattern suggested by this tale, it is often said that world religions form a unity, and only this total unity provides the right perspective on ultimate truth. This is encouraged by the suggestion to consider the various world religions as alternative paths to the same goal.
Therefore, one option is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam, (as well as their individual sects) will each claim to be the only right path to God.
Although this vision is arousing a lot of enthusiasm amongst their adherents, it is important to know that these are not the only views. We also have to look at the Eastern religions for a counterpoint.
Therefore, another option is that all world religions are pieces of the same puzzle.
Theoretically, two possibilities exist. A proper evaluation of such opposite views as Eastern and Western Religion must be done before we decide on a course of action.
If the first is true (all religions lead us to the same goal), and we choose the second (only one of them is right), we have not lost anything. Despite our ignorance, we will arrive at the same happy end as the other travelers who have chosen different spiritual paths.
A less happy situation would be given by the second possibility, that a single spiritual path is valid and we have chosen the wrong one. In this case, we are courting a spiritual disaster.
(A third possibility, that all spiritual paths are wrong, is denied by the nature of our spiritual quest itself. This search demands a real fulfillment, otherwise our hunger for ultimate truth could not be justified and all religions would be nothing but fantasy.)
By default then, because one option is so unpalatable, (that there is nothing after life) we would have to choose the view that all religions lead us to the same goal.
Now this is not meant merely to generate rational proofs for justifying one or another alternative.
No matter how complex and logical the proofs of one or the other causes might be, it is possible to find counterpoints of the same nature. At a rational level, these disputes could fill many books with no benefit to anyone.
No one can be persuaded or converted to one or another religious perspective only through rational proof and logic. This may be possible in science, but not in religion, otherwise everyone would already be of one faith.
However, rational proofs have to be considered because we are rational beings. Reason should not be rejected and faith proclaimed the only way of knowing truth. No divorce between reason and experience should be accepted because they are complementary and work together. Neither should exclude the other.
As a result, we do not have to reject the proof of reason in our spiritual quests, whatever their nature might be. The comparative analysis presented here is focused on Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the major Eastern Religions because they play a major role in defining today's world spirituality.
Some may believe that a comparative analysis like this may fuel religious hatred and intolerance, but this is wrong. Religious tolerance and freedom cannot be built on ignorance but rather should be built on the understanding of commonalities. Therefore, as the prophet Jesus said: "Loving the person is possible even if one rejects his or her religious convictions!"
So it should be with all of us!!
Your ever-faithful scribe;
Allan W Janssen
After all is said and done!
We can draw a rough analogy between these people at Enron and people who blindly follow a set of religious precepts
The Unlearned Lesson of Ken Lay and Enron
By Alex Epstein
Former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay has just died, just over a month after being convicted of fraud, and almost five years after his company's cataclysmic collapse. The common perception of Lay is that he and other Enron leaders brought about the company's fall because, eager to make money, they schemed to bilk investors. The ethical lesson, it is said, is that we must teach (or force) businessmen to curb their selfish, profit-seeking "impulses" before they turn criminal.
But all this is wrong.
Enron was not brought down by fraud; while the company committed fraud, its fraud was primarily an attempt to cover up tens of billions of dollars already lost--not embezzled--in irrational business decisions. Most of its executives believed that Enron was a basically productive company that could be righted. This is why Chairman Ken Lay did not flee to the Caymans with riches, but stayed through the end.
What then caused this unprecedented business failure? Consider a few telling events in Enron's rise and fall.
Enron rose to prominence first as a successful provider of natural gas, and then as a creator of markets for trading natural gas as a commodity. The company made profits by performing a genuinely productive function: linking buyers and sellers, allowing both sides to control for risk.
Unfortunately, the company's leaders were not honest with themselves about the nature of their success. They wanted to be "New Economy" geniuses who could successfully enter any market they wished. As a result, they entered into ventures far beyond their expertise, based on half-baked ideas thought to be profound market insights. For example, Enron poured billions into a broadband network featuring movies-on-demand--without bothering to check whether movie studios would provide major releases (they wouldn't). They spent $3 billion on a highly inefficient power plant in India--on ludicrous assurances by a transient Indian government that they would be paid indefinitely for vastly overpriced electricity.
The mentality of Enron executives in engineering such fiascos is epitomized by an exchange, described in New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald's account of the Enron saga, between eventual CEO Jeff Skilling and subordinate Ray Bowen, on Skilling's (eventually failed) idea for Enron to sell electricity to retail customers.
An analysis of the numbers, Bowen had realized, "told a damning story . . . Profit margins were razor thin, massive capital investments were required." Skilling's response? "You're making me really nervous . . . The fact that you're focused on the numbers, and not the underlying essence of the business, worries me . . . I don't want to hear that."
When Bowen responded that "the numbers have to make sense . . . We've got to be honest [about whether] . . . we can actually make a profit," Eichenwald recounts, "Skilling bristled. 'Then you guys must not be smart enough to come up with the good ideas, because we're going to make money in this business.' . . . [Bowen] was flabbergasted.
Sure, ideas were important, but they had to be built around numbers. A business wasn't going to succeed just because Jeff Skilling thought it should."
But to Skilling and other Enron executives, there was no clear distinction between what they felt should succeed, and what the facts indicated would succeed--between reality as they wished it to be and reality as it is.
Time and again, Enron executives placed their wishes above the facts. And as they experienced failure after failure, they deluded themselves into believing that any losses would somehow be overcome with massive profits in the future. This mentality led them to eagerly accept CFO Andy Fastow's absurd claims that their losses could be magically taken off the books using Special Purpose Entities; after all, they felt, Enron should have a high stock price.
Smaller lies led to bigger lies, until Enron became the biggest corporate failure and fraud in American history.
Observe that Enron's problem was not that it was "too concerned" about profit, but that it believed money does not have to be made: it can be had simply by following one's whims. The solution to prevent future Enrons, then, is not to teach (or force) CEOs to curb their profit-seeking; the desire to produce and trade valuable products is the essence of business--and of successful life.
Instead, we must teach businessmen the profound virtues money-making requires. Above all, we must teach them that one cannot profit by evading facts. The great profit-makers, such as Bill Gates and Jack Welch, accept the facts of reality--including the market, their finances, their abilities and limitations--as an absolute. "Face reality," advises Jack Welch, "as it is, not as it was or as you wish. . . You have to see the world in the purest, clearest way possible, or you can't make decisions on a rational basis."
This is what Enron's executives did not grasp--and the real lesson we should all learn from their fate.
Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
A voice from Egypt!
Is there something wrong with Islam? Of course there is. Muslims are what’s wrong with Islam.
Islam is, after all, an abstract collection of ideas. That’s not to say that all Muslims are what’s wrong with Islam, but who really cares about that except us Muslims? We get so caught up in dissing them, like they belonged to some other religion.
Well, they don’t. They might interpret it differently, but for God’s sake, they use the same book.
They sometimes use the same interpretation, except we’re willing to add a twist here, turn a blind eye there to soften the blow. I can’t deny that they’re so off the mark they might as well belong to a different religion, but the fact of the matter is that they came down the same roads most of us come down on a daily basis. There is no ‘protection’ from drifting off course like they did.
There’s a loony in every family. A couple in mine. They were ‘normal’ one day. They would never strap shit to their bellies and blow shit up, they’re not THAT bad, but they’re pretty extreme in my view. They used to go to the same mosque I went to. They had good parents. They lived abroad. They watched porn. They did everything normal kids do.
Now, they’re not so normal. I don’t care why it happened (well, not in this post at least). All I can think about is that loonies aren’t borne out of thin air. They aren’t spawned in some cess pool. They are extremely average, which is why they’re so dangerous. You can’t profile them.
I think Muslims need some serious time by themselves.
We need to think about how the dogma we spoon feed each other and our kids has finally come back and to bite us in the ass.
All that bullshit about conspiracy theories and the jooz and the ‘blue bones’ - what we once thought was harmless banter we threw around on street corners just to make time pass.
Well, some impressionable little fuck who doesn’t masturbate nearly as often as he should has taken it upon himself to blame the jooz and the blue bones for the fact that he gets paid fuck all, knows fuck all, and will always be a ‘fuck all.’ And he’s decided to turn the prophecies, the conspiracy theories, and the rambling crap he heard on street corners, he’s gone and turned all of it into a grotesque vision of his own grandeur.
Violent Muslims, loonies, terrorists, fundies, whatever you want to call them, are the most selfish creatures ever created on God’s earth.
They are willing to inflict pain and suffering on fellow man and beast only to get some cheap gate pass to Heaven. Instead of toiling at ‘life’ like the rest of us sorry fucks, these idiots think they can hop onto the superhighway to heaven by chopping other people’s heads off and pointing to God and saying ‘gimme gimme.’
And what do we do? We say ‘it’s not us, it’s them…we’re not like that…we swear.’ It’s not enough. Because soon enough, our own heads will be the ones rolling down Cairo’s merry old streets. How’s that for a selfish reason?
You can start by boycotting a mosque if the sermons border on hate speech. Just don’t go. There’s plenty others. You can stop turning the blind eye to that ‘motashaded’ in your family.
The next time he comes over for dinner, and his wife scurries off with yours to sit in some other room, order both women back in.
You’re a man, right? You can order women around, right? Well, put it back to good use. Or how about the next time you get into a taxi and he has those wailing monkeys going about how the serpents are going to nick in you the butt, get out. Tell the taxi driver, stop here, and just leave.
I’m not preaching here. I can’t practice most of this. But I’m pretty sure we’re intelligent enough, and resourceful enough to come with some way of reacting.
It isn’t easy being a renegade, but we can at least stop being so passive about it. If the fundies claim that religion is on their side, tell them that logic is on ours. And for God’s sake (and I mean His sake literally), let’s not keep acting Ostrich. Eventually, the shit will land on our heads, or on the heads of our kids.
If they’re still attached to our bodies that is.
Any man who thinks for himself - and at the same time is spiritually free, is to those who would influence or control his thoughts, something inconvenient and even dangerous.
Such a one, refusing to be controlled by the notions of others, does not offer them sufficient guarantee that he will merge into that organization the way they wish.
"From every side and in the most varied ways it is dinned into him that the truths and convictions which he needs for life must be taken from the associations which have gained rights over him at the expense of his own GOD-given free will."
He comes at last to believe himself unqualified to make serious claim to thoughts of his own and concludes that the great important decisions are made by those much higher in standing. (In this case, scientific and religious circles.)
Dr. Albert Schweitzer
Boy, did we get it wrong!
Simply stated – they- (Extreme Muslim Fundamentalists) want us (and everyone else) converted to Islam or dead.
This problem will not go away in our lifetimes.
I can see some young people in the Middle East who are poor, impoverished, stupid and ignorant, being indoctrinated by these religious extremists.
What REALLY gets me though is the fact that there are some well educated people living in North America and Europe who also believe this crap the fundamentalist put out. The most recent example are the 17 "youths" in Toronto who were arrested under terrorists charges. Toronto, of all places!!!!!
This is twelfth century thinking, and anyone who lives in the twenty first century and still buys into it is seriously bent!
And I mean SERIOUSLY! A.W.J.
I think people should understand what is in the Koran to understand what is happening in the world.
The Koran calls for all Muslims to fight and kill infidels, i.e. non-Muslims. This guarantees you into heaven. In fact, in Islam that is one of the best guarantees into heaven. According to the Koran you can live a good life, help people, and be exemplary in every respect, and still you have to be judged by Allah. Kill some infidels and you are in - guaranteed.
The language and words in the Koran are clear unlike some of the stories in the Bible. The argument some people have is that these terrorists are somehow “twisting Islam”, but that is not the case at all - they are following Islam and what is written in the Koran. Fully 60% of the writings in the Koran deal with killing, fighting, and jihad.
While it is true that the vast majority of all Muslims do not kill innocents or believe that it is right, these Muslims are not “Good Muslims!” This is according to the Fundamentalist Extremists, who say that the majority do not follow the Koran to the letter. (Their letter!)
Most people say that there are passages that promote peace and love and harmony with other religions in the Koran - this is true, however, these are Muhammad’s early writings and the top Islamic Fundamentalist Scholars have declared that Muhammad’s later, more aggressive statements supersede these earlier peaceful tolerant writings.
Remember that many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated and came from reasonably affluent families. I suspect that the folks who planted explosives on the subway cars in London and the train in Spain fit a similar profile.
An article by Lee Harris provides an interesting and somewhat chilling insight into the terrorist attack of 911 and those that followed. Harris maintains that these attacks have the characteristics of a blood feud rather than those of a war.
(SEE THE BLOG ON BLOOD FUEDS "THE LOGIC BEHIND ARAB THINKING")
We already knew that the so-called war on fundamentalist terror would be a long term affair and "Yes it’s twelfth (or eighth) century thinking, and yes, it’s tribal, but do they hate us because of our freedom and Western Values?" NO! They probably hate us because we are, to the fundamentalists, simply infidel crusaders.
Remember, they carry their grudges a long, long time!
Your humble scribe
Allan W Janssen
The logic (?) behind Arab thinking
When 9/11 happened, no one asked me to write an article about it the next day, because no one, outside my immediate circle of friends, had any interest in my opinion. This was fortunate, because I did not need to make a snap judgment about the significance of that fateful morning.
Had I rushed my violent first impressions into print, I might have found it difficult to ever get around to having any second thoughts -- second thoughts like the ones that finally came together in the essay "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," published in Policy Review a full six months after 9/11.
This morning, after Nick Schulz encouraged me to write a piece on the terror attacks in London, I was tempted to put the project off until I had had time to reflect on the events. What else could I say in the immediate aftermath of such an attack than what every other decent man or woman would say about it, namely that it was an outrage against all human decency, and a violation of everything that civilization stands for?
Then a thought went through my mind that has been haunting it for over three years now. A simple idea, really, yet one that when it is clearly stated can offer us a radically different way of understanding events like 9/11, the Bali attack, the Madrid bombings, and now the carnage in London.
Immediately after 9/11, the general consensus was that we were at war. And yet this evocation of the concept of war bothered me because it did not quite fit. Wars were things that Westerners did.
They were fought for economic reasons or for territorial expansion; they were instruments of policy; they had a point and an objective. You knew when a war started, and you knew when it was over. On both sides of a war you had diplomacy -- the breakdown in diplomacy normally started wars, and a recommencement of diplomacy inevitably signaled their termination.
Finally, wars, when they were fought, tended to resolve into a series of increasingly climactic battles, allowing each side to keep score of its position, as in a game of chess, and ending in some well-established gesture, like waving the white flag or slaughtering your enemies en masse.
If you try to make the random and scattered terrorist attacks since 9/11 fit into this pattern, you will soon realize that it takes a good bit of twisting and squeezing to make these events match the profile of Western warfare. Indeed, when I wrote "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," I argued that war was not the appropriate model to employ in order to gain an understanding of the enemy that we faced -- and yet at the time I was still unclear what model of conflict would make more sense.
After the London bombing, I feel more than ever that the war model is deeply flawed, and that a truer picture of the present conflict may be gained by studying another, culturally distinct form of violent conflict, namely the blood feud.
In the blood feud, the orientation is not to the future, as in war, but to the past. In the feud you are avenging yourself on your enemy for something that he did in the past. Al Qaeda justified the attack on New York and Washington as revenge against the USA for having defiled the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia by its military presence during the First Gulf War. In the attack on London, the English were being punished for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the blood feud, unlike war, you have no interest in bringing your enemy to his knees. You are not looking for your enemy to surrender to you; you are simply interested in killing some of his people in revenge for past injuries, real or imaginary -- nor does it matter in the least whether the people you kill today were the ones guilty of the past injuries that you claim to be avenging.
In a blood feud, every member of the enemy tribe is a perfectly valid target for revenge. What is important is that some of their guys must be killed -- not necessarily anyone of any standing in their community. Just kill someone on the other side, and you have done what the logic of the blood feud commands you to do.
In the blood feud there is no concept of decisive victory because there is no desire to end the blood feud. Rather the blood feud functions as a permanent "ethical" institution -- it is the way of life for those who participate in it; it is how they keep score and how they maintain their own rights and privileges. You don't feud to win, you feud to keep your enemy from winning -- and that is why the anthropologist of the Bedouin feud, Emrys Peters, has written the disturbing words: The feud is eternal.
We in the West cannot imagine a war that goes on forever; but those for whom the blood feud is the established mode of settling difference cannot imagine a world without it. We are puzzled when they attack us viciously on a single day, and then wait for years before they attack us again -- an irrational policy from the point of view of Western military strategy, but perfectly sensible when seen from the point of view of the blood feud.
If your sole interest lies in annoying and irritating your enemy, and not in vanquishing him, then the sporadic and the occasional attack makes more sense to you than a systematic frontal assault. Indeed, to those adept at the blood feud, nothing can be more absurd than provoking a feuding partner into an all out war of annihilation -- which perhaps explains why the Islamic terrorists tend to vary the locations of their attacks and to string them out over the course of years, rather than concentrating on a single target and hammering it repeatedly over the course of days and weeks, as in a normal military campaign.
If the terrorists attacked the same people continuously, day after day, week after week, they would be bound to stir up a fury that would result in their own extermination.
By intermittent and infrequent attacks, on the other hand, they are able to injure and wound their enemy, without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by their enemy's desperate desire to be rid of them once and for all. Even better, such sporadic violence permits the enemy to discount their own suffering, by realizing after each fresh attack that life goes on -- as indeed it does for those who chance to survive.
The art of the blood feud, if it can be called an art, requires the participants in the feud to imitate the random and unpredictable nature of what we in the West call acts of God. Like lightning, you can never predict the next attack; you can never know where it will strike, or who it will strike.
You only know that one day it will happen again, as it happened again today in London. By this means, the victims of the attack are lulled into a sense of impotence and helplessness, accepting the attacks the same way we accept tornadoes and other natural disasters.
Contemporary Islamic terrorism has permitted the ancient practitioners of the blood feud to introduce its brutal and primeval logic into a world of modern technology and parliamentary politics.
The sooner we grasp this fact, the sooner we will be in a position to know our enemy for who he really is. Until then we will be as dazed and confused as those who, while peacefully riding a commuter train, suddenly find themselves bloodied and blackened, in the midst of maimed corpses and twisted steel, whispering to themselves over and over, "Why? Why?"
Lee Harris is author of Civilization and Its Enemies
Creationism vs. Evolution vs. Contradictionism: The Secret Untold Story!
Pooped out—totally exhausted.
God gave Adam a pee pee (also known as a doodle or simply as "privates") to make him a man. Adam got lonely, for obvious reasons; and started to fall into a deep depression. Adam wanted to watch too much TV, but there was no TV to be found since it hadn’t been invented yet. Zoloft, Paxil and Prozac were not available back then either, not even from Canada.
Adam couldn’t even engage in gay sex since there were no other men around. As a matter of fact, sex was not even an option since Adam was the only living person on earth.Adam was allowed to touch and hold his pee pee if he had to urinate but for no other reason, if you know what I mean.
One of God’s first rules was, "Adam, you should not have impure thoughts." Adam actually didn’t have any thoughts whatsoever since he didn’t know who he was, where he was, what he was there for, what he was suppose to do or not do, and didn’t even know that he was on a place called Earth or that he was the first.
God just plunked him down in the Garden of Eden with no money, no weapons, no driver’s license, no passport, no clothes, and no instructions. Adam had no mother and no father; no brothers and no sisters; no grandparents; no nothing. He sure as hell didn’t have time for "impure thoughts." But things were about to change.
God took a rib from Adam. He ripped it right out of Adams chest; no anesthesia or nothing. God put the rib in some water with some Miracle Grow or something and he created Eve. This means that God Himself cloned Eve from Adam’s rib. God also liked to do "stem cell research" in His spare time. And to Eve, He gave a wee wee to make her a woman. He made them to be about 30 years old according to the most recently available photographs of them of which there are numerous reprints in most Christian schools.
According to the photos, Adam and Eve were white Caucasians. Therefore, no one really knows how all the blacks, Hispanics, olive skinned Mediterranean types, American Indians, Eskimos, and other non-whites got that way. It might have been too much sunshine with no sunscreen available, or maybe it was their diet.
In 5000 years Hispanics, Chinese, Latinos (who were named after the Latin language called Latin), American Indians (who are not from India) and especially Blacks (who are named after the Crayola crayon called Black) have made "tremendous strides" according to white, Caucasian TV commentators. Look at Michael Jackson. He has turned White before our very eyes. (This is why Michael Jackson wanted an all-white jury for his child molestation trial).
And Oprah Winfrey’s facial features have evolved through the process of 20 years of evolution to resemble those of a Caucasian. This in itself proves the existence of the theory of evolution.
The pee pee, in combination with the wee wee worked out good (or well, depending on the proper use of English). Adam could now be a man; and Eve was given the right to be a woman, if she behaved and didn’t get out of hand, or start to have hot flashes and freak out once a month.
God created the menstrual cycle for Eve. He gave her cramps. He gave her headaches. Hot flashes. It was a mess. And sometimes Eve could be a real bitch. Adam could never understand it.
The menstrual cycle was one of God’s master achievements. The only way Eve could get rid of her damn menstrual cycle was to let Adam and his pee pee come in direct contact with her wee wee which resulted in her menstrual cycle shutting down for 9 months. However, the alternative of giving birth was hardly a welcome trade off.
The menstrual cycle was one of God’s crowning glories of mis-design----a true engineering disaster. God originally designed a 28 day, monthly menstrual cycle. However, He designed months with 30 days in them and some months even had 31. God developed a little poetic jingle so women could remember when their period was coming. It went like this - "30 days hath September, April, June and November; all the rest hath 31, except for February to which we 28 days assign, until leap year gives it 29." This is how women keep track. It was all part of God’s Master Plan.
This screwed everything up since after a few years of 28 day menstrual cycles plus with Christmas, Easter, Washington’s Birthday, Lincoln’s Birthday, Lent, the long Thanksgiving Day weekend, National Cheese Day, and God’s poetic jingle - not a woman alive could tell when her bad time of month was going to start. Switching back and forth from Daylight Savings Time to Eastern Standard Time didn’t help either. And of course, having sex and getting pregnant would put the entire system into "shutdown mode" which would then have to be re-started nine months later.
It’s like trying to shut down and re-start a nuclear power plant. A woman getting pre-menstrual cramps, hot flashes and headaches is like a nuclear meltdown anyway. You don’t want to be anywhere near it.
This is why God created the Blessed Virgin Mary - so she wouldn’t have to be tortured with this experience. The Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus without even having had sex. It was nice, clean, simple, tidy and - virginal. This is what the State of Virginia is named after as well as 100% Virgin Olive Oil. Also, when you hear about a "virgin forest" it is a forest that hasn’t had sex yet. Virgin wool comes from sheep that don’t have sex.
God’s design of the menstrual cycle is responsible for more lost human productivity, lost wages, lost work, and spontaneous outbursts of rage and violence than any other of God’s mistakes. It does accomplish one very important thing - it keeps men "in check."
It is the one thing that makes a man "back off" - a woman who can flip out for no reason. God was going to give Man a menstrual cycle also but when He drew up the plans, at the last minute, being that this was the time of Creationism, he decided to give Adam some testicles instead. God can do anything He wants. He’s God. So God just said, "Let there be a menstrual cycle," and it just happened. And then He said, "Let there be testicles," and it just happened. This is Creationism at its most basic. All Christians should be taught this.
Adam was given testicles because men need balls to go into war and fight savagely and viciously. If one has what is known in technical terms as a pussy one can not fight an aggressive, life and death, hand to hand combat, battle. One has to have balls to do that. Most women have pussies or wee wee’s and most men have testicles or balls. The bigger the balls the better. The smaller the pussy the better. Its all part of God’s Master Plan. This was indeed part of Creationism and should be mandatory teaching in all schools.
Note: Generally men are encouraged to scratch their balls even though they don’t get very itchy. Women are forbidden to scratch their pussy even though the itching may be unbearable. Drug companies make billions of dollars on this type of vaginal itch phenomena. Its part of Evolution.
Anyway, Adam and Eve lived near a big apple tree and a snake came by that was really the Devil but he spoke good English. Most snakes spoke good English back 7,000 years ago. The snake spoke to Eve and said, "Eat the apple if you want to be happy." The Devil was some kind of local fresh fruit salesman so Eve did not suspect that this was a trick to see if she could be lured into the mortal sin of eating an apple.
She had always been told to eat lots of fruits and vegetables all her life (ever since she was Created at the age of 30), and to eat a balanced diet so she just did not know the snake was the Devil in disguise. She thought it was just some ordinary snake giving her a hard time about not eating apples.
Eve tried to resist but how can you NOT eat an apple when a snake speaks really good English and tells you not to eat the apple. It’s like telling a woman to NOT eat the chocolates on St. Valentines Day. Adam just stood around looking suspicious. So Eve went and took a bite out of the nice red apple.
At that point God got really mad because this was all just a "set up" to see if Eve, the one with the wee wee, could resist the commands of the Devil who was disguised as an English-speaking snake. So God yelled out from up in Heaven, "Eve, you have sinned, you ate the freakin’ apple!"
Adam said, "Holy Shit, Eve, look what you’ve done now. Christ, our goose is cooked." God made Adam an accomplice of Eve’s and He cast them out of the Garden of Eden which was a pretty nice garden back in those days (which is where the term "garden apartments" comes from).
From there it was all down hill for the two of them. All of a sudden they had to start wearing clothes and stuff. Eve had two sons named Cain and Able (they didn’t have last names because they were the first people on Earth and God didn’t give them a birth certificate or anything; not even a Social Security number).
Eventually, it is believed Adam and Eve got divorced. No one really knows how we evolved since that time since Evolution doesn’t exist, only Creationism, and God wasn’t in the business of creating one person after another, after another, after another, after another. It’s tiring. So God gave us two choices: we could use the wee wee and the pee pee to reproduce if we didn’t mind dealing with the whole menstrual cycle mess; or we could clone each other and keep it nice and clean and simple.
As humans we failed to discover cloning for thousands of years and so stuck with the old fashioned routine of actual physical contact between pee pee and wee wee. This made things difficult for women and men to get along because men like to go off to war and liberate other civilizations by annihilating them and exterminating whole groups of people so they could be free.
About 6,000 years later Jesus Christ was born. Jesus didn’t have a father because his mother was a Virgin. The neighborhood decided to call her the Blessed Virgin Mary. No one could hardly believe it, so they started to make statues of Mary with little water plates on them so birds could come down and get a drink of water on the Mary statutes. Most of the Blessed Virgin Mary statutes are in the front yards of Italians living mainly on Long Island, New York, and Toronto. No one knows why.
When Jesus was killed He created the Pope so He would have someone who could sit at a window and wave to the crowds in a place called the Vatican. Right before Jesus was killed, Jesus said to a guy named Peter, "Peter, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I build my Church." Jesus was good at advertising and public relations—even though his message fell on deaf ears with Pontius Pilate and the Jews who cried for his crucifixion.
Since Jesus didn’t have a father he was technically a "bastard." This sounds bad. So one of the Three Kings that had been stalking Mary and Joseph for nine months who followed a star in the sky and found them at the instant the birth was taking place said, " Holy Jesus Christ Almighty." So the name stuck. He was called either Holy Jesus or Jesus Christ or Christ Almighty. To this day, 6,000 years later, most people when something astonishingly wrong happens they say, "Holy Jesus," "Jesus Christ," or "Christ Almighty." Or sometimes they will revert to the more primitive phrase and just say, "Bastard!"
Oh yeah, Mary married a much older guy named Saint Joseph. He became a saint because he was old and Mary was pretty good looking and young. If you were a 60-year old guy and could hook up with a 17-year old girl, what would you do? And Saint Joseph never had sex with Mary, even though she got pregnant (or so the story goes). Saint Joseph was quiet. He never said much.
Everyone just said, "Oh, there goes the older man with the pregnant teenage girl; The Blessed Virgin Mary tried to cover it all up because she knew she would be stoned to death if her folks ever found out she was pregnant. Rumors had it that Joe didn’t even really do it. It was some teenager next door who was the real father of Jesus, but the teenage boy took off like a "bat out of Hell" when Mary told him she had missed her period because he knew that his family would probably bludgeon him to death, which was quite acceptable as a form of mild punishment about 2,000 years ago in the good old days.
Basically, Jesus, Mary and Joseph stayed out of sight for about 32 years until the day when Jesus started to appear again doing miracles like feeding 10,000 people at the Sermon on the Mount with only one fish and one loaf of bread. He also raised a boy name Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus was his only success. He tried raising about 30,000 dead boys from the dead but Lazarus was the only one that worked out well so it was called a miracle.
Jesus’ right hand man was a guy name Peter the Rock. After Jesus was crucified Peter got on a horse (or walked) to Rome and announced to the Roman Empire that then controlled all of civilization that he, Peter, was going to take over Rome and that he wanted about 100 acres of prime land in order to build a Vatican filled with ornate buildings that no one knows who built but were filled with gold. The Roman Empire said, "Sure, OK, if it’s OK with God and Jesus it’s OK with us." Peter declared himself the first Pope. He called himself, Pope #1. He sent out a lot of direct mail and the money just started rolling in.
Most of the Popes since then have spent a lot of time and money killing most of the inhabitants of the earth that were not Christians. Christopher Columbus and the Spanish Conquistadors and other European Colonists had to kill about 12 million American Natives in order to bring the word of Christ to them. It was exhausting but it paid off because the Western World became Christian.
Most of the Native American Indians that survived were put on large parcels of land called Indian Reservations. Yes, this was land reserved for Indians. This was done so they couldn’t mingle with the white Christians. The Indians prospered by growing and harvesting tumbleweeds and prickerbushes and enjoying living in their teepees in the middle of nowhere. Living with sand storms in the middle of the dust bowl agreed with them. They were Indians.
Hundreds of millions of humans were killed trying to get them to believe that Jesus Christ was God. After a few centuries most of the remaining inhabitants of civilization gave in and said, "OK. He’s God". So the plan worked. The Catholic Church and Christians learned that killing was a good and efficient method of proving that Jesus was God.
Much work still has to be done. Creationism has to be proven to the ignorant masses. The Ten Commandments have to be accepted by all remaining living human beings. Christian prayers in schools must be mandatory in order to properly teach hatred, intolerance, non acceptance, narrow mindedness, and morality and family values. The sanctity of life can only be assured if all those who disagree are eliminated and denied the sanctity of life.
A lot of Christians became disillusioned and broke off from the Church. They were called Protestants and they are destined to go to Hell because they don’t believe in the one true Church and the authority of the Pope. The Pope is the only person in the world who can not make a mistake. He is infallible. If you refuse to believe that, you go to Hell. Sorry, no exceptions. You can’t just say that the Pope is just a kind old man. That’s not good enough. When the Pope speaks, it is God speaking. God created the Pope.
The Pope just died. He was a great man. He accomplished many things for mankind in the last 25 years. He became the best waver the world has ever known. No one could wave to a crowd better than the Pope. Millions came from all over the world to see the Pope wave. The Pope also mastered being a passenger in his Popemobile. Often he would combine the two; riding in the Popemobile and waving. It gave people great hope. The Pope waved goodbye to 5 million people in Africa last year because he forbade them to use condoms when having sex and they died of AIDS.
The Pope gave them hope as they died and as he waved goodbye to them. They had not sinned and they would be guaranteed eternal bliss in Heaven. Getting AIDS in Africa is God’s way of saying "Thank You" for not using a condom. Bless You.
Without birth control the population of the planet Earth is supposed to reach 9 billion from its present 5 billion by the year 2020. This is good. The more people the merrier. It’s not good to be alone. You might be tempted to have impure thoughts. And with 9 billion people we can really have some dandy wars. There are no plans on ending the menstrual cycle. Some things will stay the same.
People like Rev. (money grubber, dangerous educator) Jerry Fallwel, Rev. (prostitute solicitor) Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. (ex-con, scam artist) Jim Baker, Rev. (phony faith healer) Benny Hinn, Rev. (presidential advisor to more than four dishonest American Presidents) Billy Graham, Rev. (ex-alcoholic) Billy Graham, Jr., Rev. (murderer of 900 gullible people) Jim Jones, and Rev. (God Almighty, to think he was running for President) TV Evangelist phony, Pat Robertson - will, through no fault of their own all be going to Hell. God is not fooled by them.
The Pope makes Saints. To become a Saint you have to submit an application but it takes about a hundred years to get approved and you have to prove you performed a miracle, not just a card trick, but a real miracle. If you become a Saint people will pray to you and ask you for favors, just like lobbyists do to President Bush and to Congressmen and Senators. It’s the same type of system except that Saints usually don’t grant you your request. If you pay a Senator enough money he will grant you your request.
The present (now departed) Pope was Pope John II. His main function was to wave at crowds from a window. Every 20 years he would write a pamphlet called an Encyclical that states that "nothing in the world should change". The people usually hail it as a masterpiece of progressive religious legislation. When famous people come to Rome they get to meet with the Pope and get their picture taken with him. Some of them kiss his ring. He blesses them. And off they go.
The rest of the millions upon millions of people that travel from all over the world to see God’s main spokesperson get a wave. Sometimes he ventures out in his Popemobile that is a special mini-van with bullet proof windows so no one can kill him.
If you don’t do what God and the Pope says than you get to go to Hell. All Protestants automatically go to Hell according to the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Jews killed Jesus even though Jesus Himself was a Jew, so Jews are goners. Muslims are some kind of aberration. In eleven years of Catholic education I never even knew what a Muslim was. They were Arabs, in robes, that rode on camels in the desert for no apparent reason. All citizens of Africa will go to Hell because they are Pagans.
Hell is a busy place. God may be loving, but He has a very quick temper. One curse word, one impure, lustful thought, one unrepressed sexual urge in an unmarried state, one lingering doubt about Jesus - all these things can land you in Hell and probably will.
I certainly don’t want to alarm you but Hell is probably your destiny. It’s hot there. Picture the worst hot flash you have ever had and multiply it by 1000. Everyone you hate is there. Picture a party where all the people that you detest, despise and hate the most are all crammed into one big auditorium, with no ventilation, and everyone is yelling and screaming and sweating - and you are right in the middle. There are no chairs. No doors or windows. No food, no water and no cell phones. And all the toilets are backed up. And you are stuck there for life. That’s Hell.
All the praying and all the church-going and all the last minute remorse is not going to save you. Changing your life is not going to save you. Begging for forgiveness is not going to save you. God is all wrathful. God is all just. And God is out to get you. You can run, but you can’t hide. HE knows you did it. And don’t try to tell him you didn’t. He keeps detailed records on your life. You can’t BS Him. He has the evidence. You can’t get away.
The only people in Heaven are the Saints, so good luck. Most of the Popes are in Heaven too and that is where they continue to wave to all the people in Hell. It’s rewarding. The Catholic Church is the richest single entity on the face of the earth. It is richer than the U.S Federal Government.
No one knows who actually collects all the money, how it gets to Rome, or what the money is spent on. Much of it has been spent on legal defenses for priests from Boston for preying upon (not praying upon) young boys. Once the Pope apologized for 5,000 priests that molested young innocent boys. That was a nice gesture because 5,000 pedophiles is a lot of pedophiles.
Of course, the whole story about Creationism and Evolution got out of hand, which is where we are today. There are more than 12 different versions of the Bible all claiming to be the one true version. There are more than 25 versions of the 10 Commandments all claiming to be the one and only true version of the 10 Commandments. This is good because it gives one a lot of choices. Of course, the wrong choice will get you straight into Hell.
Can you believe all this happened in 6,000 years. The Great Pyramids were built only 5,000 years ago. It’s all so incredible. It’s all proof that there is a God. He’s probably monitoring your emails right now.
And that’s where the story ends of how God created the world. It’s called Creationism.
Most people who believe in Creationism suffer from cretinism and are called Cretins. It is a form of Christianity. It is in the Webster’s New World Dictionary.
Note: At first the Earth was flat but things kept falling off the edge. In about the 1400’s or so God reshaped Earth and made it into a round ball. Galileo was the first man to discover that the Earth had been changed from flat to round.
By making the Earth round it meant that mankind could no longer get into outer space by jumping off the edge of the Earth; we would have to develop a Space Shuttle which proved to be much less efficient and much more costly than just jumping off of the Earth.
Up until the 1400’s millions of people (then referred to as God’s Children) had jumped off the edge of the then flat Earth. Some did it as a form of recreation and adventure; others did it to try to travel to other planets; and others were simply dragged to the edge by hostile medieval mobs and thrown over the edge.
No one really knows what happened to any of them. Nearly all of them were last seen just flying off the edge, screaming obscenities like Holy Shit or yelling out "Jesus Christ" and disappearing out into the far reaches of outer space.
When God change the Earth into a round ball, all that changed. Some dimwitted people continued to try to jump off the edge but there was no edge and they looked pretty stupid since one can not effectively jump off a round ball. The round Earth also meant that mankind could now travel around in circles and never really get anywhere.
Christopher Columbus was the first man to try out the new circle-shaped Earth but Columbus bumped into a place called North America because God stuck a new Hemisphere called the "New World" right in the middle of the ocean between Europe and India.
Ferdinand Magellan was the fist person to circumnavigate the globe. When Magellan finished his journey he said, "Holy Shit, it’s a circle." He quickly wrote down something called "Pie-R-Squared" and the number 3.14. He discovered Geometry, and eventually the letter "F" for "Failing Grade" was developed for all those who studied Geometry. It was all part of God’s master plan.
God had once told Adam to go to his doctor and ask him if possibly Zoloft or Viagra "was right for him." Adam explained to God that there were no doctors on Earth yet since he, Adam, was the only living person. God thundered back, "Oh yeah, I forgot."
God decided that there should be doctors so He created the "Hippocratic Oath" but then He remembered that there was no one named Hippocrates so He waited until the year 300 BC and He created Hippocrates, the first doctor. Dr. Hippocrates took his own oath and opened up an office. He did research and developed the co-pay, the deductible, the limitation and exclusion, and the dreaded appeal process for denied claims. His practice thrived. Everyone wanted to take the Hippocratic Oath that basically said, "Do no harm."
God liked the "Do no harm" slogan so He developed Hell where He could have people sent to be eternally tortured with red-hot coals, white hot lava, and hot pokers and pitchforks. He created the Devil (who was 1000 times worse than Adolph Hitler) to carry out His work. The Devil was red and had a long tail and pointed hears. He ran a tight ship. No one escaped.
God sent nearly everyone to Hell, mostly on trumped up charges or false allegations made by members of the right wing, conservative, Republican Christian coalition. God also sent them to Hell since He really didn’t like snitches or tattletales either. Most of the people allowed in Heaven were actually atheists or agnostics who had no axe to grind and went about their daily business as non-believers. Atheists had a lot more time on their hands since they didn’t have to pray.
Footnote: In the Bible, the word used for the pee pee was originally "the doodle" however, through the centuries "doodle" came to represent a word of vulgarity, hence, "doodle" is never, ever allowed - not in any version of the Bible and not even on TV during prime time hours.
Conclusion: Evolution can be proven because in the year 2,000 we have electrical sockets and plugs called "the male plug" and "the female socket." These two items which can be purchased in any local Ace Hardware Store, evolved from Adam and Eve themselves. It is direct proof that the wee wee and the pee pee that God Himself designed and created at the time of Creationism eventually evolved through the process of Evolution into the modern day electrical apparatus.
Also, when the male electrical plug is inserted into the female electrical socket a completed electrical circuit is completed resulting in the "birth" of an electrical current. So, the next time you are at Home Depot ask the clerk, "can you tell me where I would find the pee pee and the wee wee," and they will know exactly what you are talking about. So help me God! If not, ask them what aisle the "privates" are on.
Why The "Fundamentalist" Approach To Religion Must Be Wrong!
This is from a blog by Scott Bidstrup. Access his blog at;
Fundamentalism is variously described by various authors, but to me it really boils down to a rather simple test: In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
Fundamentalist religions make this choice because they uniformly place a high priority on doctrinal conformity, with such force that it takes higher priority than love, compassion and service.
Indeed, many fundamentalists are so caught up in doctrinal seriousness, that love, service and compassion seem scarcely to even be a part of their thinking. As one correspondent said to me regarding a certain Christian sect's converts, "Its like they go in and surgically remove any sense of love or any sense of humor."
This emphasis on doctrinal conformity seems to be the result of the belief in the requirement of absolute conformity to doctrine to achieve salvation. Yet at the same time, many will also officially claim that simple acceptance of that sect's doctrine is sufficient for salvation.
This dichotomy is often seen in the same sect; some of the fundamentalist Christian sects being good examples. The contradiction seems to go unnoticed or if it is noticed, it is ignored.
It seems that another facet of fundamentalist thinking is belief in the correctness of their thinking. Invariably, they will make the claim that they are right to the exclusion of others, even all others, and that they, and they alone offer the path to salvation.
Fundamentalist religions regard their missions with great seriousness. Many claim that the salvation of the world depends on them, and some will seriously contend that the earth will end without them.
It is this overwhelming seriousness about religion that seems to be one of the hallmarks of the fundamentalist. He is concerned not only with his own conformity to doctrine, but the conformity of the rest of society to it, too. Many fundamentalists will not hesitate to intervene in the political process to ensure that society is forced to conform to the behaviors their world view requires, if not accept that world view.
The belief that they are right, without any question, justifies, in their own minds, taking upon themselves the right to impose their point of view, by force if neccessary. An example is the attempt, by some Christian fundamentalist groups to shut down, by force, abortion clinics that are operating in accordance with the law. Some have gone so far as to threaten and intimidate employees, and even murder doctors working there.
Fundamentalism isn't restricted to Christianity or Islam, the two major religions on which it has had its greatest impact, but it is found in every major religion, ranging from Judaism, to Hinduism, to Sufism, to Buddhism, to even Zoroastrianism.
In Christianity, though relatively small in numbers, it has overtaken the legitimate sects in influence, and has become the dominant force, particularly in the United States, much of Latin America, and in the Christianized African nations. Most (though certainly not all) "evangelical" Christian sects have succumbed to fundamentalism.
In Islam, which has always eschewed the separation of church and state, it has amalgamated with political forces to institute a particularly harsh set of rules as political law. Called the Sharia,this code of law is the law of the land in Iran, the Sudan, some of the sultanates of the Persian Gulf and lately in Afganistan. Its advocates threaten to institute Sharia in Algeria and Egypt as well.
In Judaism, fundamentalism represents only about 1/10th of those who call themselves Jews, but it certainly makes the most noise, especially in Israel, whose constitution and political situation almost guarantees a major voice to fundamentalist sects in parliament and government, even though they are only a small portion of the population.
Why does fundamentalism have such a broad appeal? Besides the appeal to vanity ('join us and you can be one of God's chosen'), and its appeal to fear ('you can't be saved without us'), its broad appeal is because it offers an easy way -- a fundamentalist need not think deeply about doctrine or be highly educated in it; as one Mormon leader once said to an audience of university students, "Don't think for yourself. The thinking has already been done."
If you surrender your right to think for yourself and just do as the leader asks, the fundamentalist promises you a sure ticket into heaven. What could be easier?
Of course, the fallacy is that the possibility always exists that the fundamentalist leader seeking your submission could be wrong. He may not have a sure ticket into heaven to offer you after all. And if he doesn't, you've engaged in an act of self deception of massive proportions.
Indeed, I am prepared to argue that he never does. He is always wrong, at least to some degree.
"Bidstrup's Index of Fundamentalism"
It has been observed that one of the characteristics of fundamentalism is that among patriarchialistic religions, at least, chavinism is a clear, almost defining characteristic. Indeed, it has been my experience that the degree of chavinism within a religion seems to closely parallel the degree to which the organization could be charactarized as fundamentalist.
Based on that observation, I hereby propose what I'm somewhat laughingly calling "Bidstrup's Index of Fundamentalism." It is basically just a measure of the degree to which women's rights are abrogated by the religion's doctrine and the culture that the religion creates. It is scored like this: If a religious organization is characterized by each or any of the statements below, add the points indicated to the score.
Does the religion deny to women the same religious privileges and authority it accords to men (such as denying the priesthood)? If so, add 2 points.
Does the religion seek to deny women secular (i.e., usually political) power (e.g., the right to vote, run for office, etc.)? If so, add 3 points.
Does the religion impose greater 'moral' burdens on women than it does men (i.e., promote a double standard)? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion seek to promote unquestioning submission of wives to their husbands? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion promote involuntary marriage arrangements (such as arranged marriages, involuntary polygamy, denial of divorce initiated by the wife, etc.)? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion discourage the participation of non-parenting wives in the workforce? If so, add 3 points.
If the above question is no, does the religion discourage the participation of parenting wives in the workforce regardless of economic circumstances? If so, add 3 points.
Does the religion discourage the education of women? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion encourage women to remain at home, with contact with other women and men in the community discouraged? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion accept or promote the treatment of women as property or a commodity, or treat wives as servants? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion seek to deny women their reproductive freedom (taking a "pro-life" position on abortion, or discouraging or interfering with artificial contraception)? If so, add 5 points.
Does the religion seek to deny women the full right of self-determination, dignity and self respect that they accord men ("at home, barefoot and pregnant")? If so, add 4 points.
Does the religion publicly humiliate women who violate the prohibitions that apply only to women? If so, add 3 points.
By applying this little index, it will help measure the degree of intolerance and bigotry associated with a fundamentalist religion. This, then, becomes an index to how dangerous a religion is, as defined below.
Why Fundamentalism Denies The Power Of God
The greatest philosophical problem of fundamentalism is that it denies the power of God. Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) proclaimed the belt buckles of the Nazi SS storm troopers. Of course, every religious fundamentalist makes the same claim. The way that the fundamentalist justifies the exercise of his influence and power in society is that God is on his side, and needs his efforts to see that God's work is done.
The famous Christian fundamentalist political technician, Ralph Reed, even says of himself, "I'm the stealth candidate... I paint my face and travel at night." How does he morally justify that kind of deceptive behavior? Does the end justify the means? Or is God simply incapable of implementing His own agenda without Ralph's help?
Does God really need the fundamentalist's efforts?
To make the claim that God needs one's efforts is a flat-out denial of the power of God. Claiming that God is omnipotent and omniscient is to imply that nothing happens in the universe that isn't happening with the knowledge and consent of God. How could it happen without the knowledge of God?
It has to be that way if you accept the omniscience of God. If God doesn't allow it, how can it happen? Otherwise, God would not be omnipotent. If God allows it, it implies at least knowledge and consent.
Why, then, must God require the services of the fundamentalist to ensure that His will happens in the Universe?
If the homosexual were as abhorrent to God as most fundamentalists imply, the homosexual wouldn't last a millisecond. Otherwise, God cannot be omnipotent. Why would an omnipotent God need someone else to persecute the homosexual for Him?
If God is saying, "I'll let him live, but he's still abhorrent" it implies that God's behavior isn't consistent with what He wants. Why would God want something abhorrent to him to continue to exist?
Then there's proselytization.
There is a saying in Buddhism that where the student is ready, the teacher is provided. Such a concept certainly affirms the power of God to bring the word of God to the sincere seeker. Why then, does the fundamentalist almost always assume that God needs him to go out and spread God's word? If God is omnipotent, He doesn't need anyone to proselytize on His behalf. He's quite capable of steering the seeker in the direction of His word all by Himself.
Why Fundamentalism Appeals To The Base Tendencies In Man
The reason that fundamentalism makes the claim that God needs his services is that it flatters the fundamentalist. He gets a self-stroke out of the deal. Makes him feel good about himself and what he's doing.
But it doesn't stop there. When you figure God is on your side, you can justify almost anything. Recently a spate of bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars in North America has underlined how far this self-justification can take the fundamentalist. Even murder has been justified by those claiming the authority of God.
Of course, if God wasn't willing to allow abortion, it wouldn't happen. And if God didn't want the obstetrician-gynecologist to live, he would last even a millisecond. So why does God need the fundamentalist to carry out his will? But this does not occur to the fundamentalist, since his conception of God's word becomes his self-justification for acts he would find abhorrent in any other context.
This isn't the only base appeal in fundamentalism. Another appeal, equally damaging, is the notion that you're one of "God's chosen." Such an idea is an outright appeal to vanity and ego. Here the unspoken implication is that if you're one of God's chosen, the other fellow isn't, and that you're somehow therefore better.
This appeal to vanity can set the fundamentalist apart in his own mind from his peers. It can justify a certain arrogance in thinking he is superior. This is seen in just about any public debate involving fundamentalists and those who oppose them -- just watch the attitude of the fundamentalist when the subject of abortion rights or gay rights comes up.
Another belief common to fundamentalists is that they are somehow less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of life. God will somehow protect him, because he is chosen to do God's will. Of course if that were actually true, it would be reflected in statistical analysis.
Science has studied this problem extensively and has never been able to show a correlation between fundamentalist belief and any measure of well-being. To the fundamentalist who holds this view, however, it just means science is wrong.
Fundamentalism often justifies hatred in the minds of its adherents. This is undoubtedly the most dangerous aspect of fundamentalism. The idea that God hates the same people you do is particularly gratifying in that it makes the indulgence in hatred not only acceptable, but somehow approved and even encouraged by God.
This is seen most clearly in many fundamentalist Islamic sects, which routinely justify terrorism and murder as being "God's will." Of course, Islamic fundamentalism isn't alone. There are plenty of Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist sects which do the same.
The results are obvious. Terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is framed in religious terms, war in the Middle East, domestic terror in Egypt, Algeria, and in countless other conflicts around the world are the results of hatred justified by the fundamentalist notion that my side is right and the other side is wrong.
If the religionists involved adhered to the concept that the purpose of religion is to teach tolerance, love and compassion, such conflicts would not exist. But they are justified to the fundamentalist, because he believes that God is on his side and will reward him for his acts that in any other context, he himself would condemn.
Sincere people who come to religion often come as a result of guilt and shame. Such a motivator often leads the seeker to a fundamentalist religion which tries to assure the follower that he need not concern himself with his guilt and shame because of some doctrine which exempts him from responsibility for the situations that cause that guilt and shame. Among many Christian fundamentalist groups, that exemption is found in the doctrine of the redemption of Christ.
That sense of exemption relieves the guilt and shame, and thereby makes the follower feel good. That good feeling is then often associated with the notion that the follower has been 'saved.'
Often the price the religion extracts for that 'salvation' is a requirement to contribute to the church or to proselytization its behalf, or at bare minimum, conformity to the doctrine and the advice of the leadership. Hence, the follower is made loyal to the religion which has relieved him of that guilt and shame, and a true-believer and often zealous advocate is born.
Why Fundamentalism Accepts Hypocrisy
Fundamentalism, like any other belief system, has to propagate itself in order to survive and prosper.
A method used by many fundamentalist Christian religions, is to appeal in very subtle ways to some of the baser instincts in man.
It is obvious that telling someone he is right is more likely to get him to agree with you than telling him he is wrong and should reform himself.
And so fundamentalist sects do just that; they have justified slavery to slaveholders. They have justified persecution of unpopular minorities to bigots, and war to nationalists. They have justified disregard and even oppression of the poor and dispossessed by the wealthy and powerful.
What have the fundamentalist sects gained by such behavior? Obviously it is membership and financial support among members, and an acceptance and acquiesence among its neighbors.
Yet a fundamentalist religion cannot make such base appeals openly. To do so would be to deny the principles of religion that make religion a positive force in the minds of most people. Religion must be respectable to survive for long, so fundamentalist sects will invariably pay a great deal of lip service to the ideals of true religion, all the while ignoring them in practice, and occasionally even being contemptuous of them in private.
An example is the anti-abortion movement; while it makes a lot of noise about the sanctity of life, rarely do its adherents concern themselves with the lives of the babies after they're born. The reason why is that they don't really care about the infants; what they really care about is the control.
Why Fundamentalism Promotes Intolerance
The fundamentalist believes that he is right. Period.
He believes he knows the will of God. We've all seen that bumper sticker that says, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Of course the fallacy is that there's no proof, or even reliable evidence, that God ever said anything.
When someone takes such a doctrinaire approach to religion, without being willing to accept that he may be wrong, it becomes very easy to believe that he knows what's right for everyone else as well.
When he believes that he knows what is best for everyone else, it is a very short leap to the feeling that he has the right, if not the responsibility to impose on others the point of view he is so sure is not only correct, but even infallible. After all it is for their own good, is it not?
Thus the fundamentalist has, by his conviction that he is correct, justified the extinction, by force if neccessary, of opposing points of view. This is why so many highly public fundamentalists take positions that would not only be familiar, but quite comfortable to most fascists.
This is why Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, feels justified in saying that he doesn't want pluralism. It is why Ralph Reed used to describe himself as the "stealth" candidate, "painting [his] face and travelling at night."
The philosophical Achilles' heel, here of course, is that the fundamentalist can be wrong, and occasionally have to admit it. There are few Southern Baptists today who would openly argue that God meant for people of African descent to be enslaved to people of European descent.
Yet that argument is precisely how the Southern Baptist Convention came into being. Now, a century and a half later, the doctrine seems to have changed, in spite of their notion that the Bible should be interpreted literally, and therefore it's meaning can't change.
Well, if the Southern Baptists were wrong about slavery, and later about segregation, those very facts beg the question, what else are they wrong about? Yet it is remarkable how few Southern Baptists ever stop to consider that question. The belief is that by asking such questions, you're somehow falling into "Satan's trap" as if logical inconsistency wasn't itself a trap.
Of course, the Southern Baptists aren't alone. A favorite example of mine is the Mormon practice of polygamy in the 19th century. For five decades, the Mormons endured considerable persecution in the practice of their belief in polygamy; yet today, a century after the official practice of polygamy ended in the Mormon church, that church is using precisely the same arguments against gay marriage that were used against them in the practice of polygamy a century ago. And the proponents of gay marriage are using the same arguments in favor of gay marriage that the Mormons used in arguing for polygamy then.
Yet the ironic hypocrisy of that position is totally lost on the current generation of Mormon leadership and even many of the members.
Why Fundamentalism Contradicts The Intent Of Founding Prophets
The purpose of religion is to teach love, both for self and for others. Indeed, living in the state of self-love is "the kingdom of heaven" that Jesus and other founding prophets talked about being "within you."
When one has self-love and self-respect, one respects others, because one sees reflected in others the empathy, compassion and love one sees in oneself. It is this insight that the founding prophets of all major religions have tried to convey to their followers. It is arriving at the point of living this ideal that has been, from the beginning of time, the goal of the sincere seeker and the true, undefiled religion.
Achieving this self-love, however, can be difficult. It requires self-examination, which at times can be intensely painful. Not everyone is up to that kind of self-discipline.
A religious leader seeking to fill the pews with contributing churchgoers at some level has to know this. Yet he must fill the pews to keep the lights on, the furnace running and the maintenance paid.
The temptation is there to do what will fill the pews. And filling the pews can be really much easier, if all you feel you have to do is make the worshipper feel good about being there.
If making the worshipper feel good is all you're after, and you don't care how you do it, the easiest way to do it is to assure him his prejudices are approved by God. Make him feel that he doesn't have to change because he's already arrived at salvation, or, as in the case of the Christian doctrine of redemption, someone else has agreed to pay for his mistakes, or you or God can make the changes for him, and you have a loyal church member. It's, oh, so much easier than telling him he has to work on himself!
Yet the founding prophets never did such things. Jesus Christ and Ghatama Buddha and the prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) and many others all knew of the fallacy of such an approach and did not advocate it. They were totally honest with themselves and their followers, that salvation requires personal effort and sacrifice.
Those who sincerely seek spiritual growth intuitively know this. This is why sincere followers are attracted to the words of the founding prophets like bees are drawn to nectar laden flowers. The sincere seeker already knows he is going to have to work on himself, and is looking for the best method by which to do it. As he seeks that path, and he finds his personal insights match those of the prophet, the seeker is drawn to the prophet's wisdom.
Unfortunately, for every sincere seeker, there are a thousand people driven to religion by fear, guilt and shame. These negative emotions are then played upon by religionists who seek to fill the pews with compliant, profitable members. It is my contention that many, if not most fundamentalist organizations have fallen into this trap.
How Fundamentalism Promotes Ignorance
Fundamentalism almost invariably has a problem with science. Science is the process of starting with the evidence and proceeding to the conclusion that best fits the evidence, regardless of what that conclusion may be.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion and searches for evidence to support that conclusion.
Anyone who has ever been wrong knows that the latter is no way to find the truth, because it presumes the searcher has the truth to begin with, which of course may or may not be the case.
But this doesn't stop the fundamentalist; the very premise of fundamentalism presumes to start with the truth, and all the fundamentalist lacks is evidence. This false science has even become an industry in such organizations as the Institute for Creation Science, the Family Research Council, etc. There are many other examples, and from many religions besides just Christianity.
This can most clearly be seen in the Christian fundamentalist's hard-core, bedrock belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. While there are numerous contradictions, obvious errors and serious problems with doctrine in the Bible, the Christian fundamentalist simply ignores them at worst, and applies tortured, twisted logic in an effort to explain them at best.
But in the final analysis, the Bible speaks for itself, and anyone who takes the time to seriously study it will be impressed at how many irreconcilable problems there are with the Bible.
How can the fundamentalist read the Bible and ignore the irreconcilable contradictions? It is done by compartmentalized thinking, a thought technique that allows two or more contradictory facts to inhabit the mind at the same time in peace and without conflict. Yet when the contradiction is directly pointed out to the fundamentalist, the reaction is to claim that such an argument is "one of Satan's traps."
It really isn't, of course, it's just truth coming to call. But the notion that such nagging thoughts are the devil's tools are the way the inerrantist maintains peace in his mind.
Why Fundamentalism Is A Force For Evil In Society
By distracting otherwise sincere people from honest self-examination and the spiritual growth it makes possible, and by obstructing honest scientific inquiry and intellectual debate, fundamentalism derails the progress that society would achieve by honest, competent religious practice.
But more than that, fundamentalism all too often justifies in its adherents' minds the prejudices, the zealotry, the intolerance and the hatemongering that are all the most base of human instincts. To gain and keep adherents, these religions can do great violence to human freedom and dignity, and often are the source of much economic and social stagnation and even ruin. Much human misery owes its origins to fundamentalist religion and the spiritual corruption it fosters.
Why Fundamentalism Should Be Fought
Human progress is essentially a search for truth. To the extent that fundamentalism blocks or impedes that search for the truth, it blocks or impedes human progress. True religion is a relentless search for and acceptance of truth about yourself and the universe in which you find yourself regardless of the discomfort that truth may cause.
One of the insights of the American democracy has been the unique justice of the concept of equal protection of the law. Unfortunately, fundamentalism undermines that concept by promoting its political philosophy as superior to others, even though it is often wrong, and thereby undermines the egalitarian foundations of western democratic institutions.
An example of this is the hard fight that the Southern Baptists fought in the last century to preserve the institution of slavery, and the fight to preserve segregation in this century. Those fights were all based on Biblical scripture, of course, but few fundamentalists today would still defend these positions.
Fundamentalism of any stripe is not progress, but rather, I contend, is the impedance of progress. With so many problems facing humanity, the notion that we can even afford the luxury of even tolerating politically active brands of fundamentalism is rapidly becoming impossible.
The world gets continually smaller as it gets more crowded, and the imposition, by public policy, of religious doctrines on others who know better is a sure recipe for strife. It has been the cause of enormous death and suffering over the centuries.
As the world becomes ever more crowded, there are fewer and fewer places to which a refugee of conscience can escape. For this reason, it is imperative that we strive to make our nations as egalitarian as possible, affording for all the freedom of conscience to all equally and without acceding to the presumption of superior wisdom by any religious group. Environmental pressures caused by rapidly expanding human populations, make public policy decisions based on the best available information and hypotheses, elucidated by honest intellectual inquiry, increasingly urgent.
Some fundamentalist religious groups, which seek to strike down the wall of separation between church and state so that they can impose their views on others, work in opposition to this increasingly urgent need.
- EVERYONE SEEMS NORMAL UNTIL YOU GET TO KNOW THEM! -
Middle aged hetrosexual, WASP male. Middle of the road, reasonably sane and reasonably employed.
Labels: sceptics circle
Labels: jewish federation of seattle