We knew this was going to happen. This is what religious folks don’t understand why separation of church and state is important. In fairness to all religions, if Christians symbols are allowed on government and public property, all religions are going to want theirs’ placed there too. Christians symbols should not be allowed…then everyone else will not have a reason to cry that their oogie boogie beliefs are being discriminated against.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Controversy Over Religious Symbols On Public Property
Monday, March 31, 2008

Utah Religious Group Seeks To Place Its ‘Seven Aphorisms’ Beside The Ten Commandments

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear a Utah dispute that centers on the display of religious symbols on public property.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the case brings the high court back into a confusing and controversial area of constitutional law.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum deals with a religious group called Summum, which sought to erect its “Seven Aphorisms” alongside a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in Pleasant Grove, Utah. The group said city officials cannot constitutionally approve the Commandment display while excluding other monuments.

A federal appeals court agreed, holding that it violates freedom of speech for government to allow one group’s message on public property and exclude another.

“If government creates an open forum, it can’t pick and choose among religions,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Government officials could have avoided this controversy by refusing to put up the Ten Commandments in the first place.”

This bit of religious skullduggery caught my eye recently:

Shroud mystery ‘refuses to go away’

There are very few Christian relics as important and as controversial as the Shroud of Turin.

This linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4×3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion.

Which begs the question: has anyone ever run tests on any other ’shroud’ besides this one?

Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.

Ummm…no. This isn’t the whole story.

There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood. McCrone (see above) identified these as containing iron oxide, theorizing that its presence was likely due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times. Other researchers, including Alan Adler, a chemist specializing in analysis of porphyrins, identified the reddish stains as type AB blood and interpreted the iron oxide as a natural residue of that element always found in mammalian red blood cells.

[...]

The particular shade of red of the supposed blood stains are problematic, according to skeptics of the shroud’s authenticity. Normally, whole blood stains discolor relatively rapidly, turning to a black-brown shade, while these stains range from a red to a brown color. Skeptics claim that: ” Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.” and that if there is blood: “it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity.

Until the 1980s, millions of Christians around the world believed the Shroud to be the burial cloth of Christ.

Put simply, it meant that for millions of people the Shroud was, in effect, a Polaroid of Jesus’ death – a snapshot of the defining moment in Christianity. It put the Shroud in a league of its own in the realm of the most important Christian relics.

But in 1989, the significance of the Shroud seemed to evaporate after a radiocarbon dating test pronounced a stunning verdict – the Shroud of Turin was indisputably a medieval fake.

Again, not the whole story (from previous link):

In 1988, the Holy See agreed to permit six centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud, but at the last minute they changed their minds and permitted only three research centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating. All three, Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, agreed with a dating in the 13th to 14th centuries (1260–1390).The scientific community had asked the Holy See to authorize more samples, including from the image-bearing part of the shroud, but this request was refused. One possible account for the reluctance is that if the image is genuine, the destruction of parts of it for purposes of dating could be considered sacrilege. Another possibility is that the Church is reluctant to risk exposing the Shroud as a forgery.

My bets on the latter. Any takers?

Mr Jackson, a lecturer in physics and cosmology (author’s note: I introduced this link, since obviously Mr. Jackson doesn’t practice this form of it.)

, introduced me to a wealth of fresh historical and forensic evidence that linked the Shroud of Turin to two earlier Shrouds of Christ.

The first was in Constantinople and mysteriously disappeared in the sack of the city in the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The second is, of course, the Shroud referred to in the Gospels.

Who is this mysterious Mr. Jackson? None other than John P. Jackson, director and founder of TSC – The Turn Shroud Center of Colorado. Methinks me catches a whiff of presuppositionalism here.

The irresistible force of science seems to have hit an immovable object. The mysterious image of a crucified man has refused to lie down and die.

The ‘immovable object’ seems to be the traditional wall of ignorance erected by the religious. What a shock.

The new evidence raises a question mark over that carbon-14 verdict. Should the margin of error have been wider? Could the image on the Shroud have been forged earlier in time?

Anyone who does more than a 5 minute investigation into the maelstrom of yea-sayers and nay-sayers, will likely be blinking their eyes at it as I did. The damn thing’s been more handled than Warren Beatty’s unmentionables. Contamination, anyone? Nuns patched it up after a fire. From the answers.com link:

There are numerous reports of Jesus’ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century.^[2] However, none of these reports has been connected with certainty to the current cloth held in the Turin cathedral. Except for the Image of Edessa, none of the reports of these (up to 43) different “true shrouds” was known to mention an image of a body.

And yes! There was a denunciation:

In 1389, the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D’Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. Bishop D’Arcis continued, “Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.” (In German: [4].) The artist is not named in the letter.

I’m including here a more exacting analysis that really rips the shroud a new one.

It’s a worn piece of cloth (cunningly wrought, I’ll grant you that), a vestige of dirty laundry from the Middle Ages that should be de-classified as a mystery and instead, slotted as a fraud like so many other religious forgeries. More of an example of how the religious ’see it the way they call it’.

For a more humorous explanation, watch this short video.

I’d advise Jackson to get a hobby.

Till the next post, then.

This is hilarous.

This is a good one, too. I love Bill Maher!
Bill Maher on Mormonism and Religion in Politics

Many Christians and followers of other religions consider themselves to be special to some kind of deity. They believe that this deity has a personal interest in their individual lives and answers their prayers and provides for their individual needs and desires like some kind of invisible cosmic servant. Many, if not most god believers have many narcissistic needs, such as:

* being admired
* aggrandizement
* being special
* being unique
* status
* superior image
* superiority
* special favors
* favorable treatment
* prestige
* dispensations
* privileges
* prerogatives
* acknowledgment of superiority by others
* being above the rules
* glory
* wealth
* position
* power
* success
* ambition
* competitiveness

On the other hand they have these fears and adversions:

* being scorned
* being criticized
* being seen as common
* being ordinary
* being seen as inferior
* failure
* others not according them admiration and respect

While many atheists may have these same needs and aversions, we do not believe that there is a magical being that exists just to serve us or consider us special. Most of us do not want to be scorned, we get defensive when criticized, and we do like respect and admiration. However, when we don’t get that from our family and friends or fellow human beings in general, the atheist is not going to resort to believing that some invisible friend has a special interest in our lives.

God believers seem to have a grandiose sense of self-importance and expects his/her beliefs to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. God believers are preoccupied with fantasies of having “power, power wonder working power, in the precious blood of the Lamb.” They are also preoccupied with the concept of “ideal love” which they believe can only come from their god. Christians and Muslims in particular believe that they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (namely godly people, Jesus and God/Allah.) A narcissist requires excessive admiration. So does the evangelical Christian. They want to be looked at as special, above the average fellow human beings in the society in which they live. They believe themselves to be special in the way they believe and love their Jesus and God. And they believe that their Jesus and God will admire their faithfulness and devout way of life. I am not talking about all evangelicals. There are many who contribute much to society (however they still believe they will gain eternal rewards for the work they do). I am talking about the ones who think only of what’s in it for themselves and their heavenly “rewards” that they feel they are so worthy of for merely existing and merely holding some magical beliefs.

This also includes a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations. The Christians and Muslim fundamentalists feel they are entitled to special attention, special treatment with unreasonable expectations of automatic compliance with their own personal set of religious beliefs. If we don’t comply, they will shake their heads and tell us we are doomed to go to a terrible place of eternal torment and suffering for simply not believing the way they do.

The narcissist is interpersonally exploitive, for example the religious person takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends. First of all, they need to reinforce or validate their own beliefs. It makes it easier to believe something that is absurd if you get a lot of other people to believe it. Evangelicals and fundamentalists try to convince others to accept their beliefs for their own personal reasons. They think somehow it will gain them favor with their god. I haven’t really figured out their entire reasons for evangelizing and see it as only self-serving because they think they are being better Christians by spreading the word, therefore better chance of going to heaven when they die.

I always ask Christians if they would still believe in their god if there wasn’t anything in it for the self. Some answer yes, but most just ignore the question and blow it off. The neurotic search for glory is the comprehensive drive to actualize the idealized self. Besides self-idealization it consists of the need for perfection, neurotic ambition, and the drive for vindictive triumph. An example of this would be how the Christian believes they are going to triumph over death while those who don’t believe as they do are going to suffer in the pits of Hell.

Here is an excerpt from The Narcissist, God, and Social Institutions By Sam Vaknin

The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He regards himself in terms of “being chosen” or of “being destined for greatness”. He believes that he has a “direct line” to God, even, perversely, that God “serves” him in certain junctions and conjunctures of his life, through divine intervention. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. The narcissist likes to play God to his human environment. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.

This is a private case of a more general phenomenon. The narcissist likes to belong to groups or to frameworks of allegiance. He derives easy and constantly available Narcissistic Supply from them. Within them and from their members he is certain to garner attention, to gain adulation, to be castigated or praised. His False Self is bound to be reflected by his colleagues, co-members, or fellows.

This is no mean feat and it cannot be guaranteed in other circumstances. Hence the narcissist’s fanatic and proud emphasis of his membership. If a military man, he shows off his impressive array of medals, his impeccably pressed uniform, the status symbols of his rank. If a clergyman or a religious man, he is overly devout.

This self-centered perception also caters to the narcissist’s streak of grandiosity, proving that he is, indeed, worthy of such incessant and detailed attention, supervision and intervention.

Indirectly, God is perceived by the narcissist to be at his service. Moreover, in a process of holographic appropriation, the narcissist views himself as a microcosm of his affiliation, of his group, or his frame of reference. The narcissist is likely to say that he IS the army, the nation, the people, the struggle, history, or (a part of) God.

Every act of the narcissist is perceived by him to be significant, every utterance of momentous consequence, every thought of revolutionary calibre. He feels part of a grand design, a world plan and the frame of affiliation, the group, of which he is a member, must be commensurately grand. Its proportions and properties must resonate with his. Its characteristics must justify his and its ideology must conform to his pre-conceived opinions and prejudices.

There is- or was, a little brouhaha raging over at the ScienceBlogs. It started this way(in PZ Myers own words):

“There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I’m blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I’m too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.”

For anyone who may have missed it, Expelled is a pisspoor attempt to paint proponents of so-called “Intelligent Design” as latter day Galileos pitted against the Holy Roman Church that, supposedly, is university-level science. Ignoring the fact that these noble truth seekers have no science backing them up- hell, no theories or even working hypotheses, for that matter, we are to admire their grit and moxie in attempting to wedge their hollow, Goddidit Horse inside the gates of academia. It is as yet unreleased and currently being previewed to canned audiences by invitation only.

So then, PZ Myers, unapologetic atheist, is denied entry to the festivities and has to leave the rest of his party and vacate the premises. But just who, exactly, was in his party?

“They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn’t notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn’t recognize him. My guest was …

Richard Dawkins.

He’s in the theater right now, watching their movie.

Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?”

Why, yes, yes, I am. Anyway, the issue here is not, actually, the behavior of the christofascist thought police behind this insipid movie but, rather, in the keening and pulling of the hair by those amongst the science community who wish to engage and court the religious instead of confront them. To wit, Matthew Nisbet:

“The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science. Nor does it stand up to mounds of empirical evidence about the complex relationship between science literacy and public perceptions.

Unfortunately, you couldn’t focus group a better message for the pro-creationist crowd. And this message is already reaching well beyond the theaters, on display most recently with the PZ Myers Affair chronicled at the NY Times.

As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education. Dawkins and PZ need to lay low as Expelled hits theaters. Let others play the role of communicator, most importantly the National Center for Science Education, AAAS, the National Academies or scientists such as Francis Ayala or Ken Miller. When called up by reporters or asked to comment, Dawkins and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and individuals.

If Dawkins and PZ really care about countering the message of The Expelled camp, they need to play the role of Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro and so many other political operatives who through misstatements and polarizing rhetoric have ended up being liabilities to the causes and campaigns that they support. Lay low and let others do the talking.

So Richard and PZ, when it comes to Expelled, it’s time to let other people be the messengers for science. This is not about censoring your ideas and positions, but rather being smart, strategic, tactical, and ultimately effective in promoting science rather than your own personal ideology, books, or blog. I will have more to say on Expelled strategy in a talk I am giving Thursday night at UWisc-Eau Claire* and then next week Monday in a lunch time talk* given with Chris Mooney at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School.”

What a maroon. I won’t go so far as to cry “appeaser” or “Chamberlain” because that’s, like, Godwin’s Law in reverse but Nisbet is a sniveling, whiny, little weasel who, in the guise of criticizing others for illegitimately assuming the role of “spokesperson for science”, manages to do so himself. Beyond the occasional personable Nobel Laureate, there really is no spokesperson for science. Who knows, maybe there ought to be. Meanwhile, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and E. O. Wilson- to name just a few, are out there writing, publishing, and speaking in a kinder, gentler, more theist-friendly tone right alongside Dawkins and Dennett. Hell, as far as I know, PZ hasn’t shown up on the Times bestseller list yet with his atheist manifesto.

What gives him the right to call for anyone to shut up? Who died and left him dictator? Anyone who’s position on the subject is actually swayed by Ben Stein his pathetic piece of crap is far beyond polite, rational discourse anyway. I mean, you can lead a sheep to Darwin, but you can’t make it think- or teach it to read for that matter.

I think folks like Nisbet, with all their talk of framing and spin and message, are actually still scared of that unwritten but undeniable taboo against criticizing religion and/or the religious. Deep down, they probably still imagine lightning bolts striking them down for such effrontery. Maybe we should see if we could actually get them into the same room with PZ or Dawkins without them wetting their pants? If you’ll excuse the expression, ladies, Nisbet needs to grow a pair.
*- links publicizing Nisbet’s own events removed to spare him further hypocrisy.

Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

WESTON, Wis. — An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday. Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday. “She got sicker and sicker until she was dead,” he said. Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness. The girl’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to “apparently they didn’t have enough faith,” the police chief said. They believed the key to healing “was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray,” he said. [...] The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said. “They are still in the home,” he said. “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”

Ummm, I think you might have to look again, Chief. Maybe this time look just a little bit harder, Genius.

Or should I say, “Moron?” Or maybe “Idiot?” I’m not exactly sure who’s more stupid, Chief. The idiots who killed her, or the complete fucking numbnuts who claims that there’s “no abuse.”

You got a college degree, Chief? Or did you jump into Cop School right after high school? If you actually do have a degree (which I doubt), you might want to go back and see if the “school” is still around. They might have been one of those Plaza Schools I used to see in Flori-duh. (You know, the ones right next to the grocery stores.)

Or did you get your degree through the mail? That sometimes happens.

Here is a video that has been circulating the internet about fundamentalist Christians who take their homeschooled children to museums and misinforming them that the museums’ evolution and dinosaur exhibits have it wrong. It’s not just homeschoolers who are being taught this garbage, but also children in fundamentalist Christians schools. These tours are “from a strictly Biblical perspective” and no basis in proven facts. Science and evidence are ignored and replaced with what the parents choose to believe. I feel sorry for these children. They will have a hard time competing and succeeding in the real world.

ABC did a good job of reporting on this one.

Thanks once again to our friend Spirula for finding this. Margaret Atwood is one of my very favorite authors who wrote The Handmaid’s Tale which is a very disturbing book set in the future about what would probably happen under theocratic rule. It would not only affect atheists and secularists, but also all religious denominations because the theocratic rule would discriminate against any other belief system that is not the official doctrine of the state government.

Here is a three-part program of Bill Moyer’s interviewing Margaret Atwood. Though they are long, grab yourself a cup of coffee and take the time to watch them.

I don’t agree with Margaret about atheism being a religion. She says that she is a “strict agnostic” because god cannot be proven or disproven. She says the atheist has a set belief that god does not exist. However, Margaret misunderstands that atheism says that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Until someone proves to us otherwise, we have no reason to believe a god exists. Agnostics are just fence sitters, and I think Margaret though she won’t commit one way or the other seems to like the idea of a god and the “soul”.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three