Harris kicked his butt!

That may be the quote of the night, but I’ll get to that at the end.

I went to see Sam Harris debate William Lane Craig at Notre Dame this evening. (Heretofore known as SH and WLC.) I cannot begin to describe just how good this was, but I will try. I took many notes (along with a couple of crummy pictures on the sly...I wasn’t supposed to take any, but being the heathen that I am, I did...and I liked it!), and I think the easiest way to write this up will be to just transcribe my notes with a little “neatening up” and commentary for clarity. The premise of the debate was whether or not religion and/or God is required for morality, i.e., can someone be moral without being religious? Harris maintains that that is most certainly possible; Craig says no. It naturally ended up as a debate of whether or not there is a supreme being who shaped our world and expects our worship; if we do not accept those terms, we will burn in hell. So here are my notes, and I’ll try to make some sense out of them. I can already see that there are some things I wrote down that I’m thinking “What was that about?” St. Anselm? What? Ha!

Heard behind me before the debate started: “I believe in a higher power...but I’m not Catholic.”

WLC looks smug. Harris opens his Mac.

WLC goes first, has 20 minutes to speak:

• Quotes SH from The Moral Landscape, but leaves out crucial points of his hypothesis, especially regarding genital mutilation of females. In some cultures, this is considered a “moral” reality, based on religious beliefs. As moral beings, how can anyone condone this? Craig doesn’t seem to grasp what Harris was saying about that.
• States that by nature, God is loving and kind
• Says that Judeo-Christian beliefs are to love your God, love your neighbor
• Compares humans to rats or insects
• Says “Nature is morally neutral”
• I want to barf (This was my thought, not a statement from him)
• Compares humans to bees, corn, and bacteria
• “If there is not a God, what foundation remains for objective moral duty?”
• Incest - without religion there is nothing to stop it (I might have laughed out loud at this point)
• States that Harris says there is no free will (since when did Harris say that?), so no one is morally responsible
• Says that Harris says right and wrong don’t exist

Sam Harris gets 20 minutes:

• He is surprisingly soft-spoken
• Quotes his book concerning burqas; considered moral in that society, but highly restrictive of the rights of women in ours.
• Where do our notions of right and wrong come from? Evolution and then cultural mores.
• Avoid the worst possible misery for everyone; that is what drives our morality and guides us to making things better for others.
• Talks at length about the Taliban; a highly religious society that dictates morality, but one that we find repugnant. They feel that throwing acid in the faces of young girls who dare to go to school is perfectly acceptable, and their literacy rate for women is something like 12%.
• Generally seems to be a little more humorous, in a low-key way
• Speaks of the value of evidence and logic, whether looking for reasons behind morality or for a belief in a god

WLC rebuttal:

• God is essentially compassionate
• Moral values are grounded ontologically in God
• Speaks of the non-moral uses of “good,” using ridiculous, semantic arguments--bullshit
• Atheism cannot explain moral values because atheists can’t see any reason to act morally; they have no moral lawgiver.
• My head is exploding! (My thought, not his.)

SH rebuttal:

• Any god is either impotent or evil
• If you’re praying to the wrong god, you’re doomed...no evidence to support this. Made a comparison to Lord of the Rings. I snorted, and the crowd laughed (at his remark, not at my snort, although those in my immediate proximity might have been laughing at me).
• The Bible supports slavery
• God is psychotic--totally detached from the well-being of humanity
• References transubstantiation by saying that it’s like praying over pancakes to turn into Elvis. I snorted again.
• “I hate to break it to you here at Notre Dame, but Christianity is a religion of sacrifice.”

WLC rebuttal:

• Responding to Harris’s remarks concerning an impotent or evil god, a psychotic god, Bible supporting slavery: “The less moral framework is ATHEISM!” There was laughter among the audience.
• If God does not exist, we have no foundation for morality
• Evil proves that God exists (I think I need to explore that premise further in another entry)
• The Taliban has got the wrong god

SH rebuttal:

• Every branch of science relies on core values
• Certain facts are objective
• “We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.” Brilliant!
• We can have a conversation that is from the first century, with the Old Testament. Or from the seventh century, with the Koran. Or we can have a discussion in the 21st century.

WLC closing statements: God is the paradigm of good blah blah blah

SH closing statements:

• Everything that WLC has said about Christianity could also be said about Islam
• The scriptures were written by men who had no concept of our worldview, or of what we have learned since they were alive.

Question and Answer time:

• Someone asks Harris if some religion could be true? Would he accept any religion as true? Harris says that in about five minutes, we could make a new religion. Let’s just cut out Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and at least half of the ten commandments. (The crowd laughs.)
• Someone asks about WLC’s previous remarks concerning light vs. dark (it was along the lines of O’Reilly talking about the tide goes in, the tide goes out...you can’t explain that), and how older societies turned to a magical explanation for the phenomenon. She stated that this is now explained by science. WLC goes into a long response about ontology vs epistemology. The questioner says, “Can I clarify? Why is God an explanation for morality?” (Laughter and mild cheers from the audience.) More stuff from Craig about ontology vs epistemology.
• The existence of God doesn’t really add to the concept of love. (I don’t recall the question there, but that was a statement from Harris.)
• A questioner asks about miracle stories, and how that can be explained. Harris says, “It would be trivially easy for God to convince me of his existence.” (Laughter from the audience.)
• A questioner asks about homosexual vs heterosexual love, says that the former was shown to him last night...as Harris struggles not to laugh, WLC berates the questioner for not being serious. In all fairness to WLC, although it was amusing, it was a troll question.
• Harris says that people are means, not ends...our happiness is dependent upon that of others. Unless we’re psychotic, we genuinely want to see others happy, and do what we can (while taking into account our own well-being) to achieve that.
• Harris says that this is the only world...it encompasses the most happy and the most miserable. Most of us want to help others rather than harm them.
• Harris mentions WLC’s “divine command theory.” God instructed Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham was going to do it. Harris’s point was that such blind obedience is not conducive to morality, and is no different than the Taliban ordering its religious adherents to throw acid in the faces of young girls who dare to go to school.
• Harris maintains that there is no consensus within Christianity; various denominations believe various things, and have differing dogma. Christian dogma is dependent not upon morality but upon whatever the hierarchy decides will be the dogma.
• WLC ends with the statement that there are no morals in atheism.

Whew! Man, that was a wild ride. I know that I’m biased, but I thought that Harris came across as rational and logical, humorous and earnest. He seemed much more relaxed and low-key; although I know he wasn’t speaking off-the-cuff, he seemed much more at ease and comfortable with his opinions and statements. Craig seemed stiff and uncomfortable, very rehearsed and stilted. I sensed that the crowd responded to Harris’s comments better than Craig’s; Harris’s comparison of the Taliban and Christianity seemed to resonate. Not that they are the same, but in one sense, they are: the absolute certainty that anyone who doesn’t believe the way they do will surely burn in hell. I felt like his examples of Taliban justice in the name of their religion got through to people; he questioned how certain any religion can be of their absolute righteousness. He implored people to think about what he said.

Here is what was really remarkable to me. This lecture took place at Notre Dame, that bastion of Catholic universities. (Although with President Obama speaking at their 2009 commencement, they seem to have lost a bit of their holy cred.) The questioners, who all seemed to be Notre Dame students, asked some great questions (except for the guy talking about last night’s homersextical experience) and were not giving Craig a pass. I honestly think that the students, at least, were much more in line with Harris’s thinking than Craig’s. They were definitely questioning, in every way, and I applaud both the university for hosting this debate, and the students for using their critical thinking and asking some really amazing questions. It was truly a fantastic debate, in a setting where you wouldn’t expect to see such a thing!

As for the title of this entry...on the way out, I overheard a young man (all decked out in a suit and tie) say to his friend, “Harris kicked his butt!” I was still on cloud nine feeling the same thing, so I said, “Excuse me...did I just hear you say that Harris kicked his butt?” He said, “Yeah!” I shook his hand, and he added, “I’m a good Christian, though!” He said something like “I don’t agree with either of them!” I have to chuckle about that. Was he telling me, or was he trying to convince himself? At least for that young man, Sam Harris succeeded in getting him to think past the indoctrination, and maybe start doing some critical thinking. If a self-proclaimed “good Christian” thought that Harris kicked butt, then I think that Harris pretty much kicked butt.

William Lane Craig? You got pwned. At the University of Notre Dame. Thanks for stopping by!

Was that a tantrum?

Oh dear, it seems as though I struck a nerve with yesterday’s entry. After lobbing a few softball insults my way (ones that weren’t very firmly grounded in reality), someone picked up their ball and went home. Apparently my life is worthless, insignificant, and fake. I can think of a few people who might disagree with such a statement. You know, I’m really to the point where I don’t care what certain people think of me. If people are stupid enough to be brainwashed by hearing a distorted view of reality and don’t have the balls to ask questions and find out for themselves, that’s not someone I care to have around. I don’t feel one bit diminished, or less fulfilled as a person. In fact, I feel richer every day, and I don’t mean that in a monetary way at all (although I’m sure it will be portrayed that way).

People find fulfillment in different ways; what matters greatly to some is not that big of a deal to others. This seems to go back to the feelings of some that I am less of a person or that I am selfish because I have not had children. What is this, the 1950’s, in which it was expected that a woman get married and have children? I’ve done the marriage part—twice—but the children part never worked out for various reasons, and it was a conscious, logical, and well thought out choice. I find it amusing that someone would think this was an insult. Yeah, I’ve got a uterus and ovaries, but I chose not to use them! I’ve been laughing about it all day. It really is almost incomprehensible to me that there are people that still think in such terms. My uterus is none of your concern. Really.

I also find it kind of sad that someone would be in such denial that they would take the easy path and assume that everything told to them is the truth. I suppose it’s easier to avoid such confrontation, but I see it as simply buying into the delusion and not being curious enough to try to find more of the truth. [shrugs] I can’t control that, but it does tell me a lot about the intellectual level there, and capacity for the pursuit of knowledge, as well as comprehension. Ah well.

On a happier note, I got an invitation from something called BlogCritics about writing political articles for them, and I think I’m going to do it. Has anyone here ever participated in that? It looks to be affiliated with Technorati. Things are really going to start getting exciting with the 2012 campaign soon, so there will be plenty to write about. Then there is that whole looming shutdown thing going on. I think I might like to write a weekly (or thereabouts) thing for them and see how that goes. I keep the rights to whatever I write, but I have to post it there first. Then I can post it here. I think it would be kind of a fun endeavor. They encourage you to let your own voice come out in your writings. I can do that, but I’ll be careful about the swears. I swear promise!

Tonight it’s a lecture at Notre Dame between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, titled The God Debate II. (The first God Debate was between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza. I missed that one.) I’m really looking forward to this. I’m currently reading Harris’s The Moral Landscape, and it’s excellent. I’m planning on taking notes, so I hope to have a writeup for you about it. Harris’s hypothesis in the book is that morality has scientific properties that can be studied and explored. Apparently Craig will argue that morality must come from religion. You can guess which side I’ll be cheering for! I’ll write more about the debate soon, but it seems obvious to me that religion has fostered and even encouraged many very immoral actions. Perhaps Craig will argue that it’s the Judeo-Christian religion that begets morality. I have two words for him, one of them hyphenated: child-raping priests.

Anyway, should be a good time. More to come!

Money for Nothing

And shit ain’t free. I really get where Bernie there is coming from.

Imagine, if you will, a good relationship gone bad. The circumstances behind the breakdown in communications definitely matter, but not for the purposes of this entry. The situation became so untenable that one party sent a letter to the other party stating that they wanted nothing more to do with them, and that they wanted the person out of their life. After an attempt was made to pass on the information that someone known to the first party had died, this message of alienation was reiterated by other parties involved: no phone calls, no emails, no contact whatsoever was welcome. The decision was made to abide by that request, and so it was done.

Fast forward a few months, and a request for several thousands of dollars is made. Not by the first party, but by other parties involved. There was still to be no contact. But they expected the money. Approximately one third of the money requested was sent, with the understanding and agreement that there would be no more. Anger and death wishes ensued. (I’m not exaggerating.)

Fast forward a few more months, and there is more anger, because further benefits and money is no longer forthcoming. Gee, for someone who wanted no part of the second party, no involvement, no contact whatsoever, they’ve sure got their little girl panties in a wad about money! I guess the “no involvement” part doesn’t apply when they’re holding their hands out waiting for—and apparently feeling entitled to—more money.

Here’s a mental bone to gnaw on. The money train is nearing the end of the line, and one passenger has already arrived at their destination. I’m sure there will be many more travels ahead for them, but they’re going to have to bankroll it on their own. Welcome to the real world! The person who once said that the homeless are a bunch of lazy bums who just don’t want to work is starting to find out that the free ride is over. There are bills to be paid: rent, food, clothing, transportation, and insurance. As I’ve said here before, you don’t get to treat people like shit and then expect them to fork over a bunch of money to you. Life doesn’t work that way. The lesson has arrived. Learn from it.

It seems that a sense of entitlement has been fostered there. I can’t say that I’m surprised, though. What is really sad is that there was more help to be had. Planning and saving has been going on here for years (unlike some folks elsewhere, haha!), but the anger and bitterness instilled in and cultivated by others resulted in people hurting only themselves. It’s a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Really, what a horrible attitude to foster in others. That’s no way to go through life, but the pattern will apparently continue. Great job. As Anthony Weiner would say, “Aces!”

Fire at the Rumor Mill, Timmy!

First, a brief programming note. My friend Leanne has asked me to contribute an occasional article to a blog that she and other activists have started. It is called Americans For Healthcare LINK, and I was happy to have my first entry posted. I’ll need to check with them about the formatting, because my paragraph breaks didn’t show up, and that makes it hard to read. But I’m pleased with it, and it was definitely from the heart. I hope you’ll stop by and take a look, and that the blog will help everyone to understand why it’s important that every American has the access to affordable healthcare. I firmly believe this.

Now, let’s dish some dirt, shall we?!

Did you hear about the interview that John Boehner gave to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone? It’s supposed to appear in the June issue. At one point, they took a break, and Boehner thought he was off the record so he started speaking candidly to Taibbi. He went on a tirade and said that the poor and lazy are responsible for our current fiscal Fukushima; that American kids are fat and lazy; that Obama had his entire life handed to him on a silver plate, and Obama wants to cut doctors’ pay.

It was a bunch of horrible, inflammatory stuff, and it’s really been making the rounds on Facebook and on news sites. The Examiner wrote about it, and so did the Daily Kos. It was some really reactionary stuff coming out of his mouth. Can you believe it?

Well, I didn’t. I spent an hour trying to track down the provenance of the article, and I could find nothing on Rolling Stone or Taibbi’s blog. The original source of the article seemed to be a site called RumorMiller, and I found other stories there that were obviously fake. I checked on Snopes and found nothing, so I submitted the link to them for checking.

I am greatly bothered by the fact that so many accepted this as a true story, without bothering to check the veracity of it, or to even doubt the claims made. The comments and condemnations were flying fast and furious. I’m just a lowly blogger, but I do my best to maintain this blog with as much honesty as possible. I’ve come across stories about Palin that made me question their truth, and I have not written about them. I’m no fan of John Boehner’s policies, but I don’t think he’s a stupid or evil man, and the remarks he spewed just seemed way too extreme to be believable.

Let’s think about this for a moment. The Speaker sat down with a journalist from a known liberal magazine...a reporter known for tearing the teabaggers a new one in his articles and books, and was stupid enough to say these things to that reporter? And to think that they’d truly be off the record? The original article has not even been published yet, so there is no link to it to check. Taibbi writes a blog on the RS site, and he made no mention whatsoever about comments from the Speaker that would be sure to set off a perfect shitstorm of controversy. The text of the comments on the RumorMiller site were fraught with grammatical errors and misspellings; Taibbi would never let something like that get leaked out, not with his name attached to it.

And think about the name of the website where it appeared: RumorMiller. Why would anyone accept something from such a site as true?

What I found absolutely unforgivable was the Examiner article, in which this supposed interview was reported on as a factual one. After the main body of the article, they included this note:

This story originated on Rumorville.com and regardless of whether or not it's true, it's safe to say it's not a stretch from how the Republican's view the poor and middle class.

First of all, they got the name of the site wrong. They couldn’t even get the name of a site promoting rumors as factual news right! Second, realizing that it was not factual and reporting on it as if it were is the height of irresponsibility. (And they have an apostrophe in there that shouldn’t be. For shame.) Although Daily Kos originally reported on it, they later issued a note at the beginning of their article stating that it was not true, and that they had fallen for it. They didn’t double down and let people continue to believe that it was true like the Examiner did.

I think we all need to learn a lesson from this. My fellow liberals ridicule those who watch FoxNews for their gullibility and for believing everything Fox tells them to believe. The same thing happened here with this false rumor. Just as in our personal lives, we lose credibility if we spread false rumors—especially those that are hateful and hurtful to others—and we run the risk of losing the good faith of our friends, family, and readers when it comes to our underlying honesty. We are quick to react with anger at false rumors about our President (you know, that Kenyan anti-colonialist socialist Marxist communist Muslim guy), but we are awfully quick to share equally harmful lies about someone on the other side!

We need to do better. We need to think things through before we go with them, and continue to question, question, question. As I said, I am no fan of Boehner and do not support his policies. However, it is wrong to spread such lies about the man. We can’t stoop to that level and expect to be taken seriously, especially when we continue to disseminate such lies after we’ve realized they are not true. Words have power, and we need to try to use them with at much integrity as possible. I may not write on a national forum, but that sort of integrity is still the right thing to do.

Feral hogs

Did you catch the story about the Kansas state representative who had a rather unusual solution to the immigration problem? A discussion came up in a meeting concerning the agricultural problem of feral hogs, and the possibility of shooting them from helicopters. Representative Virgil Peck said, “Looks to me, if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a (solution) to our illegal immigration problem.”

Would that be a “final solution,” Mr. Peck?

Well, that was bad enough, but at least there was an immediate backlash, and a petition quickly garnered over 50,000 signatures of those calling for his resignation. I don’t know that anything has been decided, and I’m guessing that the guy will not resign, but he was forced to apologize to “anyone he offended” with his remarks (the usual non-apologetic apology...it’s not my fault for saying something so rock-stupid, it’s your fault for being offended), and said that he would be more careful with his words in the future.

Here is what really got to me, though. One of my local news stations posted the story on their Facebook page and wondered what people thought about it. The almost nonstop hateful invective was horrific to see. The majority of commenters thought he was “onto something,” that he had a pretty good idea, and that somebody had to do something about these criminals coming across the border.

When I and a handful of others pointed out that it seemed more than a little extreme to be mowing down people at the border, it didn’t faze them. They continued with their comments about shooting people. I wrote that everyone needed to get a grip...did they understand that they were advocating genocide? Someone wrote that is it genocide if someone breaks into his house and he shoots them for trying to steal from him, because that’s what the illegal immigrants are doing to our country! I didn’t point out that shooting one person wouldn’t be genocide, but that seemed like a minor point considering the over-arching concept of executing people if they tried to step across the border.

I wondered if any of them would be willing to stand at the border and shoot someone in the head if they tried to cross. Would they shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach? Would they shoot a child? The level of bloodlust was astounding, and nothing I or any of the others who seemed to have at least some sort of a grip on reality was able to make any headway. The general attitude seemed to be to shoot ‘em all. Kill them.

I thought I’d reached my limit, but then someone wrote this: ‎"It wouldn't take disposing of that many before they start thinking twice..."

I said that it’s a pretty sad statement when there are those who believe that human beings are the equivalent of garbage that needs to be disposed of. I said that I’m proud to be an American and a Hoosier, but I am not proud to be associated with anyone who feels that way, and that such people should be ashamed of themselves. I said I’d take a decent, hardworking immigrant any day over a bigoted, hateful, xenophobic American. I was this close to asking if the commenter’s plans for “disposal” included ovens, but I didn’t want to Godwin myself.

This happened at least a week ago, and it’s still weighing on my mind. I honestly could not believe the level of bigotry and hatred that was coming from those in my community. How anyone in a supposedly civilized (I’m starting to have my doubts) nation can utter such murderous statements is beyond me. Do they even understand that they are advocating the mass murder of what are largely decent people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their family? Maybe they do understand that...and I find that even more terrible. They would make themselves judge, jury, and executioner for people committing what is NOT a capital offense.

I honestly don’t know what has become of us. I don’t deny that illegal immigration is a problem, or that we need to address it. I just think that mowing people down in cold blood isn’t the way to go about it. And I have a problem with anyone who thinks that is a reasonable--or final--solution.

A non-designing woman

Before I get into that, I hope you’ll send positive thoughts to my dear Cousin Shane. His awesome Dad, John, passed away yesterday. You all know that I love Shane like a brother, and it pains me to see him hurting. John loved road trips, cars, and Route 66. I wish him pleasant travels. Be careful on the highway out there. (One of his favorite things to say to Shane.)

In the interest of not letting myself fall back into the abyss of sadness, I will try to keep my mind occupied by writing a few things about the documentary I watched yesterday afternoon before I got Shane’s phone call. My friend Darren recommended it to me, and I can tell you that it is well worth watching.

“Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” was a Nova episode on PBS. It deals with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in 2005 in which concerned citizens brought suit against the school district for trying to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum. (The link is the Wiki article, which is pretty good and jibes with what I saw in the documentary.) I recall reading and hearing about this, but didn’t pay close attention at the time. I suppose I probably felt that it was a no-brainer, not realizing how much sway the equal-timers had upon our school districts.

To sum up: a couple of fundamentalist Christian school board members decided that teaching evolution in science class wasn’t giving the students the full picture. When their proposal of an additional textbook promoting intelligent design was rejected, they took matters into their own hands and secretly purchased the textbook from the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank that advocates for the teaching of intelligent design (AKA creationism) in our high schools. A battle of wills ensued, in which the science teachers refused to add ID to the curriculum, the superintendent required that they read a statement stating that evolution was “only a theory” that had significant gaps, and that some see intelligent design as an alternative possibility; the teachers refused to read the statement, so the assistant superintendent came into their classrooms and read it to the students.

As concerned parents got wind of this from their kids, one of them called the ACLU, and we were off to the races! This was a battle that had continued to brew after the Scopes trial of 1925, with many people refusing to accept the exclusion of creationism from the science classroom. (Eight decades, America? Really? Really?!) There was no jury here; it was heard by district court Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, and his decision would be the final one on the case.

The plaintiffs presented a stellar group of witnesses, several scientists explaining the basic premises behind evolution and how scientific experimentation has supported the premise. Not only did they explain the science behind it, they explained how scientific inquiry itself works. In even more devastating testimony, they demonstrated that the ID textbook that had been sent by an “anonymous donor” to the science classrooms came from the Discovery Institute, and they showed that earlier drafts of the book had used the word “creationism,” which was altered in subsequent versions to read “intelligent design.” In other words, the concept was still the same--a religious one--and all they had done was change the phrasing. In yet more devastating testimony, they provided statements from a conservative advocate saying that the problem with the intelligent design movement was that they had no theory; if they were going to promote ID as an alternative to evolution, they had to come up with one.

In the most devastating testimony of all, they showed one of the fundamentalist school board members stating on camera that “creationism” needed to be taught alongside evolution, which showed that there was clear religious promotion there. Worse, they caught both of the fundamentalist school board members perjuring themselves when they said they didn’t know who they “anonymous donors” were; they had orchestrated the entire thing, and one of the board members’ fathers had written the check.

The defense countered with experts of their own, but their arguments were meticulously destroyed by the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The concept of “irreducible complexity” (which posits that there are some biological systems that are so complex that there is no function if one part is missing...the example of bacterial flagella was used, and was refuted) was discussed and proven wrong; one witness’s statements that no scientist has bothered to research or write about the complexity of our immune system was discounted in a very graphic way when he was handed numerous papers and a stack of textbooks that dealt with exactly that subject matter. The dismantling of every argument put forth about why ID is a legitimate scientific endeavor was a beautiful thing to see.

Judge Jones took some time to deliberate the case, and found that ID was not a scientific theory, and was, in fact, just another name for creationism. As a religious concept, it has no place in the science classroom. He also found that the two school board members violated the First Amendment in the Constitution by promoting a religion in the classroom. He also noted that the board members who had perpetrated this ID promotion because of their religion seemed to have no qualms about repeatedly committing perjury.

The whole documentary was excellent (if you have a couple of hours, and want to see more about the arguments put forth, I really recommend it), but there were a couple of things that I found of particular note. The witnesses for the plaintiff took particular pains to address the usual complaint of creationists that “evolution is just a theory.” (I’ve encountered that argument often, myself.) A quote from “The Princess Bride” is applicable here. Theory...“I do not think it means what you think it means.” A scientific theory is not an immutable fact; it is a body of thought that maintains, like all science does, that there may be modifications as more is discovered. Evolution is an ongoing investigation. Nothing has appeared to refute its claims, but more and more evidence is being found that confirms it. The scientists at the trial pointed out that the advent of molecular techniques, some of the most sophisticated tests to date that can provide incredibly detailed information, have only confirmed the theory of common ancestry. If anything were to disprove evolution, it would be looking at encoded information on a genetic level. Instead, we are finding incredible similarities between our own genetic code and that of other hominids, especially chimpanzees.

Speaking of that, another thing that creationists like to toss out is “I don’t know about you, but I didn’t descend from no ape!” Not only is that grammatically incorrect, it shows a complete ignorance about the entire concept. I shouldn’t have to say this, but I suppose I will: evolution is not a straight stick poking up out of the ground, with one-celled organisms at the base and us brilliant humans (ha) at the top. It is a tree with many branches. There have been many twists and turns along the way, with offshoots happening constantly over the millennia. Genetic mapping continues to show the similarities and where divergence took place.

After his decision, Judge Jones was accused by conservative groups of being an “activist judge.” Remember, he was appointed by GW Bush. He and his family received death threats, and one of the fundamentalist school board members said the judge is a “jackass.” Doesn’t that old-timey religion just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Finally, the documentary showed a local pastor who said that he was “personally offended” that the kids were being “indoctrinated” with evolution, without hearing alternative viewpoints. If you want your kids to hear alternative viewpoints, go ahead and teach them that at home. Your alternative viewpoint is not a valid scientific theory. It is based on your religious beliefs, and as such, has no place in the science classroom. As for you being “personally offended”...cry me a river, dude. The Constitution guarantees us all certain rights. The right to not be offended isn’t one of them. Get over it, and keep your religion out of my science.

There’s a vacancy in the handbasket

Did anyone catch the story over the weekend about the Methodist minister in North Carolina who lost his job? Apparently, he’d posted something on his Facebook page in support of a book coming out soon, in which author Rob Bell takes issue with the usual dogmatic view of Hell. That didn’t sit well with the higher-ups in the church, and Chad Holtz is now looking for a job.

I do realize that there may be more to the story; Holtz wrote more about his feelings on the firing, but went into no details. He wasn’t upset by the firing, just said that he wasn’t able to take the parishioners in the direction they needed to go. I looked him up on Facebook and sent a friend request. It seems that quite a few other people had the same idea, and he has hundreds of new friends, the majority offering support. (Of course, there was the usual contingent of the “You’re going to burn in hell” folks.) I left a note saying that although we don’t have the same belief system, I applaud his willingness to question.

Some of the subsequent posts I’ve seen mention his faith, his continuing studies, and his morning prayers. As I’ve said here often, I have no problem with what people want to believe, as long as they don’t get all up in my business, as long as they keep it out of my government, and as long as they don’t harm others with their words. But I can’t help but wonder....

If he took the big step of questioning one of the tenets of his faith, that of the existence of the biblical version of hell, why did he stop there? If his readings, ponderings, meditation, and prayer let him to doubt the veracity of people being cast into the Fiery Pits™, why not keep going and begin to question some of the other dogma that he subscribes to? If I were him, I would also think seriously about why his church was so unhappy with his thoughts on the matter that they saw fit to remove him rather than answer the question or discuss the topic.

I suppose I already know the answers to those questions, though. I know how very hard it is to break out of something that you’ve believed all your life. I know how questioning things that you’ve taken for granted because of blind faith can lead to a dramatic shift in how you view the world around you. I know it’s difficult to be different. And I know that if there’s one thing the church--any church--hates, it is people asking questions that aren’t easy to answer, and people who won’t toe the party line. Anyone who dares to question, or points out the contradictions, errors, and inadequate explanations in whatever holy book happens to be in question, is viewed as someone to be distrusted and silenced. That in itself makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the organization. If you’re afraid of questions, maybe your dogma isn’t all that great to begin with.

I’ve never been what you might call docile. I’m often quiet and shy (it’s true!), but if something doesn’t make sense to me, I’m going to ask questions...and I want answers. If your answers are inadequate, I’ll wave good-bye and go merrily along my way.

I am glad that Pastor Holtz dared to question, and dared to go public with it. I hope he doesn’t stop asking questions, both of his church and of himself. It might lead him to a place he’d never anticipated.