Undoubtedly one of the most frustrating arguments I engage in with the discussion of atheism is that of how one finds (or knows) their moral compass. Almost every religious apologist (William Lane Craig, being a prime example), seeks to undermine natural morality because it supposedly leaves only one alternative: religion and, more specifically, god provide us our morality. This claim, I think, is false on its face. Looking at most cultures, we see morality that converges on a common principle: do onto others as you would have them do onto you. I think the general perception in the West is that this sort of wisdom was given to us divinely by Christ, but I find it more compelling that the Chinese philosopher Confucius espoused this principle 500 years before Christ, without resorting to god or organized religion to develop such an idea:

“Adept Kung asked: “Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?”
The Master replied: “How about ’shu’ [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?”"
- Analects XV.24

Still, the argument often goes that not believing in god but believing in evolution will lead to doing things we would consider immoral. To support such a point, it is often said that Hitler was an atheist, and that his practice of Eugenics (artificially selecting the “lesser” individuals to permit reproduction amongst only the “finest” humans with the purpose of creating a “better” human species) was directly tied to his belief in evolution. Thus, it follows that atheism and evolution can be seen as intellectual positions that in some way endorse or promote immorality.  Personally, I am of the opinion that those who are using Hitler as a key part to their argument are not only mischaracterizing the position they are challenging, but also reducing the real evil committed by Hitler.  Interesting though this argument may seem (and perhaps even plausible to some), I think a careful look at facts, not hyperbole, best explains why this is simply incorrect.

First, let’s speculate a moment on whether or not Hitler believed in evolution. One wonders why, if Hitler believed in evolution and was an atheist, the Nazis adhered to the following guidelines in book banning:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

“6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism”

“c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.”

Hitler’s literary work, Mein Kampf, also has a similar leaning:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”

“The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

The faith of Hitler has long been a matter of debate because parties generally assume that if we can put Hitler on the other party’s side, we have won the argument.  The general consensus among historians is that Hitler was probably an atheist who manipulated the religious devotion of the German citizens, while presenting himself as a sort of Messiah, to achieve his goals.  Some consider that a “win” for theistic morality, though I think it speaks more to the manner in which adherence to irrational religion can be manipulated; in other words, it speaks to the element of danger involved in forming beliefs that aren’t grounded in reason or science.

But let’s consider exactly what is being suggested here: if person P believes claim C and claim D, does it follow that every person who believes claim C also believes claim D? On the contrary, I think it is clear that we develop our beliefs for a wide range of reasons, and this often creates an asymmetry between multiple claims. It doesn’t take much work for us to discover some beliefs at which we arrived for reasons we would discard immediately for other claims. In the context of this conversation, I think it can be said that we should assess claims not by comparing the actions of others who believed that claim, but by assessing the claim itself. Thus, if we want to determine whether atheism or evolution leads to immorality, we should be assessing atheism and evolution, not the behaviour of those who professed belief. After all, it is perfectly possible for us to take factual information and distort it to support irrational actions or conclusions; in fact, this is the usual religious explanation for why so many bad things, historically speaking, have been done in the name of god.

So now, let’s actually assess whether or not it is possible to be moral without god if we are the products of evolution rather than a divine plan.

It is pretty obvious that most atheists are perfectly able to reconcile their lack of belief with a desire to be good to other people. That is a simple fact borne out by interacting with people of such disbelief. Being a young, white male living in the Western world, I am a part of the largest growing group in religious polling: those who check “None of the above.” Yet, we see that people you know are atheists, and people who are closet atheists, are certainly capable of functioning morally in society.

Of course, it is completely possible that these people are acting irrationally; perhaps their lack of belief really does mean that they should rape, pillage, and plunder, but they have been coerced by the religious aspects of society to behave in what is typically considered a moral manner. Nonetheless, I think understanding our evolutionary background doesn’t hinder us from being moral; it gives a real account of why we are good to others.

I will now pose a hypothesis; I call it a hypothesis simply because I’m not current enough on the literature to claim authority, though I know much of this hypothesis has been advanced successfully in the past, and I believe that evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology supports such a hypothesis.

Many moons ago, we were tribal animals. With scarce resources and high competition, we learned that we could be more successful hunter-gatherers if we pooled our skills with others and worked as a team. As one group formed, so did another, and instead of a battle of the individual, we had battles between tribes. This was the first step in developing our moral sense. Within each group, a certain type of conduct was necessary; failing to behave in a way that was condoned by the rest of the group would result in you being ousted, now having to fend against competition with groups as a lonely individual. I would consider this the beginning of codefied rules, as informal as they may have been. Having established that a group code would have inevitably formed, we must wonder how they came up with rules we generally consider to be good or moral. Here, I think the answer is obvious: any actions that are detrimental to the group’s success would be considered wrong. So murder within the group goes out the window; killing off your group members would defeat the purpose of forming the group in the first place. We can also extrapolate our desire to remain in the group to a more individual perspective as well: staying within the group will result in our personal success; we are more likely to stay in the group if none of the members of the group dislike us; and the members of the group are unlikely to dislike you if you do nothing to warrant it. Initially, this was likely a reactive position: we weren’t able to reason it out in advance, but discovered it after a multitude of bad “social experiments.” It wasn’t until much later that we were able to determine such things proactively using our limited intellect, prior to taking action.

So within the group, I think we’ve established that there were good reasons for being moral. A common question is: why would we extend the same rules to those out of our group, particularly to those who are not of our lineage? The answer here is actually a little disappointing. First, we don’t do this very well; humans are very ethnocentric and often cave to in-group thinking. Still, our social nature that was established in our more primitive times encourages us to extend morality and general decency to those who we interact with. The field of neuroscience, where the brain is scanned and images are generated highlighting areas of activity, have shown repeatedly that we respond very well to doing altruistic acts: when we do something for someone else, the areas of the brain associated with satisfaction and pleasure “light up.” We see similar behaviour in other social species as well.

Aside from that, we have some very real evidence that tells us that behaving in what is considered a moral manner is a beneficial plan for us to be successful, and not just pleasing to us personally. Many game theory experiments have shown that a Tit for Tat method, or generally being altruistic until you get burned, will, over the long haul, provide you with greater success, even if we define success in terms of acquiring resources. I think we can go out on a day-to-day basis and experience the same thing: people will generally do better by you if you do better by them. Certainly, there are those who “get away with it”, but that is rarely a good plan for long-term success. What is often called Karma is nothing other than our inability to escape from our past misdeeds; it is the deserved punishment from society for abandoning what is ultimately the best course of action for all of us.

So it seems clear to me that atheism and evolution are perfectly congruent with being a moral person. Our ability to survive and pass on our DNA is better advanced by behaving morally in society than it would be to behave immorally. Still, three issues seem to me to be on the table.

1. Haven’t we made mistakes in the past? Hasn’t our moral sense misguided us many, many times throughout history? If specific morality hasn’t been revealed to us divinely in a simple set of rules (say, the Ten Commandments), how do we determine what is right? Though I think we can argue that the following the golden rule or perhaps John Stuart Mill’s “harm-principle” is something we can intuitively agree on, I want to question whether the divine revelation of moral principles has actually been practiced, or if it works any better. Is it not true that there are extraordinary disagreements on what constitutes morality amongst the religious, even within a particular sect? Is it not true that what is considered moral has changed over time even within a particular sect? I think here of the abolition of slavery, which has significant support from the Bible but was discarded because we discovered it to be immoral. Or, more recently, I think the unfortunately gradual shift on the morality of same-sex attraction, particularly in liberal Christianity, shows the same thing. My point is that even the most steadfast rules asserted by the religious require interpretation and value judgements. We are always discovering more about what works best in a moral sense, and we are always re-evaluating whether our rules and goals are consistent with what we see to be true in natural reality. This is why morality, whether secular or religious, has always been evolving, and will continue to do so in the future. It is up to us as a species to recognize our commonality with all other homo sapiens sapiens, and rationally determine what is the best moral approach for ensuring the best opportunity for success for all.

2. Was Darwin’s theory (though it should rightly be credited to Alfred Russell Wallace as well) really the catalyst for Eugenics? Though I have already argued that in the case of Hitler this is untrue, I would also say that Darwin’s theory had nothing to do with Eugenics whatsoever. Eugenics is the practice of artificial selection (as opposed to Darwin’s theory of natural selection) and this concept is something we understood long before Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. In fact, it was how we were able to domesticate dogs from wolves. Where Darwin changed our understanding was in how the constant tinkering and refining of natural selection produced all species, whereas Eugenics suggests that artifical selection will produce a more successful single species. These are two very different things.

3. If evolution is real (which I believe the evidence supports), wasn’t Hitler still justified in practicing Eugenics? Though we may have disagreed with his stance on a personal basis, could it not be argued that he is attempting to do what is ultimately best for all of us? I say, emphatically, that he could not be more wrong. Our knowledge of nature and of ourselves is incredibly insufficient. We are not in a position to know what is best now or will continue to be best in the future; that is something that remains to be seen. Suppose, for example, that we killed all people with a certain genetic defect. Suppose, however, that a future mutation of that specific gene would allow us to survive through unprecedented changes in our environment. Exaptation and adaptation have shown us again and again that how old parts can be cobbled together to serve new, important purposes. Indeed, I think the best way of ensuring the continued success of the human species is to maintain as diverse a gene pool as is reasonably possible; only by having many alternatives for nature to select from can we be certain that we can respond, in some way, to changing environmental conditions and stave off our own extinction.

It seems quite clear to me that the arguments put forth to discredit atheism do not only a poor job of its stated goal, but fail to put forth a positive argument for theistic morality (such as properly answering the Problem of Evil or Euthyphro’s Dilemma, or the misguidance given in many passages of divine text, whether its the New Testament, Old Testament, Koran, etc). To those who are moral and feel that their morality was only discovered through divine text, I encourage you to give yourself more credit, but I have no quarry with anyone who seeks only to be a good person. It is only when one attempts to take a moral high ground without justification that disagreements will arise, and hopefully that is something we can escape when we look at the evidence and arguments for each position through the shining light of reason.

My Uncle

Simon Aldfrid, my uncle, was a librarian. The best part of having a librarian uncle is that you don’t really have to go to the library to know Charles Dickens or Mario Puzo. Simon Uncle was more than a library himself. He believed that he belonged to the Angles and Saxons. Angles and Saxons had their roots in Germany. They migrated to Ancient Britain in the 5^th Century. And was later conquered by Normans when Hitler rose to power in Germany. Simon Uncle says that his people were forced to serve the British Army and later they were deported to India when East India Company handed over the wealth, power and integrity of the Nation to the Queen. Simon Uncle belonged to that mixed race of Angles, Saxons, Normans and finally Indians.

When Simon uncle belongs to that race, so do I. And he told me I should have at least 3 children and they should each have three and so on. When he said this, his eyes slid an inch and he fell into a trance.

I am Godwin Aldfrid, nephew of Simon Aldfrid.

The Ghosts

Godwin in ancient Angles literature means “a Friend of God”. I never had the chance to be-friend god. But I heard about the Ghosts.

I joined the school where Simon Uncle was the librarian. I was glad that he would be around. I met new friends and learnt to see the life fresh. This was a boarding school. I was happy about it.

There was a difference in my friends at primary school and those at boarding school. In my primary school, parents of my friends would sympathize with me, as I had none. And they made sure that their children are taking a note to realize how lucky they were to have parents. I always ended the conversation saying I have my uncle. In the new Boarding school, there were no parents. But a few confused minds.

There I learnt about the Ghosts. They were some frustrated Dictators re-born as senior students. They were supposed to be the guardians of hell. They were 2 and none really knew them. But they were everywhere. I began seeing them at night. And a friend said my bed is stinking of urine. I was hurt and spend lesser time in bed.

Obvious end of the Mystery

I go to Library when there is nothing to do. I loved to see Simon uncle overseeing the places where each author is supposed to sit. He knew what is there and where it is. He just knew everything my little brain could think of.

When I entered I saw his assistant, all smiles. He is Solomon. And thinks that Angles and Saxons really existed and that they were the supreme race on earth. It sounded like if they were not, he would loose his job.

“Where is Uncle?”

“He is inside with his favorite children.”

Well, I am his favorite. I thought. I could feel my chest pounding until I saw them sitting across a table and Uncle was talking about some thing. May be its Angles and Saxons.

They were 2 of them and were all ears to my uncle. The first guy was lean, terribly lean. He wore a heavy metal bangle on his hand – too heavy that his right side was always low compared to the left. His long fingers told me he could be an artiste. The second guy was dark and bald. He wore an attitude on his face – too much to let Uncle stop and think if this guy knew it better. His physique told me he could be an athlete.

Uncle looked at me. He smiled. Stopped his lecture. And called me to him.

“Well, Godwin. These are my children.”

He pointed to the artiste. “This is Jubith” and then he pointed to the athlete. “This is Sreejith”

Both gave me a cold look. The question was obvious.Who the hell are you?

“And this is my son. Godwin.” Uncle smiled at me. They did not care. May be its just because he calls every one his children. I wished to tell them that I really was his child. I stood close to my uncle.

They got up. Smiled at my Uncle. Gave me that cold look again. Walked out.

“They are good children. Just not the best.” Uncle smiled. Nobody got the certificate except me. And I knew why. I was either Angles or Saxons.

Arun Kumar ran in breathing heavily. Seeing Simon Uncle, he slowed his pace and tried to walk normal. Uncle did not seem to notice. I got up and went near him.

“What’s wrong?”

“Did you see them?”

“Who?”

“The Ghosts”

I felt my throat dry.” No. Where?”

“Arey yaar. They just walked out.”

I was confused.

“They were two. One guy had a heavy metal bangle.”

They are good children. Uncle’s voice echoed and trailed off.

The Crime

I was in 8^th class now. 2 years were long and eventful. It is Diwali and we are all waiting near the parade ground for Ragesh. He had promised us a gift on Diwali. He had said that we would celebrate the day “King Size”. What was that? May be he will come riding in a chariot and take us all to a palace where they served great non-vegetarian food.

He came late. There were no Chariots and he looked like a thief. He gathered us all under a rock and opened the cover he hid under his vest. It was a bottle. A bottle of Beer. Some one said, “WOW”. I felt like a moron sitting under the rock holding the bottle. Everybody drank from the bottle.

I was a team player. I joined the team.

It was dark now and the fireworks blessed the place from heaven. Diwali was in the air and people were gathering in the parade ground to have a glimpse of it.

Ragesh was talking some crap about how-he-got-the-bottle stories. He was blabbering about his local contacts. Everybody was on a high. And everybody got a turn to boast about something. Everybody listened to the speaker with utmost patience. And silently nodded when the speaker concluded. We made no noise to catch the attention of people around. Someone pointed at me. It was my time to boast.

I had nothing in this world to boast about. Except the supreme race I come from. But no one would be interested in that except Simon Uncle. I decided to cook up a story.

“I met the Ghosts.” Immediately I had all the attention, focused.

“I saw them stealing a book from the library. They realized I have seen it when they were walking out. If I tell my uncle about this, they are gone. They pleaded to me. I said I would consider.”

There was a silence. They could not believe what I said. But soon all were glad and clapped their hands loud. I became a Hero. We did not mind the noise. Everybody was relieved of the frustration they were carrying since the day they joined the school. A rocket went up to burst into wonderful flowers. In the light of the fireworks, I saw 2 men standing behind the rock. Their face was barely visible. But the heavy metal that hanged down a fragile hand reflected colors that came from the Sky.

I could feel my sweat running down the forehead. I fainted and collapsed.

MI Room

I opened my eyes. I could not open it fully, though. It hurt. I knew something has happened. The fan had n number of leaves and it looked like it was a complete circle – Like a stretched Kimono. The colors were just the shades of Grey. I am familiar with this place. This is the Medical Infirmary Room – fondly called MI Room.

I could see Simon Uncle sitting next to me holding hands. His eyes were full. I tried to move my hand, I could not; neither could I move my legs. There was something terribly wrong.

“None of your friends stood for you.”

It took some time for me to understand what Simon Uncle was talking about. Was he continuing something that he was talking before I opened my eyes?

“But I can’t leave my son behind for some ruthless…” The sound faded away or maybe, I was not interested. He might talk of the racial supremacy now.

I could see the shadow of the Ghosts in the night lit by Diwali. The heavy metal glare hit my eyes sharper. It felt like I will faint again.

“… And I got them suspended from School. The Ghosts are no more.” It sounded more like an echo.

What did he just say now? Suspended. Did I de-fame the Ghosts? With obvious fear and not love, my eyes were full. My hands and legs hurt worse. There was a hot liquid that was going down my stomach. It accumulated and begged to be free. I did not know what to do. I did not know how my friends would great me. Definitely I would not be given a war hero’s welcome.  I would be labeled a Complaint Box. I did not want to do this. God, I did not want to. Why did you name me as your friend, when you never cared to listen to me?

I could see a pair of eyes coming closer. It was the doctor, examining.

05^th May 1998

Simon Uncle decided that I would join another school. He was thinking of finding another job too. He started to hate the school. Now the Dickens, the Puzo and the Grisham would not have a person to govern them. They would wander like lost dreams all over the library and might escape their imprisonment into the school and might go to meet Simon Uncle in his new job.

But things were clear. I am quitting the school. I walked along the bathroom side corridor of my house. Nobody really cared about me after I was discharged from the MI Room. I realized that everyone loved the Ghosts and it was just not the fear. I wanted to tell something to myself, as no one else cared to do that. So I said

Whatever, my role in this play is over, its time to quit, its time to escape.

I entered the Trunk Room. This is where we keep our boxes when we first enter the school. We enter it again only to take the boxes & leave. I was leaving.

The Trunk room is dark and darker as you get in. I did not care. I saw my box. It should be heavy. I tried to recollect what was there inside it. It is been long – long 4 years. The box was on the top of 4 other boxes, all piled up together. It fell making a huge noise when I tried taking it down. Dust flew away choking me to gasp for breath. It was not normal for any one to enter the trunk room alone. But I was alone since the day we celebrated Diwali.

When the box fell down it revealed a window that had been shut since the box came in. The air around enjoyed the new get away that was discovered. And the light showed up brightening the trunk room. A massive shadow passed over my figure. I turned back to find none.

Huh. I was relieved.

I took the trunk that had fell down and carried it out. It was heavy. But I could manage to drag it along. Suddenly the door shut and I was surrounded with darkness. The window I discovered was far and the light from it formed a white thick line on heavy dark metal boxes. I was growing weak on the knees. The hot liquid that I felt when I lied in the MI Room accumulated again and it slowly started to slip free. My shorts were wet.

A matchstick was lit. A yellow flame grew strong and beautiful and I saw the person holding it.

Sreejith.

He lit a cigarette. Smokes replaced the flame and it all died away. Darkness returned.

I stood like I was expecting him all the while. The box that I was carrying slipped down and the hot liquid flew stronger between my legs. And then I felt a hand on my shoulder. It was from behind. I did not have the courage to look back. I did nothing. Then across the fabric I wore, I felt the metal bangle. The sweat started coming back. I felt like I was slipping into a darkness that was worse. Suddenly I could see many – all like in an X ray. Simon Uncle, His Speech on Angles & Saxons, His Library, My friends at Day School, their Parents, My friends here at Boarding, Jubith, Sreejith and then there was nothing.

I belonged here

It was snow white around. And there was nobody else. It should have been 3 – 4 years since the trunk room incident. I don’t remember what happened there. Whenever I try to do that, a pain hit my head. Then I would stop and think of better things. I felt there is a membrane around me that I did not have when I was at Boarding School. The best part of this life was there was breeze all around. There was music. Not the kind of music I use to hear at School Mess. This was quiet, a music that was everything – it was more like the chanting of a mantra. The Aum. I never knew what it was. No one ever told me what it was. Now I know. I could see the water, the air, the earth, the fire and the sky with in me. I felt like an Intellectual. I was never hungry and I never felt taking a leak. I tried to turn my body and I could see the world spin. I could see clouds everywhere, but no human beings. This was absolute tranquility. This was where I belonged. This was heaven.

On 5^th of May 1998, I was killed.

Sir Paul Stephenson, who was unaware armed officers were joining regular patrols, said the move would be a significant change in policing style Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223500/Police-plan-armed-officers-motorbikes-scrapped-dramatic-U-turn.html#ixzz0VGNeOCUj

Plans for routine armed police street patrols have been scrapped by Britain’s top police officer.

Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson made the announcement just days after officers from Scotland Yard’s specialist CO19 firearms unit revealed they had joined neighbourhood officers on the beat in London.

Sir Paul and his deputy Tim Godwin were not informed about the move and members of watchdog the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) were also unaware it was taking place.

The MPA is due to discuss the plans tomorrow and is expected to criticise them. Chairman, Mayor of London Boris Johnson, was also not consulted about the move.

The plans would have seen police marksman on motorbikes and on foot carrying Heckler & Koch MP5 single-fire carbine guns and Glock semi-automatic pistols and joining other officers on regular patrols in three crime hotspots in Brixton, Haringey and Tottenham.

They would have carried out ‘weapon sweeps’ on the capital’s most dangerous streets and housing estates to prevent shootings, stabbings and gang-related crime.

British police officers are routinely unarmed, with officers only carrying weapons in public in special circumstances.

Sir Paul said: ‘This tactic was put together by officers for the best of reasons, to support and protect the local community and local unarmed officers.

‘However, I believe that unfortunately there has been a failure to appreciate that this could look like a significant change of policing style.

‘The way in which we have communicated this has led to the mistaken impression that we have created regular armed uniform foot patrols.

‘That is not the case and it is not going to happen. I am very proud of the unarmed civilian service tradition of the Metropolitan Police Service and am determined to uphold it.’

Armed patrols have been sent to estates, including Tottenham’s Broadwater Farm, on eight occasions since June on ‘intelligence-led’ operations.

In the last year, gun crime in the capital has soared by 17 per cent, with 1,736 incidents reported between April and September. That marks an increase of 252 on the same period last year.

Police are also dealing with a dramatic rise in ‘respect shootings’ as young criminals increasingly use guns to settle petty rows over perceived slights to their reputation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223500/Police-plan-armed-officers-motorbikes-scrapped-dramatic-U-turn.html#ixzz0VGNYP7Sk

Bill O’Reilly is a wedge, the simplest of the tools.  Here’s why…

A video from a FOX News interview of Bill O’Reilly & Dr. Richard Dawkins discussing evolutionary science, God, and religious belief is now making the rounds on the Internet, and I wanted to share both it and my thoughts on it here.  First off, here’s the video…

In addition, here’s the full transcript of the obviously edited video (just watch it closely and you can catch the numerous cuts which probably left out most of Dawkins’ best arguments), and a careful read will expose a number of flaws in O’Reilly’s muddled thinking.

Allow me to point out just a few of the biggest loser arguments made by O’Reilly in this exchange:

1. Argument from Ignorance: Essentially, O’Reilly is arguing from ignorance – in this case using the famous “god-of-the-gaps” logical fallacy – when he states that because science hasn’t yet produced an answer on the question of life’s origins then Christianity must be correct…

O’REILLY: Tell me where I’m going wrong here. I believe in creative design. I believe in evolution, but I think it was overseen by a higher power, because as we just stated and you acknowledged, you guys still haven’t figured out how it all began.

Btw, I really like how O’Reilly tries to slip that phrasing in there… creative design.  It’s not intelligent design – which has become synonymous with creationism – it’s now creative design.  Makes me think that O’Reilly’s hypothetical god is like some kind of basket-weaver or something similarly silly.  I might also point out that one could just as easily use this kind of argument to justify that space aliens or a Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe via creative design

2. False Dichotomy: O’Reilly very clearly implies through his arguments that this is a question of science versus God, specifically Christianity.  Of course, the fact that he has Dawkins, who is a staunch atheist, on the show plays into this false dichotomy.  O’Reilly completely neglects to mention that numerous religious scientists, including evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins, have come out publicly and stated quite clearly that intelligent – oops, I mean creative – design, or creationism, is a bunch of pseudoscientific baloney.

The folks at FOX were cutting out parts of the interview, but they missed a piece, because Dawkins (however briefly) did indeed catch O’Reilly on this particular point:

DAWKINS: Why would you muddle up the question of giving you a moral compass for life, which is important, with the other question, which is explaining the nature of the world, the nature of life, the nature of the universe? That’s what science is about.

Bottom line: you can both accept modern evolutionary science and garner specific moral teachings from your religion (or non-religion, for that matter).  The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as O’Reilly would have the viewer believe.

3. Moving the Goalposts: Notice how O’Reilly not-so-cleverly attempts to change the conditions of “success” on Dawkins in the interview…

O’REILLY: I’m throwing in with Jesus rather than be thrown in with you guys, because you guys can’t tell me how it all got here. You guys don’t know.

RICHARD DAWKINS, AUTHOR, “THE GOD DELUSION”: We’re working on it. Physicists…

O’REILLY: When you get it, then maybe I’ll listen.

DAWKINS: Well, if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount that’s gained in knowledge each century is stupendous. In the beginning of the 21st century, we don’t know everything.

O’REILLY: All right. When you guys figure it out, then you come back here and tell me, because until that time I’m sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy.

Notice that O’Reilly keeps on saying, “When you guys get it, I’ll listen” but he never – on purpose, I think – states exactly what “it” is.  Many creationists & pseudoscientists perform the same logically fallacious sleight-of-hand when attempting to cast doubt upon science – they state that they’ll accept the evidence that science presents, yet they never tell what the nature of that evidence may be.  This allows them to use a tactic called moving the goalposts of the argument, which means that when evidence challenging their beliefs actually is presented to them they can deny the evidence or simply state that “it’s not enough”.  And when more evidence is presented, they simply move the goalposts again, and so on…

4. Present “All” Views: Another trick that O’Reilly pulls out of the creationist hat is that old standby, present “all” views…

O’REILLY: No. You present in the science classroom all the alternatives that are legitimate. Now, Adam and Eve, you don’t have to do that, all right. That’s for the Biblical portion of a theology class. But, as I said, there are more believers than nonbelievers, and that should be presented. I’ll give you the last word.

This is an argument designed to appeal to the notion of fairness inherent in most people in the Western democracies.  In our society, it seems just plain unfair to not allow all sides of a debate to present their point of view, but this particular argument is easily countered.  Note that when discussing science, one must abide by very specific rules – such as following the scientific method and being able to test & potentially falsify your ideas. However, the O’Reillys of the world would much rather circumvent the requirements of science yet still call their religious ideology science, which is unfairly stacking the deck in their favor.

In addition, another thing to note is that when this argument is presented, it is always presented in the context of a specific religious belief vs. evolution – in this case O’Reilly’s view of Christianity vs. evolution.  If they truly do mean teach “all” alternative views, then why don’t they ever advocate for things like Raelianism, $cientology, or Islamic creationism?  The point here is that they’re outright hypocrites, because they whine and moan about “fairness” and teaching “all” views when in reality all they wish to do is stack the deck and give disproportionate time to presenting their personal religious point of view.

5. Blatant Anti-Scientific Stance: In one section of the interview, O’Reilly stoops pretty low claiming that when Dawkins argues against allowing blatantly religious views into science classrooms he is taking a fascist stance.  O’Reilly actually equates defending the teaching of science with fascism!

O’REILLY: Yes, for you to say you cannot, in a public school classroom, a science classroom, talk about brilliant men, and I know brilliant, smarter than you, who do believe in a higher power, who do believe that there was an overseer of the universe, and you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.

What a douchebag.  This is clearly an attempt to make an ad hominem attack on anyone who, like Dawkins, opposes the teaching of religious ideology or pseudoscientific tripe masquerading as science.  It is an extremely slimy and weaseling way of Godwinning the discussion by, in a roundabout way, of implying that your opponent is a Nazi.

I’ve seen this kind of argumentation before when actor Ben Stein made similar arguments and stated that “Science leads you to killing people” in the context of the Holocaust…

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Of course, the irony here is that O’Reilly’s career and lifestyle are wholly dependent upon the very science that he so disparages.  I don’t recall any Bible stories talking about television, radio waves, or the Internet, do you?  Last I saw in the history books, it took good old fashioned science to come up with those things

C’est bien dommage de pouvoir imaginer que des élus de gauche aillent rejoindre le Front national.

Frédéric Mitterrand

4 ans pour se réveiller coté socialistes c’est bien non ? C’est une bonne moyenne. Encore 10 ans et ils s’offusqueront de la mondialisation et de la privatisation du service public.

Si la protection de l’enfance était l’apanage du front national, faudrait-il donc être contre ?

Argumentar, dicho así, sin más, es un tópico: como dialogar, como la paz o como la unidad. Ayer leí algunos comentarios que decían que los españoles que tenemos por aquí como mínimo argumentan y sin insultar. Esto es como decir que Hitler lo hizo muy bien porque construía unos campos de exterminio perfectos, con una obra impecable. O que la Gestapo era una policía educada para que sus uniformes eran imponentes y bellísimos. ¿Qué significa argumentar? Que unos cuantos españoles vengan a hacer el cínico no es argumentar. Que unos cuantos españoles vengan a mentir, a reírse de la ocupación y de la sangre que esta ocupación ha derramado esto no es argumentar. [...] ¿Qué significa argumentar? ¿Que alguien venga a justificar robos y asesinatos y una historia criminal de ocupación nacional? [...] Esta página no la creé para que cuatro desgraciados vinieran a rematar a nuestros bisabuelos. ¿Argumentar? Ya argumertarán los españoles en Nuremberg, cuando les llegue la hora, que no tardará mucho.

Salvador Sostres, “argumentando” frente a una columna de tanques invisibles desde cualquier restaurante de cinco tenedores de Barcelona.

Today was a great day! In the morning, I went to Aaron’s class and he showed great examples and also taught on levels. He wants the class to start sketching for assignment 2 & 3. However, this post isn’t about that assignment as I am not officially the student for that class. Carmen & I planned on doing the Multimedia “Super” Design assignment today. We were assigned to do a poster with a topic of our choice within the category of brand, promotional items, sports and “I forgot the other one”. We both had already knew what we wanted to do, so a shopping list was drawn out and I went SHOPPING!!! This isn’t anywhere near Gurney or Queensbay. First, she came to my house to do the photo shoot for my poster and then later we proceed to hers.

I chose the brand Durex as I felt that its actually a very interesting yet funny brand. The brand itself has lots of humorous advertisements. I went to Watson to study the “types” of products they have…I’m not using…just buying for this poster!!! Anyway I found the Extra Safe pack really interesting and when you turn to the back of the box it stated “No method of contraception can give you 100% protection against pregnancy, HIV or sexually transmitted infections. Imagine if you buy an Extra Safe pack and it says this statement at the back of the box, don’t you ever think the percentage of the other products would be…lower??? Anyway, it’s a class assignment so…haha I enjoy! Not using it…I mean doing the poster…

I added the word extra force as I’m using soldiers in my poster to convey safety and protection whilst the force word could also mean soldiers/reinforcement/army and energy (as in while using it). I’m lovin’ it…

Carmen on the other hand chose Listerine as her promotional item. She uses the toilet bowl to represent the mouth whilst the “sai” (in English, Sh!t) as the bad breath. Her entire concept was based on the tag line “Kill germs that causes bad breath”. Anyway I like this poster a lot…had a lot of fun doing it too! After everything, I had to clear up and she had to wash the bowl thoroughly as you can see the amount of fake sh!t in the bowl!

Godwin’s law talks about the decline of a civil argument and the eventual reference of Hitler and the Nazis.

Verein Regenbogen has a new PSA comparing AIDS to Adolph Hitler in that AIDS is a mass murderer. If that were not enough, they provide a CGI sex scene with a woman having drunken sex with Adolph Hitler.

Using the imagery of Hitler in this way does invoke Godwin’s law. If you need to make a video like that for schock value, perhaps your argument is in need of an update. There are many reasons to support campaigns to stop AIDS. This is not one way.  For Shame.

See also

Im Bett mit Hitler

http://www.aiem.de/ Aids ist ein Massenmörder (AIDS is a mass murderer)

Whenever government assumes to deliver us from the trouble of thinking for ourselves, the only consequences it produces are those of torpor and imbecility.

– William Godwin, An Inquiry Concerning Political Justice, 1783

Poor guy thinks this is about traffic, so he doesn’t want to be honest and link my posts. Oh well.

My friends from the good ol’ STM War Room will appreciate the lack of proportion indicated by the following quote :

I especially want to thank the very devout Catholic blogger from Campbell, California who claims to be pro-life but espouses the same attitudes toward the mentally ill that the Nazis did.

Now lets see… how many countless people were murdered by the Nazis because they considered the disabled to be “useless eaters” and “life unworthy of life”? You’d think that there’d be a pretty high bar for declaring equivalence, wouldn’t you? Well, our friend Daniel Weaver is willing to declare donuts to be the same as a highly organized murder campaign. What are the mental processes by which that conclusion is reached?

This guy is the poster child for Godwin’s Law!

Well… as he’s stalking his way around teh intertubes, he could pause and do some reading, and consider how Nazi “attitudes” might somehow be worse than donuts covered in Fruit Loops and Cocoa Puffs.

(Note this is a duplicate of this post on my main blog.)

On the subject of passing dubious legislation on the backs of a “won’t anybody think of the children” sentiment:

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
- Mein Kampf

Mit zunehmender Länge einer Online-Diskussion nähert sich die Wahrscheinlichkeit für einen Vergleich mit Hitler oder den Nazis dem Wert Eins an.

Mein Vater hat immer gesagt, daß es fast unmöglich sei, zu viel Geld an einem guten Werkzeug auszugeben. Gewissermaßen hatte er Recht. Nichts macht weniger Freude, als mit irgendeinem billigen Teil aus irgendeinem Land, wo Arbeitskraft billig und Qualitätskontrolle abwesend ist, z.B. an einem Auto zu schrauben.

Der obige Absatz enthält Selbstzensur! Ich habe es mir verkniffen, zu sagen, daß ich unter den Herkunftsländern billiger Werkzeuge ein ganz spezifisches vor Augen hatte, nämlich China.

Nichts gegen Chinesen, aber die Qualität vieler Ware aus China ist bestenfalls mangelhaft, und oft einfach nur gefährlich.

Wie dem auch sei, mein Vater hat mir auch nahegelegt, daß Werkzeuge ihren jeweiligen Zweck haben; und daß das gefährlichste Werkzeug eines ist, welches zweckentfremdet wird. Er meinte da, daß man Schraubenzieher oder Messer nicht als Hebel, Schuhe oder Schraubenschlüssel nicht als Hammer, Messer nicht als Schraubenzieher gebraucht werden sollten. Er hätte da vermutlich nicht an Informatik gedacht, aber ich tu’s jetzt.

Wie schon so oft betont, taugt die Zensur nichts als Mittel gegen den Kindesmißbrauch. Die Zensur hat exakt nur einen Zweck: Die Staatliche Kontrolle, durch strenge Regulierung und Verbot, von Information und Gedankengut.

Hier einige historische und gegenwärtige Beispiele:

Deutscher Bund

Fürst von Metternich benutzte Zensur (zusammen mit dem ersten modernen Überwachungsapparat in Europa) um in den Jahren vor den 1848er Aufständen Demokratie und Patriotismus zu bekämpfen, weil sie seine sorgfältig zurechtmanövrierte Weltordnung bedrohten.

Seine Zensur war am ende zwecklos, weil die Aufstände trotzdem kamen, weil Menschen sich nun mal nicht gerne bevormunden lassen, und weil eine gewissenhafte und engagierte Presse, die einmal zügellose Freiheit ‘geschmeckt’ hat alles tun wird, um sie wieder zu erlangen.

Drittes Reich

Josef Goebbels benutzte Zensur im sogenannten Dritten Reich, um seine Propaganda zu bekräftigen, um Opposition auszuschalten, und um den Zugang zu Informationen über die Außenwelt zu drosseln. Der zweck war eindeutig: das Volk zu kontrollieren.

Bücherverbrennung, Filmzensur, Pressezensur, Kunstzensur; alles, damit die Haßideologie der Nazis sich verewigen konnte.

Am Ende hat es ihm auch nichts genutzt, denn der Krieg war eigentlich schon 1941 verloren. Dennoch benutzte er Zensur “richtig”, also zu ihrem eigentlichen Zweck. Gratuliere Herrn Goebbels — oh, Sie haben sich erschossen? Schade, schade…

DDR

Der DDR Staatsapparat benutzte Zensur auch total richtig. Ich bin mal so faul und zitiere Wikipedia:

Sowohl in der SBZ als auch in der DDR wurden eine Vielzahl von Zensurmaßnahmen ergriffen, um die freie Information der Bevölkerung zu unterbinden, Oppositionsarbeit und eine freie öffentliche Auseinandersetzung unmöglich zu machen und dazu beizutragen, einen „neuen Menschen“ zu schaffen.

Hat am Ende auch nichts genutzt, aber da haben wir’s mal.

Zimbabwe

Regierungs- und Mugabekritiker werden nach wie vor unterdrückt, eingesperrt, gefoltert, verprügelt, getötet. Der Staat kontrolliert de facto die gesamte Presse, welche als Volksverhetze mißbraucht wird. Ausländische Journalisten bekommen eine Maulsperre, es sei denn, daß sie heimlich im Land arbeiten; wenn sie dabei erwischt werden, werden sie bestenfalls rausgeschmissen, und schlimstenfalls eingesperrt, gefoltert, etc. Alles, um trotz allem internen und externen Druck den Mugabe an der Macht zu behalten, trodzdem er seit 2000 fast jede Wahl verloren hat.

Namibia

Immer wieder ruft die Regierungspartei aus den billigen Plätzen, daß die freie Presse (welche übrigens verdammt viel dazu beigetragen hat, daß Namibia überhaupt von wem anders regiert wird, als von Südafrika) doch nichts feines ist, weil sie immer wieder die Regierung kritisiert. Daß sie dies hauptsächlich deswegen tut, weil die Regierung erstaunlich viel Scheiße baut, tut nichts zur sache.

Gleichzeitig will die Regierung eine Überwachungs- und Kontrollinfrastruktur über das gesamte Namibische Internet verhängen: Jede Kommunikation — Telefon, Mobiltelefon, SMS, e-mail, www, usw. — durch ein “Interception Centre” schleusen lassen, den Gebrauch von Verschlüsselungstechnologie verbieten (tschüß, Onlinebanking), und so weiter. Ach übrigens: der Internetbenutzer soll das alles auch noch selber bezahlen.

Der angebliche Zweck: “Staatssicherheit und die Bekämpfung von Kriminalität”. Da das Parlament in vieler Weise einem Robert Mugabe Fanclub ähnelt, habe ich da meine Zweifel, daß es so bleiben wird.

Iran

Ach so: Die Regierung von Iran bedient sich der Zensur, um eine totale Informationsblockade um das gesamte Land zu verhängen, um es dem Volk unmöglich zu machen, sich frei zu äußern, und um es der Außenwelt unmöglich zu machen, festzustellen, was dort passiert. Es ist nichts anderes als schandhafte Menschenmißachtung, und die Geschäftsleitungen von sowohl Nokia als auch Siemens sollten sich schämen, der Iranischen Regierung — welche ja weiß Gott diesbezüglich offensichtlich autokratisch ist — die erforderlichen Telekommunicationssysteme verkauft zu haben. Herr Staatsanwalt, hören Sie?

Und jetzt?

Wir machen uns was vor, wenn wir die “Kinderpornosperren” als was anderes sehen, als die Anfänge einer Zensur-Infrastruktur.

Schon haben Bundestagsbesetzer gefordert, daß dieses Verfassungsverachtende Gesetz ausgeweitet wird, z.B. auf “Killerspiele”, Urheberrechtsverletzungen, unliebsamer Politik.

Da die “Stoppschilder” in ihrer momentanen Form ja bekanntlich kinderleicht zu umgehen sind, durch den ganz einfachen Gebrauch eines freien DNS-Servers, ist es eine Frage der Zeit, bis der Gebrauch eines solchen in Deutschland verboten wird. Zusammen mit dem Überwachungswahn der momentanen Bundesregierung wird nach und nach der Strick enger gezogen. “Das Internet soll kein rechtsfreier Raum ein,” heißt es, als ob er einer ist, und als ob der Bundestag zunehmend nicht auch einem rechtsfreien Raum ähnelt.

Extrem, meinen Sie, lieber Leser, liebe Leserin? Vielleicht. Aber wir verdienen besseres, als mal wieder von Zensoren kontrolliert zu werden.

Es hat noch nie eine Zensurpolitik gegeben, egal wo, und egal, wie lieblich motiviert, die nicht irgendwann menschenverachtend mißbraucht worden ist.

Deutschland bewegt sich auf gefährlichem Grund, und es ist leider Aufgabe der Wähler geworden, außer Kontrolle geratene Politiker zu bremsen. Ob die Wähler dieser Aufgabe gewachsen sind, wird sich zeigen.

Ein letzter Godwinscher Vergleich:

Josef Goebbels wäre stolz auf uns.

Les commentaires sont un des éléments marquants du web participatif. Ce dernier ne permet pas seulement de créer du contenu facilement, il permet aussi d’encourager les discussions. C’est en partie la richesse de l’échange qui provoque un basculement : un particulier peut ainsi devenir un média émettant de l’information et en augmentant son rayonnement dans son infosphère.

Pourtant, ces conversations ne sont pas toujours fertiles ni pertinentes. C’est pour le moment un problème important pour les médias présents sur le web, où l’indigence des commentaires est un phénomène assez largement partagé. Notons au passage que les auteurs ne participent jamais aux conversations sur leurs propres écrits, ce qui n’incite peut-être qu’à la critique négative (pour ne pas dire trolling) ou aux vivats peu argumentés.

Il y a également deux cas où la conversation s’arrête net (ou presque) : quand un Attila de la conversation arrive. Là où il passe, le débat ne repousse plus.

• Le célèbre point Godwin est assez connu , il s’agit du moment où une discussion ayant duré longtemps et les esprits s’échauffant, on finit par comparer l’autre à Hitler ou aux nazis. A partir de là, la conversation est close et il n’en ressortira rien d’intéressant. Godwin précisait que plus la conversation dure, plus la probabilité d’atteindre le point Godwin s’approche de 1, certitude absolue. En somme, selon la loi dite de Godwin, ce ne serait qu’une question de temps.

• L’autre phénomène est l’arrivée d’un commentateur qui connaît bien le sujet, qui répond longuement, qui propose des alternatives, un regard plus subtil, ou bien rappelle des éléments de contexte ou d’histoire, bref, qui refait en quelque sorte le billet tout en restant constructif. Du coup, tout commentaire supplémentaire apparaît superflu pour le visiteur (sauf éventuellement l’auteur lui-même ?) qui se demande bien ce qu’il pêut ajouter d’autre qui soit intéressant. Si ce phénomène n’a pas de nom, je propose de l’appeler point Narvic, du nom d’un blogueur capable de laisser derrière lui 2 000 signes en commentaire et de laisser un peu pantois les visiteurs suivants… bien malgré lui, je pense.
  

Si je m’amuse de ce phénomène, il n’en est pas moins réel. Pour avoir laissé de longs commentaires ici et là, j’en ai vu l’effet désastreux sur la conversation : personne n’a envie de lire autant (sauf si le sujet passionne vraiment), ni de passer après, surtout quand il se sent piteux de sa pauvre contribution. Pour laisser une chance à la conversation, faut-il faire court et simple mais fractionné ? Commenter vraiment, longuement, de manière claire et argumentée, détaillée et illustrée, constitue-t-il une forme de trolling ?

Okay Dosers, I’ve had it with this bull-pucky. No more shall I read incredibly ridonkulous articles and only bitch about them as a spectator! (Well, I’ll do that sometimes.) But when confronted with such absolute tosh as is presented to me in Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.’s editorial in the Washington Times today, entitled, “America’s First Muslim President?“, I shall no longer be objective, but systematically rip it apart, with my Forceps of Justice. Or something.

Welcome to Mystery Alex Theater 3000.

During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton — someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you’re so witty. Last time I checked, he was what everyone might call a “white male”, due to the fact that he is “white” and a “male”.

– was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president.

…go on…(so trying to make the Arab world not hate us is pandering now. Well, whatever floats your oyster.)

This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.

Ladies and Gentlemen, WE HAVE A GODWIN.

What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.

“What little we know”? Someone get me the picture of Obama dressed up for Halloween as a pirate!

This controversial image of the young Barack Obama caused consternation among ninja voters.

I’m sorry, what exactly about dressing up and soliciting candy from neighborhood citizenry after dark is un-American? He also spent much of his formative years in Hawaii. Or was Hawaii annexed by North Korea when I wasn’t looking?

Oh, and his father was an atheist by the time he met Obama’s mother. Research fail.

With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”),

…isn’t it what everyone calls “the Muslim world”? And the Speech? Like, the Speech? Didn’t know Obama had that kind of power. Of course, he must be a wizard! (Well, Nita’s dad does mistake the text on the Manual for Arabic letters in the Young Wizards series, so you may be fridge logic-ing your way to something there.)

there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators:

…”may still be one himself”? But you just said, “This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black.”! I saw you! I saw you! I bet you’re one of those people who thinks Obama’s not a citizen because he was born in Hawaii, or some bugfuckery.

Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.” Non-Muslims — even pandering ones — generally don’t use that Islamic formulation.

And I also bet you’re one of those people who demands that even nonbelievers call it “the Holy Bible”. He’s playing to his audience…or did you not notice that Egypt is a primarily Islamic country and that running around denouncing Islam won’t make us any friends?

Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith)

Because Jesus freaking Christ, pardon the blasphemy, he wasn’t brought up in the faith, he was brought up with a varied religious education by his mother and the schools he attended with no pressure to pick any one, and he ended up following Christianity. Also, what would it matter if he were Muslim? Last I checked there was supposed to be freedom of religion in this country. Or is it freedom of religions not primarily practiced by people who don’t look like you? :/

with the statement, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Again, “revealed” is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad.

What part of “dude, he’s playing to his audience and being respectful of Islam, he’s in Egypt,” don’t you understand?

Then the president made a statement no believing Christian

oh sweet fanciful fuck here we go

– certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam — would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,” Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “. . . when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.”

Okay, sounds like a reasonable statement, given his audience. Obviously he’s looking for peace in the Middle East, and “situation” is much shorter than “sixty-year turf wank because different religions don’t like sharing”…

Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were – dead prophets.

Okay. That’s all correct.

Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.

…your-your point, I do not see i–OH! Oh, I see. Because Obama wasn’t going to be a total jackass and be all “Yeah, my boy’s immortal, your Prophet isn’t, nyah nyah”, you’re implying that he’s not a Christian. Genius. Sheer Pulitzer-worthy brilliance.

In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim.

Then why in the name of all that is delicious and cakey did you bring it up so goddamn much?!

In the Speech and elsewhere,

ohshi– he said it in the Speech, he can’t lie, whatever follows must be true.

he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah — notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood — to a degree that makes Mr. Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison.

Wh-wh-what. Pics or it didn’t happen. (Fabled affinity for blacks, like that’s a bad thing?? Where are we, 1952? Has Loving v. Virginia not been ruled on yet?)

For example, Mr. Obama has — from literally his inaugural address onward — inflated the numbers and, in that way and others, exaggerated the contemporary and historical importance of Muslim-Americans in the United States. In the Speech, he used the Brotherhood’s estimates of “nearly 7 million Muslims” in this country, at least twice the estimates from other, more reputable sources. (Who knows? By the time Mr. Obama’s friends in the radical Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) perpetrate their trademark books-cooking as deputy 2010 census takers, the official count may well claim considerably more than 7 million Muslims are living here.)

“They believe in Allah, not God! Not important!” I think he’s really just using this article to be xeno-theophobic in public. Yeah, only Christians and Jews do important things. Not Buddhists, not Hindus, not atheists, not agnostics. (Never mind that Islam is an Abrahamic religion, just like Judaism and Christianity, and reveres the Jewish and Christian traditions pre-Nicene Council – i.e., Jesus is a revered prophet but not the son of God, since Muslims believe that God is indivisible and the concept of the Trinity is apocryphal. But whatever. Not important.)

Also, one in ten Muslim-American households contains a physician/medical doctor. The top three professions for Muslim-Americans are student, engineer, and physician. And a Cornell study in April of 2002 shows that there are at least 8 million Muslim-Americans in the United States. That took me two minutes to Google. Another report in 2007 by the United States Institute of Peace gives the number as 6 to 7.5 million Muslim-Americans. 6 million is a median number, since there’s no real list. There’s also a lengthy and informative Wiki article called Islam in the United States. Did Not Do The Research much? Also, way to ACORN. Pretty sure that’s some sort of Godwin corollary.

Even more troubling were the commitments the president made in Cairo to promote Islam in America. For instance, he declared: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Well, yeah. Muslim-Americans are citizens too. I know I get looked at funny sometimes for being half-Middle Eastern. Random screening at airports – I always get picked. And I encounter a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric from people I know and in the media. Nothing wrong with protecting your citizens from hate speech.

He vowed to ensure that women can cover their heads, including, presumably, when having their photographs taken for passports, driver’s licenses or other identification purposes.

Dude, that’s the law already. I should know, I just got my passport and read the rules. Same as a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke in his passport photo (as I’m sure a friend of mine does). They ask for the face to be uncovered for the actual photo, but it’s still legal for people to wear religious garb such as headscarves in ID photos.

He also pledged to enable Muslims to engage in zakat, their faith’s requirement for tithing, even though four of the eight types of charity called for by Shariah can be associated with terrorism. Not surprisingly, a number of Islamic “charities” in this country have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

…that is not what zakat means. Zakat is a mandatory tithe given to the mosque, which then distributes the wealth to the neediest members of the congregation! Other charity is encouraged, sure, but you kind of fail for associating zakat with terrorism. Islam is a community-based religion – the mosque is supposed to be like a very big family. “But Alex, how do you know all this? You’re not…a Muslim, are you? *shocked gasp*” No. I read books. Research: It works, bitches.

Particularly worrying is the realignment Mr. Obama has announced in U.S. policy toward Israel. While he pays lip service to the “unbreakable” bond between America and the Jewish state, the president has unmistakably signaled that he intends to compel the Israelis to make territorial and other strategic concessions to Palestinians to achieve the hallowed two-state solution.

Well, ideally, they would share their blocks like good children, and we could have a one-state solution. But that would make the Palestinians (read: Muslims) the majority, and Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, and that is why everyone gets their knickers in a wad. And, uh, is there something wrong with sharing?

In doing so, he ignores the inconvenient fact that both the Brotherhood’s Hamas and Abu Mazen’s Fatah remain determined to achieve a one-state solution, whereby the Jews will be driven “into the sea.”

You seem to have missed the fact (or just quote-mined) that he called on the Palestinians to make concessions as well and stop threatening/committing violence upon Israelis. I do not see what is so hard about this. 8|

Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant.

…then why do you keep bringing it up?!

What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood,

Links or it didn’t happen, brother. Not seen any evidence of that anywhere, ever.

the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces

…what? No. He’s trying to help the tolerant ones and help other people be tolerant. Truth be told, it’s people like you, or at least how you’ve represented yourself in this article, that are causing the problem in this country. Xeno-theophobia is not a good policy to carry out, especially when people may snap and go xeno-theophobic right back at you.

- and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.

YOU SAY WORDS BUT THEY DO NOT MAKE SENSE. Why would we ever submit to the terrorists? We are the indomitable American spirit! We will never give up! Never surrender! We will fight them on the hills, we will fight them on the beaches! And some such.

Overall Analysis: Not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but still pretty gonk-worthy. Not gonna lie, first time I read it, I was like this:

…but it got better over time. Or I just got jaded. I mean, again with his Muslim heritage? (I thought we had freedom of religion in this country. Obv., I was wrong.) Will this tossery never end? Dear Lord, are we never to be free?

Probably not. Meh.

This concludes the inaugural episode of Mystery Alex Theater 3000. Please deposit your 3-D glasses in the bin by the door.

Heh.

via i-am-bored

Mary Wollstonecraft ritratto di John Opie 1792

Per leggere cliccare sull’immagine

Parmi mes nombreux vices (boire de la tisane, laisser mon siège aux femmes enceintes dans le métro, prendre le métro, tenir un blogue, avoir lu Love Story un jour, aimer les jeux de mots tout pourris, faire des listes de mes défauts, etc.), il y a en a un qu’il faut absolument que je te confesse aujourd’hui.

Oui, j’aime dire des trucs définitifs.

Je pense même que mon goût prononcé pour les sentences, les aphorismes et les phrases fermantes pourrait me valoir parfois un peu d’accompagnement psychologique. Presque autant que mon esprit de contradiction. Faudrait d’ailleurs que je me renseigne, parce que je pourrais peut-être avoir un forfait pour ces deux tares-là. (Tu trouves pas ça marrant, toi, la façon dont sonne “tares-là” ? Dis-le à voix haute, tu vas voir, c’est rigolo : ça fait “tarla”… voilàvoilà.)

M'en fous, j'assume.

A la sortie du cinéma, si je vois tous mes amis (ouais, j’en ai plusieurs – la classe) s’enthousiasmer pour le film, il est fort probable que le premier qui s’avisera de me demander : “C’était bien, hein ?” s’entendra répondre : “Non.” De même, je n’ai aucune honte à affirmer sans laisser la moindre place à la contradiction que les mangeurs de Rice Krispies au petit-déjeuner sont tous des dégénérés. Par exemple.

Et donc, bah, aujourd’hui je me suis un peu laissé surprendre par une vague connaissance au cours d’une de ces conversations qui ne devaient pas être polémiques au départ. Tu sais, le truc qui commence par la bête description de la cabane que tu avais construite à 12 ans et qui finit par un gros pugilat où l’un des deux – souvent toi – se retrouve taxé de fascisme avant d’avoir compris pourquoi. Ce genre de discussion ; bien traître comme il faut. Et si tu te dis que ce paragraphe n’a pas grand rapport avec ce que j’ai écrit avant, c’est parce qu’il faut que tu lises la suite avant de râler. (C’t'un monde, tout d’même !)

Je ne saurais pas bien te dire comment c’est arrivé, mais y’a un moment de la conversation où j’ai méchamment glissé en laissant passer un piège à cons dans mes propos. En l’occurrence, c’était “les jeunes”. Ça n’a l’air de rien comme ça, “les jeunes”, mais ces deux petits mots-là c’est une vraie saloperie chose-pas-belle : ça te flinguerait une bonne ambiance en moins de temps qu’il en faut à un scout de retour de camp pour noircir l’eau du bain. Je précise que cet exemple marche aussi avec un anarchiste-altermondialiste qui revient d’avoir cramé des hôtels (au cas où j’aurais soudain élargi mon public).

Donc, “les jeunes”. Je dis ça un peu innocemment (quel c…) et je me prends immédiatement le retour de la flamme que je n’avais pas cru allumer : “Ah ouais ? Et pour toi, c’est quoi un jeune ?”

For intérieur : “Et meeeeeeeeerdeuuuuh !”

La notion de jeune, c'est déjà pas facile à expliquer, alors va donc t'amuser à l'illustrer, toi !

Me voilà parti dans une conversation philosophique (et embarrassée), à tenter de définir la notion de jeune avec ce type dont j’ai oublié de préciser qu’il devait avoir pas loin de deux fois mon âge ; c’est dire si j’étais mal engagé.

J’ai bien failli, au début, tenter d’esquiver la difficulté en énonçant :

“Un jeune, c’est une personne qui téléphone à sa mère plus d’une fois par mois.”

Propre. Généralisant. Définitif. C’était pas mal. Jusqu’à ce que je me rappelle que c’est aussi la définition d’une fille. Zut, flûte, crotte de bique : il fallait tout reprendre depuis le début.

Deuxième tentative de détourner l’attention ; j’ai voulu tenter un coup de bluff en ne définissant rien et en dissertant plus loin comme si la notion était évidente. Mais ça n’a pas pris. Pour l’anecdote, néanmoins, j’avais commencé à développer l’idée suivante :

“Le drame des jeunes, c’est qu’ils s’imaginent toujours qu’ils sont l’avènement d’un monde nouveau, alors qu’ils devraient avant tout être le renouvellement d’un monde ancien.”

Vous avez quatre heures. L’accès aux toilettes ne pourra se faire qu’un par un. Les calculatrices sont interdites.

Tu admettras tout de même que c’était pas trop mal tenté, cette affaire. Et que, par ailleurs, je viens de gâcher dans un billet une très chouette “pensée pour aujourd’hui”, preuve que je ne recule décidément devant aucun sacrifice. Mais revenons à nos moutons (qui se trouvent être des jeunes). La parade avait beau être brillante, elle n’a pas fonctionné face aux talents inégalés du gars dans la catégorie fouilleurs de merde (trois fois coloscope d’or au festival de Moncuq).

Et puis la grâce m’est venue en aide (depuis qu’elle fourre des ampoules dans mon placard, la grâce et moi, on est méga-potes) et m’a soufflé la réponse ultime, celle que mon interlocuteur n’avait pas pu voir venir, qui lui a fait un peu mal à ses dents et qui m’a permis de sortir victorieux de cette joute hélas pour lui inégale dès le départ.

“Un jeune, c’est quelqu’un qui ne se demande pas s’il l’est encore.”

Prends-toi ça dans ta face ; nananananè-reuh.