Mr. Dawkens is wrong in the right way.

Do please watch this video in which Richard Dawkens (The God Delusion) affirms that his sect of Athiesm does indeed reject the idea of an "absolute morality" and is, indeed, rather alarmed by the whole thing. 


He then goes on to establish that most people of faith reject many "moral standards" and social norms that are stated in the Bible - slavery and stoning adulterers, for example. He's entirely correct, so far as he goes... Please watch the video, and I'll get into the "however" of it after the jump.

When did "Asshole" Become a Christian Denomination?

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
Aristotle 

When I was a boy I was privileged to have a great deal of exposure to a variety of denominational views of Christianity. Well, at the time it seemed more like an imposition. At times, I'm frankly surprised I'm not an atheist. 


But then, Christianity is a simple thing, and it's core tenants so utterly inarguable and self evident, it hardly requires a religious infrastructure. Go read the Beatitudes. And then keep on reading the rest of the Sermon. If you think those exhortations require the threat of hell-fire or agreement on the absolute nature of God and the Afterlife to be believed or followed - I think you have a problem. But many do. Factions and wars have been fought over what was meant, when the thrust of it all is clear enough. "Be excellent unto one another."

I'm perfectly able to believe in the God I know, while being entirely sceptical of the existence of the god anyone else claims to worship. I tend to think that worship gets in the way of any sort of personal relationship, and personally find being placed on a pedestal distinctly un-comfy. I imagine hanging on a cross in someone's mind would impress me rather less, and I would like to do unto my God as I would have Them do unto me. 

Therefore, I am devout disbeliever in religion and a sceptic regarding doctrine; militant in refusing to give undue weight to the Authority of Scripture, if for no other reason than that critical thinkers are better and safer company than people like this. 

"Never let your morality get in the way of doing the right thing."

The more violent the language and sanctions directed toward social and religious dissent, the more reason I have to distain their advice. I've no reason (other than fear of death or torture) to presume they are right and in many cases, if they were actually correct about the god they supposedly exemplify, a sane and sensible reaction would be to seek out the disloyal opposition. (And at one point, that WAS Christianity...)

We have been given some particularly noteworthy examples of attempts at enforcing religion in a way that would most likely make Baby Jesus cry. It's so hard to choose, but here's one, the asinine idea that being prevented from oppressing and verbally assaulting other people is a restriction on the practice of your faith. 

No doubt many devout head-hunters could make exactly the same argument. As, indeed, could the Aztecs - why, if they did not grant the flowery death to captives, the world would end! 

Or how about the church excommunicating a nun, for following the ethical guidelines of her Catholic hospital in granting an therapeutic (eg, life-saving) abortion? What's the message here? She, the mother, doesn't have a right to life? That if she were a faithful Catholic, she would choose to lay down her life on the off chance her child COULD live through the organ failure and death of her mother (and would become catholic in order to cope with that level of guilt?) 

No, wait - we are speaking of a woman being punished for NOT withholding a life-saving procedure from another woman. Being excommunicated for such a cause says more of those making the judgement than the one being judged. Shake the dust from your feet, sister!

I have no problem with you sacrificing your comfort or convenience for your faith. I can even respect the choice to sacrifice your OWN life. Requiring the slightest sacrifice from others, particularly on the part of others your religion vilifies as "unworthy" - well, that's not faith. It's an organized excuse for odious behaviour you would indulge in any case. It doesn't make you a person of faith exercises it in a protected way - it makes you an asshole. And you should lose your job.

How about the idea that "Social Justice" is "a code word for "anti-americanism" - indeed, for "communism and nazism." At the same time. All at once. 

Well, anyone who can say that out loud fails to understand society, justice, the social forces that made people settle North America; it further reveals that they cannot possibly comprehend Communism, National Socialism (or fascism in general) and are no doubt rather confused about Christianity. 

Perhaps it's rude to observe that one would have to be paid very well indeed to be willing to say something that obviously foolish in public - but while rude, it's certainly true to observe that Glenn Beck is very well paid indeed.

Being an Asshole is not a religion, nor a faith, nor a doctrine. It's a lifestyle choice, a popular choice of those who are obsessed with the use and supposed misuse of the arses of others. One might say it's a tenant of Christian Fundamentalism. I would say that is a pun so vile that those who don't understand it deserve to have it explained to them. 

But more properly, a tenant from the Sermon on the Mount comes to mind: "Judge not, lest ye be judged also." 

Speak your mind and folks will know what's in it. Demand a standard of behaviour from others at your own risk, for folks will hold you to it. It's such a blinding statement of the obvious that I suppose it can't be said often enough. It's so obvious that entire careers in theology have been devoted to making it seem as if Jesus didn't actually MEAN that.

I was aware by the age of 14 that a choice to belong to any particular Christian religion was to be an heretic by the lights of most others, and certain of none in which the actual teachings of Christ were served unsalted. Meanwhile, the disconnect between what was preached in public and practised in semi-private was so conspicuous, I thought it best to follow Christ's own example, which seems to have been better for me than taking the sort of council that seems to lead one to the very peak of religious accomplishment.

Philosophy and ethics are best discussed in company where the answers are not predigested, much less dictated by those who's moral authority to be considered an authority is at best ambiguous. Those who insist that no dissent can be tolerated probably have greater reason to be personally concerned than might be immediately apparent. 

More to the point, a tavern is a center of community, where beer, pizza and comfortable seating come together. So "Above the Wineshop" it was, and in the company of Whores and Cynics by preference. 

Those whom "good people" are certain are "irredeemable sinners" are generally better at practising tolerance, compassion and charity than the folks you will find in church. This is something of a commonplace observation - indeed, a prudent scepticism regarding the practical virtue of religion pre-dates Christianity by a long chalk, and one of the most noted critics of organized religion - well, that would be Rebbe Jesusa Bar Joseph of Nazareth.

So, it seems to me obvious - if a little oppositional - to follow Christ's example in preferring the Tavern to the Temple.

I'm Canadian; I Have No Time For This Bullshit

Ole Ole Olson, writing at News Junkie Post concludes (with graphs!) that what folks like me have been saying all along is true; that the bullshit to the right of us is so deep that you need a diving suit and a support vessel to find any useful nugget of truth. And to the left - well, it's still a challenge, but you don't need life-support.

Now, I'm probably too stubborn for my own good, still shouting out from time to time that I am, indeed a Conservative. An anti-authoritarian, to be sure. A minarchist to a degree. Occasionally I add that I'm a "Progressive Conservative," just to add a Canadian tinge of irony to my quixotic insistence on upholding the values of Burke, moderated by a good span of practice that has given us many ideas that seem well worth preserving. On occasion, this has been in the face of our dearest instincts and assumptions about economics and human nature.

But to a genuine Conservative, facts are facts and the truth is the truth. When something works, it works, and if it works despite your philosophy, it's your philosophy that must adapt.

Pro vs. Con. Are Both to Blame?

These blatant examples of conservative truthiness and propaganda will of course be dismissed by my critics on the right as nothing more than a biased partisan analysis in and of itself. They will try to claim that both sides do it, that it is only politics. Unfortunately, much of the public will again believe this, despite what the truth is. So let’s examine that premise. Does equal fault lie in the pro vs con debate?

When comparing the progressive and conservative sides of the political spectrum, we find that there is not a parallel. This is not just politics. Although there are certainly too many instances of distortions coming from the left, it appears to be the exception to the rule instead of the rule itself. According to an analysis of the date provided by Politifact, the non-partisan fact checking organization devoted to evaluate the truth behind the claims of politicians and important spokesman for the parties and political ideologies, there is a clear differentiation here.

As you can see, 40% of the claims made by conservative spokesman are lies, nearly double the rate of progressives. Only 30% of their claims are mostly true, compared to 50% progressives. Of course, these numbers may be tilted slightly by the disproportional numbers of compulsive liars in the conservative movement like Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and John Boehner, but a clear pattern is still present.

Predictably, whenever any person or organization speaks out against right wing truthiness, they are usually subject to a character assassination campaign or at least verbally attacked. Despite their non-partisan nature, Politifact has not been immune from this assault. Besides Politifact, there have been attacks on Factcheck.org (even though they are owned by the conservative Annenberg Foundation), fivethirtyeight, NPR, Snopes, and even the CBO (nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office). Conservatives even started their own Wikipedia competitor to counter this imaginary liberal bias called Conservapedia, which contains such gems as:

“An apparent Muslim, Obama could use the Koran when he is sworn into office.”

“Liberals support the legalisation of marijuana and other drugs, which are major causes of psychiatric illnesses”

“studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems”

“…pairs of each dinosaur kind were taken onto Noah’s Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning”

“All the prevailing, atheistic theories of the origin of the Moon were completely disproved by the lunar landings and studies of the lunar rocks afterwards.”

This seems to be a pattern among conservative websites in general, as well as with media outlets such as talk radio and Fox News, the latter having organization such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters (MMFA) focused exclusively on debunking the truthiness.

The reasons for the contrast between progressives and conservatives are still unclear. There have been a couple interesting psychological reports released in the last couple years, one which demonstrates that conservatives are more prone to bow to strong authority figures. Another indicates that:

“a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives. The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.”

Of course, as the case with non-partisan or bipartisan organizations who speak out negatively about them, conservatives are sure to dismiss or attack the results of these findings. This might explain why only 6% of all the scientists in the US are Republican (usually the party of conservatives in America). From the crowd estimates at Becks 912 rally to health care reform, from science to the birther movement, conservatives tend to believe that a ‘truth’ is known intuitively. It is something “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

Now, let's read that last paragraph again. We have left the realm of politics. There is no "left or right" here. There is no possible way to intelligently discuss the merits of a free market solution to Health Care Reform, as opposed to, say, a Social-Welfare or a Mixed-Economic approach with people who lie and gibber. Indeed, we cannot even seem to have a sensible discussion as to what a good outcome would look like, when the most influential Conservatives seem incapable of comparing their delusional assumptions to actual, real, publicly available numbers.

Support for the food stamp program reached a nadir in the mid-1990s when critics, likening the benefit to cash welfare, won significant restrictions and sought even more. But after use plunged for several years, President Bill Clinton began promoting the program, in part as a way to help the working poor. President George W. Bush expanded that effort, a strategy Mr. Obama has embraced.

The revival was crowned last year with an upbeat change of name. What most people still call food stamps is technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
By the time the recession began, in December 2007, “the whole message around this program had changed,” said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that has supported food stamp expansions. “The general pitch was, ‘This program is here to help you.’ ”

Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs.

In the promotion of the program, critics see a sleight of hand.

“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.

Now, to call the restrictions on US welfare "mean spirited" would be a conservative understatement indeed. But aside from that, any time you have 12 percent of your population in need of extra food, it's not due to a sudden epidemic of laziness. It's because there's insufficient work. That is rather obviously true from other indicators.

And yet, Mr. Rector is one of many delusional sorts that are of the opinion that if you or your children become hungry enough, somehow a Job will Appear from On High - despite, of course, the obdurate opposition of folks who fund the Heritage Foundation to actually doing anything that might actually create those jobs.

The idea that if a person is Virtuous, a Job will Appear, and if they are Not Virtuous, they deserve nothing at all (and they are proven Not Virtuous by the fact that they are jobless and starving) is a peculiar and vicious artifact of the Calvinist poison that has infected our body politic. Recall, it IS an article of faith. It has no foundation in fact at all.

Oh, and of course, let us not forget that in the hindbrains of these xenophobic approximations of humanity, the term "poor" and "black" is interchangeable. Indeed, the very idea that a black man could be successful, deserving of any outcome other than a life of miserable toil and obscurity is an affront to them.

When exceptions happen - well, see for yourself:

Via the BBC: The US Secret Service says it is investigating after an effigy of Barack Obama was found hanging in the home town of former President Jimmy Carter.

 TV footage showed the doll hanging by a noose in front of a red, white and blue sign that reads "Plains, Georgia. Home of Jimmy Carter, our 39th President".

Witnesses said the effigy had President Obama's name on it.
Plains Mayor LE Godwin III said the fire department had been called to take it down.
In Washington, US Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan confirmed that the agency was investigating the case.

Footage on local television station, WALB, showed a large black doll hanging over the sign, which is located above a shop on the main street in the rural town.

Residents who saw it thought the effigy must have put in place during the night, WALB reports.
One Plains resident said the Secret Service had already interviewed local people.

"We wish it hadn't happened. It's not the kind of publicity the town of Plains likes," Jan Williams, who runs a hotel, was quoted as saying by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

She described Plains, which has a population of fewer than 700 people, as a "nice, quiet town".

...clearly, some remarkable exceptions to "nice" exist.

But, back to the dangerously "liberal" presumption that feeding hungry people is an inherent good.

It takes a remarkable lack of common sense and compassion to think that the average person would abandon all hope and ambition in exchange for a hundred thirty bucks worth of groceries. Aside from being delusional, it is vile. And facing attitudes such as that, it's really no wonder at all to me that a significant fraction of the American people prefer the risk of jail to the prospect of starvation. But then, all black/poor people are criminals, aren't they? Might as well just get ahead of the curve!

Would I grow pot, smuggle meth, steal cars or participate in a gang, if the alternative to starving alone in an alleyway in a cardboard box? If course. So would you. And hell, we are speaking of the foundations of civilization. People "ganged together" to ensure their mutual survival. If you exclude people from belonging to the "Ahumurikin" gang - because "poor people" don't deserve to belong - they won't just starve politely. They will band together to mess you up, take your stuff and, ultimately, do unto y'all what the Vandals and Visigoths did to Rome. And you will deserve it.

If you want to keep people from taking "illegitimate" jobs, you have a damn obvious responsibility to make sure that legitimate ones are plentiful.  Domestically. Indonesia and China can take care of their OWN damn poor people.

I do hope (and rather expect) that some fraction of the karma these people have earned by mindlessly forestalling sane public policy and any humane approach to poverty, health care, the economy and a thriving, job-creating middle class will come directly home to roost in a way where the casual relationship is personally, directly and unavoidably instructive.

Let's start with the obvious sociopaths.

When such people are underfoot,  it makes developing a sane or sensible public policy position about anything impossible. So the first step is to stop wasting any time upon them. They are some combination of evil and stupid, and it's up to them to figure out how to behave in public among civilized people. We certainly need not treat their spew as if it made sense.

Take John Shelby Spong on that point. In his manifesto, he was quite blunt about where he sees his duties, and they don't include any necessity to entertain the missaprention of vicious, mean-spirited fools.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture’s various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of the “Flat Earth Society” either. I do not debate with people who think we should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions, feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union. I am tired of being embarrassed by so much of my church’s participation in causes that are quite unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics, as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a century ago: “New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth.” I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for that mentality has simply gone forever.

He's speaking toward the fight over the exclusion of homosexuals from the body of the Church, but to me it's all of a piece.



It's the same people, with the same little minds and the same fear-ridden dispositions who demand that middle-eastern males be strip-searched, that howl that the application of the Constitution and the Rule of law will result in the inevitable fall of Civilization, who insist that the genome be purged of such inferior stock as myself, for fear of... what? They don't know. But in every single case, they use "toleration" and "compassion" as if they were words even worse than "motherfucker" or even "liberal" while claiming a religious right to impose their will on those of us who think being kind to one another IS a fundamental "Principle."

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." I believe that IS how it goes?

And in point of fact, in my experience, after fifty odd years of life, I've learned that that approach to life works very well indeed, particularly when coupled to a strong acquired allergy to lies and self-delusion. "As you have sown, so shall ye reap," so I'm careful about what seed I buy, from whom, and I'm very attached to facts. I've learned that operating on a basis of wishful thinking can have embarrassing, if not starkly dangerous outcomes. So I've come to love facts - whether I particularly LIKE the facts in hand or not.

Now, let's get back to my Canadian Progressive Conservatism. I'm a typical Canadian in many respects. I am attached to the middle of the road. I do not hark back to a glorious past - because I'm conversant with history, which includes many more lice and bedbugs and far fewer unalloyed glories than the magical thinkers would suggest. I value a stately progress of Civilization. I adore such things as railroads, the Enlightenment and indoor plumbing. I particularly revere the remarkably successful collision of fate that is Canada, a chimerical construct that is neither Conservative nor Liberal, but spots of each and each most treasured where those sorts of ideas and the minds that hold them do the most good.

We have very LIBERAL welfare and medical care. We have extraordinarily CONSERVATIVE banking laws. And the reason we have both - and will continue to have both - is in great part due to the horrible examples provided by our neighbors, who have achieved the exact opposite.

That is not because we are free of such fools. We just don't allow them to speak with the expectation that their ideas are "just as good as anybody's." If they have ideas "just as good" they could prove it. Indeed, our current government is arguably Conservative, though it's starting to try my patience. 

Honest causes and honorable persons need neither lies nor bullshit - nor do they tolerate them on either side of the issue. That is part of the secret to maintaining a civil society - tolerance up to the point incivility makes civility an unsustainable prospect.


So don't listen to known and famous liars. It's a waste of time you could spend far better in almost any imaginable way.

Our society, our nation - in concert with many other civilized nations that value jusctice, human rights and compassion as being fundamental and unquestionable positive values - thrives. Canada IS her people, and her people are Canada. All of them. Even those such as I.

We are neither bankrupt nor are we enslaved. Indeed, the average Canadian enjoys a greater degree of practical freedom and an arguably better standard of living than the average American - and we certainly enjoy a far higher assurance of personal security and safety, at a far lower price in blood and treasure. That is due in part to the fact that those of us who do deal directly with issues of national security are expected to live in full contact with reality. Ordinary citizens may enjoy the luxury of wishful and uncritical thinking. People who's job it is to govern and defend our nation may not permit themselves more "preferential reality" than what is humanly unavoidable.


Perhaps due to that conservative preference for fact over fancy, we are rather more reluctant to blow people up more or less at random as one of our "principles" of foreign policy. This is - I assure you - quite unrelated to the concept of "liberal squeamishness." It's a very conservative reluctance to add a very large number of unaccountable random factors to a situation. This is the entire REASON for "due process."

Aside from that, we believe that even dangerous people with whom we disagree with on many levels nonetheless have both inherent human rights and some - albeit self-limited - inherent value to society, and that any limitation is best addressed with deliberation, and certainly with every consideration toward the feelings and concerns of those, who, due to family or other ties, may feel affection or obligation toward them.

Or to misquote the Mythbusters. "We are professionals. But you really might want to try this at home."

Hitchens v Wilson: Collision Failure

After reading the below-mentioned link, I found myself less informed about Atheism, Reason, Religion and Faith than I had been before. Therefore, I'm responding, in order to purge the bad taste. Frankly, it was like biting into a much-anticipated chocolate to find a center composed of treacle and old pencil erasers.

Nobody seems to understand that in order to actually have enough of a "meeting of minds" in order to arrange the mere possibility of a "collision," first we must agree on a "definition of terms."

Despite the citation, there was no collision.

Christopher Hitchens: Collision: Is Religion Absurd or Good for the World?

The problem here is that religion is an attempt to assert that a totally subjective, individual experience has a definable, uniform, objective Reality to it.

And Atheism (or at least Hitchins) persists in confusing Religion with Faith.


Perhaps this is true and I happen to have faith that ultimately we will be able to determine the right questions to ask, but the wide divergence of doctrines and belief structures would argue that there is currently no single answer to the question. And religion's answer seems to be to simply assert some simple moralistic solution to any complex question loudly and insistently.

I happen to believe what I do as a result of direct, non-ordinary, non-reproducible experiences that I have had. The difference between me and Saul of Tarsis is that I don't feel that such revelations give me a position of authority to argue from.

But far more importantly, I see religion, in general, to be a substitute for any authentic, personal spiritual quest.

And as such, I see it as being indistinguishable from any other form of Identity Politics.

Hitch has many convincing arguments - but you could simply swap "GOP" for "GOD" and the argument could, in most cases, be just as telling.

Hitchins disbelieves in a particular sort of God image - and I happen to think that it's exactly the same sort of God Moses disbelieved in when he had his well-recorded tantrum.

Hitchens fails to distinguish - or apparently even discern the need to distinguish - between the validity and ethical deficits of what religious people say and do and whether or not there might be "something or someone out there." But they are quite separate issues - and anyone who has either read Dune or the history of the Jesuit order knows that Religion and experiential, personal faith have at best a coincidental relationship.

Wilson, on the other hand...

What an exercise in smugness, presumption and head-patting! If this is the best the intellectual religious community can provide to justify it's existence - mark me down for atheism.

At least they don't send me begging letters.

However, in all honesty, Wilson is not the best example. However, MOST religious intellectuals and certainly mystical types such as myself already know it's a compete waste of time. Either you "gno" or you don't. Eheh.

The only thing about a religion that can be judged objectively, even by the faithful members, is what it does on behalf of individuals and what benefits that brings society as a whole.

As for the particular "believe it or don't" aspects of the faith; if the moral structure dictated by "revealed truth" requires members to do things that people who do not accept that revealed truth would consider to be some combination of immoral, unethical or dangerously stupid, then it's wise to consider if there is some question as to the authentic and genuine nature of the "revelation." Or if you prefer the question as to whether the "truth" may exist primarily for the convenience and profit of the Prophet is an important matter to consider!

(See Also Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon & Ayn Rand)

Religion is a social institution with certain inherent goals, promoted by people to people in order (usually) to improve people, make society work better (for some value of "better") and therefore it is possible to have a meaningful discussion as to whether or not Religion in general or indeed any particular religion is performing as promised, and whether a good outcome from their perspective is good for anyone else.

These issues can be discussed and determined. Really. By their fruits ye shall know them. It ain't rocket science, people. There IS an objective component.

Now, on the other hand; Hitchens, other atheists and various other atheistic social movements (Marxism, Maoism, for instance) assert that it is quite possible to construct workable ethical systems without any divine authority or fear of hellfire.

And to varying degrees, they have, although one might wryly observe that what they have created looks remarkably like a religion without any of the fun parts.

Again, by their fruits, ye shall know them. It should be possible to evaluate these competitive ethical systems in terms of outcome. And a real argument might commence.

But that will not occur; because a real argument includes the possibility that one might risk being persuaded that the other fellow has a point, and both are clearly as convinced of their own essential infallibility when speaking Ex Cathedra as is the Pope his Pointy-Hatted Self.

As for myself, I dismiss the authority of anyone unwilling to risk the perception of their Infallible Authority by contact with grubby reality, and I see various degrees of this conceit in both. It's all too human, completely understandable, a failing of my own more often than not.

But then, I don't pretend I'm being intellectually honest in public in collusion with another person for money. And if I were to indulge in that form of meaningless entertainment, Coulter v. Mahr is a far better model for meaningless spectacle.

Your community values, and what they say about you.

There is a perfectly apt Conservative precept aimed at one of the most common sins of liberalism that sums up my reaction to this article:

"Don't be so open-minded that you let your brains fall out."

Here is another: "In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is that good men do nothing."

Of course, in these times, that position requires a little encouragement.

Surprises from Liberty University: What I Learned as an Undercover Evangelical

A sociologist named Margarita Mooney has shown that college students who attend regular religious services report being happier, more diligent, and more satisfied with their college experience than students who practice no religion. I still don't consider myself an evangelical Christian, but I can understand now what millions of Christian college students see in faith-based education, and why Liberty's enrollment has grown at a rate that few colleges, secular or religious, have ever matched.

Since the book came out, I've taken some heat from people who have argued that, by going to Liberty with an open mind, I was turning a blind eye to intolerance - or worse, that I'd been brainwashed by my time under Rev. Falwell's tutelage. But no community is all bad, and to dismiss Liberty as a place of wall-to-wall insanity is to reduce it, and the evangelical movement that birthed it, to a lazy caricature.

I still disagree with a lot of the values Liberty stands for, but seeing the human faces on the other side of the American culture wars made me question my own assumptions and realize that, in some ways, I had just as much to learn about tolerance as the most hard-line fundamentalist.

It is all very high-minded and tolerant - until we realize that we are being asked to be tolerant of a community that is designed to further and advance un-apologetically intolerant causes and ideals - with coursework that is rather less well-founded in science, reality, or even respectable Christian theology than your average hairspray porn. No amount of hair-spray can overcome basic bore-stroke incompatibility, so there is a degree beyond which credulity cannot be stretched. So to speak.

The intellectual foundation of Liberty University, on the other hand, is somewhat akin to using Hentai Anime to illustrate a sex-ed manual, with the straight-faced assertion that every once in a while, if you are very good or bad, tentacles will suddenly appear from toilets and heating vents for no particularly understandable reasons.

From the article:

I remember opening my first Creationist Biology exam to find the question: "True or False: Noah's Ark was large enough to accommodate various species of dinosaurs." (According to my professor, the answer was "True" - since dinosaurs and humans cohabited the earth after the Flood, they would have had to find a way to squeeze onto the Ark. He suggested that they could have been teenage dinosaurs, so as to take up less space.) Also troubling was Liberty's extreme social and political conservatism, which made for classroom lessons like "The Consequences of Immoral Sex" and textbook chapters like "Myths Behind the Homosexual Agenda."

Like I said - it's on a par with tentacle porn as part of a Sex-ed curriculum.

But the author asserts that there were were warm fuzzies to be had, and therefore the community itself was not without merit.

There are many virtues in communities. There were virtues and good times to be found in various slave cultures. There was much to be praised about the nobility and courage of Gladiators - and yet one must not overlook the context, in which the entire purpose of their lives and deaths was to die an agonizing public death - no doubt virtuously and courageously - for entertainment.

One must ask, "In what what good end does this virtue lead us?"

All cultures do indeed depend upon virtues and generally select several of particular importance and likewise define any number of vices. But one must look to see if these virtues and vices map coherently to any generally agreed-upon map of ethical behavior. And, whatever map one selects, one must see if there's any particular correspondence between the moral principles cited most often, public actions and actual outcomes.

I find it ironic, for instance, that the public behavior and associations of Jesus of Nazareth would very likely make him unsuited for tenure at Liberty University.

I would argue that while it may well be comfortable and attractive for persons who identify with "Conservative Family Values" to live and learn in a context where their preconceptions are reinforced, rather than challenged, it is not "learning" or "education" in any usual sense - it is rather "indoctrination" and "brainwashing," if only in the sense of maintaining the condition, rather than pro-actively challenging parochial assumptions.

And if one argues a community of the like-minded does not mean all must be irredeemable fools - nonetheless, it is still a collective that is far less than the sum of it's parts, for exactly the same reasons and by exactly the same means as perfected by, say, Liberty's political ally, The Unification Church.

No, participation in such a system of "education" is to abandon one's own moral and ethical judgment to - well, fools at best. And ultimately, I challenge anyone to establish a case where such things ever lead to enough good to balance the harm they do.

What harm?

Consider how very much graduates from such institutions of "higher learning" had to do with the current world-wide economic disaster, refusal to deal with climate or energy issues in any serious way, general hostility towards science and the systemic and deliberate sabotage of public education, from high to low.

And this criticism may be laid without any reference whatsoever to religion or faith in any ethically coherent, defensible sense.

We are speaking of teachings that are in deliberate opposition to established fact - not faith in the absence of evidence. Moreover, many of these "faith based assumptions," particularly the socio-economic ones - have either no biblical foundation, or are in direct opposition to principles stated in the big red letters.

We are speaking of a conscious, deliberate, fabricated and quite provably delusional worldview; supported with malicious, and dishonest misrepresentation of the morals, ethics and motives of all paths and persons that might serve to inform the conscience and intellects of the inmates of these institutions of higher brainwashing.

I do not see this as a religious or political issue; it's rather a divide between those willing to think about issues and make competent issues based on real information and those who would prefer to live in a comfortable self-affirmation society that simply denies the existence or reality of anything that may call those comforting assumptions into question. In other words, it is the choice between the possibility of good outcomes and the certainty of outcomes that can be accurately and fairly described as "evil."

The confluence of current events conspire with the willful subversion and malicious discontent of such willing tools may force the rational and civilized to draw a sharp and surgical line in the sand between the real and the fabulous. Some - many, I hope - may be presented with the dilemma Gen. Robert E. Lee faced - and choose more wisely. I still cherish some hope in that regard, but even in the light of my greatest hopes, there is no future I can see in which these two Americas can continue as one singular nation. The ability to pretend the differences do not exist, don't really matter and do not play out in terms of practical, disastrous effect cannot long be maintained.

Likewise, it becomes clear that various visions of the future of the US - or parts of it at least - are defined by the absence of those who are invited, by implication, to explore their life-paths elsewhere.

As I stated at the beginning, there are limits to tolerance. My tolerance ends when it seems likely that a majority of the "moral majority" support the use of torture in direct contradiction to every value and example in the bible and every civilized moral code in existence.

Then, such is life and the lives of nations and peoples. This is a paradigm shift that effects everyone on the planet, where we are finding that the teachings of old are inadequate to the social, economic, environmental and ethical challenges we are faced with. Clearly, we need a moral and ethical framework that can help us deal with these deeply interconnected challenges Equally clearly, American Conservative Christianity, and it's mirror twin, the various violently oppressive "Islamic" movements are a huge part of the problem.

When a religion is found to be cheer-leading for contributing to morally and ethically indefensible offenses against human rights, it has become a force for evil - if that word is to have any useful meaning at all, it must be applied when it fits.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

As an individual, I have always felt it best to avoid large concentrations of stupid people who are easily provoked to violence, since I'm disinclined to join another gang to spread the risk. Unfortunately, the larger the church, the more likely that is to be illustrative of it's character - a gang of stupid people, easily led toward doing evil things "for the greater good."

It needn't be that way, of course; outcomes depend on leadership in all such situations - but currently there is a bias toward a particularly brainless form of unquestioning obedience to Higher Authority that has only been seen infrequently since - well, the Crusades come to mind.

If that boils down to a political stand, well, that's unfortunate trending toward disastrous. But it is also a reasonably accurate assessment. One cannot be intellectually honest about the critical issues facing the human race at the moment and support to any degree the visions of the US Republican movement, ignore it's entanglement with the Dominionist Christian movement or the greater entanglements with various world Conservative political, social and religious movements - none of which have any use for free minds or free peoples with their own individual, functioning consciences.

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." - Barry Goldwater

This is true even when one is generally inclined to highly value the very virtues that Conservatives most often pay lip-service to. Alas, it is no more than lip-service. It is no virtue to defend torture and oppression in the name of "liberty." That is not what Goldwater was speaking of. He would have called it something rather blunt and rude - theocratic stupidity, perhaps, or worse. But it was not his conservatism, much less my own. I'm a progressive Conservative - not a conservative Progressive.

Liberty University may have what some may consider a "vibrant social life," no doubt it contains many puppy and kitten lovers, and be blessed with the occasional rainbow, but none of those things are due to it being in service of anything ethical, moral, respectable or good.

It is a place that stands for intolerable, indefensible ideas and ideals. I will not tolerate them in the name of tolerance - particularly when such people making such choices based on such conspicuous stupidity have done their best to make things far worse than circumstances required.

Liberals, atheists, abortionists, would-be gun controllers and Godless Democrats were not responsible for Katrina, or for deciding that torture was a good policy. A case may be made for failure to oppose, certainly for a conspicuous lack of moral courage - but the case cannot be made for creating the situation in the first place.

Shall we speak of the perfect expression of all that is NeoCon philosophy - Hurricane Katrina? It featured evil for all occasions; sloth, incompetence, racism, religious bigotry, naked greed for the land occupied by "undeserving minorities," and of course, none of this has been in the slightest bit alleviated by government response to the aftermath of the situation they allowed to develop and than failed to address. They chose, instead, to metaphorically and in some rather conspicuous cases, literally attribute that disaster to the "sins" of New Orleans and declare that help would be against "God's Will."

But that's not any God I'd be on speaking terms with. I hope I may be forgiven for my hope that the distinction may become manifest in their lives. "Full measure, pressed down and running over."

I'm done with "Do as you be done by." It's time for "Ms. Bedonebyasyoudid."

Graphictruth makes the front page of Forbes.com

There it is, at the bottom, with it's Graphictruth style titling, my post about the significance of The Pickens Plan and the economic foolishness of staying wedded to a petroleum economy.

This isn't actually the first time Forbe's scrapers have found one of my stories, it's merely the first time it struck me how significant it is. Consider the odds, under ordinary circumstances, of anyone who would read Forbes magazine stumbling across anything I'd ever write.

Now, it's still up to me to "make the sale," to have a story that is significant and worth reading that's actually relevant to the keywords that Forbes seeks out. As it happens, the piece I wrote is relevant - and written from a perspective that I hope appeals to a broad spectrum of people that are genuinely Conservative in their approach to life and economics.

And it points out that the world wide web is a broad net that is the ultimate antitude to "common wisdoms" that can exist only when we religiously avoid exposure to ideas of unapproved origins. I assure you, no social conservative nor Neoconservative would approve of me in any sense I have the slightest ability to change.

It's the ETHICS, Stupid! by webcarve

There are many principles of genuine Conservatism that I strongly adhere to; prudence, fiscal conservatism and a well-developed sense that stench and smoke points to waste that is polluting the commons - waste which could be transformed into wealth by someone with the wit to do so, instead of corrupting some pliable elected idiot to permit the waste to continue.

Don't tell me it's "the smell of money" or that it's ok because it's "always been that way." It ain't, neither one.

Real conservatives are not wedded to the status quo when it's a mere historical hiccup, dating as it does from the acendency of Thatcherism and Reaganomics or even the Industrial Revolution; real conservatism is about the conservation of real wealth, things, ideals and structures of provable and enduring value on all levels, from the entirely personal to the global, by means of robust, traditional wisdom that has been proven over long stretches of history with wide variations of circumstance.

Furthermore, ever time new understandings evolve from application of wisdom to reality, the practical Conservative adds to the body of wisdom, while the ideologue contrives elaborate excuses for failure in practice.

Why? Well, Society and culture is built upon ideas and ideals that once were seen to be astonishing, radical, offensive - things that very much argued against the common wisdom of the day and have yet come to be understood to be expressing some aspect of fundamental, practical truth. John Donne was speaking such a visceral truth to entrenched powers when he wrote this immortal poem, capturing in very few words the importance of a wider vision of wealth in context.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

The true Conservative does not oppose liberalism, or even radicalism. The true Conservative applauds them - from a prudent distance. The difference was summed up for me today on Mythbusters, when Adam observed to Jaime: "You know the difference between us and 14 year old pyromaniacs?" To answer that, he raps upon the acrylic blast shield, one which was probably over engineered by a factor of ten.

It is important to realize that the Neoconservatives and Social Conservatives are not new, not at all conservative and have very little faith in society. Worst of all, they prefer faith in their theories to the degree that they try them out without any sensible precautions in place.

Well, to quote a practical conservative rhetorical axiom - "And How's That Workin' Out For You?"

Let's look at that.

A culture that has a large number of very rich people may yet be steeped in intellectual, spiritual and even literal poverty, and in that context, money does not actually translate into genuine wealth.

That is to say, the sort of place where the most visible form of status is the ability to expend resources in service to the end of keeping other ring-tailed sonsofbitches like yourself taking it away from you is not wealthy or much of a society, not if you cannot translate cash into comfort and personal security at a reasonable rate of exchange.

Consider what sort of practical, personal liberties even the richest person has in countries with greater divides between rich and poor in nations like, oh, Bangladesh or Pakistan. Consider the practical risks and rewards of being of the "privileged" class in Mexico and Central America, where some significant proportion of your assets must be diverted toward not being kidnapped or murdered. Consider the consequential issues of living in nations where every interaction with a government official - from the highest to the lowest - must be lubricated with a bribe. Consider the practical difficulties in getting anything done in nations where even building codes are regarded as optional, because all laws are seen by the average persons as existing primarily as a means of extortion, and not there to promote an inherent good - like not taking a sledge-hammer to a load-bearing wall.

It is certainly an indicator of status to be in a position to afford a combat-trained driver capable of taking you safely from A to B in your electrified armored and flame-thrower equipped SUV. It definitely is a "shiny thing" - until you realize the implications of being told by your insurance agent that you absolutely MUST have such a thing and use it faithfully in order for them to insure your life and safety at all. In this light, consider that gout was also once an indicator of social status.

Meditate upon that thought for a moment. If you don't come out with a prolonged mental expletive, I'll be stunned.

Now consider all the very smart and skilled people involved in various aspects of security and personal protection that could be doing something else that actually contributed to the economy in a positive sense, and you start realizing that not only is that tax on wealth very high indeed, it's also regressive as all hell. It manages to penalize poverty and poor people (after all, they are the most likely to want to steal your stuff) even more than it taxes wealth. We see a very high costs arising when large segments of society cannot afford to rationally trust one another.

When one factors in the consequential stress and limitations on liberty with the direct out of pocket costs, they amount to extraordinarily high taxes on wealth.

Frankly, one wonders how many people capable of generating large piles of wealth choose to use that skill to the end of relocating themselves and their families elsewhere. When even the dirt-poor are bailing on your society, trying to find some place, any place where they can have some hope of building real, generational wealth - clearly there is a need to address the real issues, for ordinarily, people will put up with adverse circumstances rather than rupture the bonds of family and place.

While these societies and governments are arguably much to blame for many of the structural and social problems that lead to these issues and unarguably responsible for the situation by definition, the Neoconservative movement, which has gained control of the banking and finance system for the world has acted in ways that have made the situation very much worse. They have done this as a matter of ideological policy that, in order to exist at all, must absolutely discount the significance of human suffering, or at least see it as a measure of some perverted success. Consider how much suffering has been inflicted in the name of this vision upon the world in just the last eight years.

I think of this as wrong - actually, I prefer the term "evil" when the attitude is expressed by one individual in regard to another. But that is an moral and ethical opinion - and we need not consider that when we have far too many stinking piles of effect that point straight back to that ideology as causative agent.

Neoconservatism has severely undermined the social structures that make it generally unacceptable to shoot people and take their stuff, and have done it with very little distance between cause and effect in a very short period of historical time. If it's acceptable to shoot people and take their stuff, the advantage of shooting rich people becomes obvious. They have better stuff and more of it. If they won't tell you where their stuff is - you can crush the testicles of their firstborn in order to change their minds. The precedent has been set. The example has been made and said to be good.

If it is acceptable in the name of an abstract good, such as patriotism or National Security, it's surely acceptable if you, personally, are hungry and unable to feed your own children.

History is littered with the remains of those who governed by such example. They do make interesting history, but as any historian will tell you, the less interesting history there is, the better off people were at the time.

The key to opening a new chapter of history is contained in the negative example of Mexico City, the positive and venerable advice of John Donne and the happy accident in which Forbes's algorithm stumbled across my own iconoclastic view of energy policy.

I'm not claiming any particularly original vision or revolutionary philosophy. On the contrary. I do tend to find things in diverse-seeming places and assemble them in unusual ways - an artifact of unusual brain wiring that, along with the fallout of somewhat-well-meaning abuse intended to turn me into a "productive citizen" would under ordinary circumstances make what I thought about anything irrelevant to anyone who matters.

And yet, through no fault or virtue of my own - there is what I wrote on Forbes.com. Not because of who I am, but because of what I know and what I said. Something that was considered to have a high probability of relevance to anyone interested in investing in petroleum infrastructure.

Now, here's the profit to me that someone takes those ideas and sees a path to a large personal fortune they can found a dynasty upon. If they do it in a way that advantages the other ideas in there, MY idea of wealth is advanced.

But that's beside the interesting point. The interesting point is that the conventional wisdom - as expressed by Neocons and Social Conservatives - is at variance with actual wisdom. I'm not claiming a great deal of personal wisdom, though I hope I'm doing a workmanlike job of expressing it. My only claim to fame in this regard is being widely read and having been exposed to the writing of people considered to be wise over a far wider span of time than is common.

You may attach significant blame for my contrian predilections to the Jesuits who endured me during Ninth Grade, where I infamously applied Occam's Razor to the doctrine of the Virgin birth, exactly as I was taught by the man who had taught me to use Occam's Razor - and who was trying to teach me the foundation of this great mystery of faith.

"Surely, Fr. Kieran," I said, "there must be a more plausible explanation?"

It is somewhat disturbing that I got an A in both courses. And a recruitment offer.

I was gifted during that year with a fine appreciation for the practical value of a faith that is unashamed of ruthless contact with reality and which celebrates many extremely practical outcomes over a long period of time - and which also is willing to embrace and record an equally long litany of error, so that those errors may inform both faith and reason.

We cannot afford to tolerate leaders who hold other people in contempt, that see humanity in general as irredeemably evil, in need of harsh punishments and severe restrictions upon their choices and liberties.

I state that not merely from a position grounded in ethics, but from a deeply practical point of view. Real wealth seems to explode when placed in the presence of practical and economic freedom. Wherever and whenever the heavy hand of social conservatives is lifted, by whatever means, civilizations grow, become more civilized, advance rapidly and make great piles of stuff worth having and remarkable public places people wish to be. Why is this true?

Well, at bottom, it's an extraordinary simple insight, one I would think would be far more obvious to far more people. Civilization and all the things that make it possible - government, the money supply, various churches, charities associations and groups - are all trust networks, and they all work in much the same way. What they do is make it more possible for people to engage in economic and social transactions by reducing the risk of having trusted unwisely.

The foundational assumption of Social Conservatism in Western culture, and it's intellectual fathers; Augustine, Calvin and the Apostle Paul, is that nobody can be trusted without the direct intervention of Authority operating with the direct and unquestionable mandate of God.

We have spent the last thirty years or so in which that view of human nature has become increasingly dominant, in no small part to the rise of the Evangelical and Reconstructionist brands of "Christianity."

It has reached the point where people are being educated in business and law with that as a foundational premise - that really, nobody cannot be trusted, that all persons are inherently corrupt without direct and ongoing spiritual intervention of the specific brand one is currently addicted to.

The ONLY way in which this assumption about the inherent corrupt nature of humanity could possibly work is if we could develop an infallible, objective test for the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and some objective theory as to how that changes the human dynamic. In the absence of such a test, the advantage always goes to the best liar in the room. Consider how many people still consider George Bush to be a "good Christian," in the very teeth of the Blindingly Obvious.

Matthew 7:18-20 (New International Version)

¹⁸A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

It's difficult for me to understand how common sense that blatant has to be accorded divine inerrance to be taken seriously. It's even more astonishment that, when given that level of "pay attention, this is God talking" how little practical application we see it being given by so-called Christians.

It's not difficult to see how human nature works in this environment. Rather than advantaging the most honest person, it leverages the sociopath, for the absolutely most reliable path to power is the willingness to say, Trust Me, since I'm blessed by Authority to be an Exception to this flaw. Oh, and, since you are inherently corrupt, you must of course distrust your gut when it tells you to distrust me.

This circularity of unreasoning conformity to an authority that accepts it's own untrustworthy nature as inherent to it's own core ideology is best visualized by walking into the bathroom and flushing the toilet. If you like, you can empty your wallet into the bowl first to underline the profit you may expect from participating in that system without absolute control over it. You will be exploited to the exact degree that you rely on this counterfeit trust network. What point is there in participating in a trust network that cannot be trusted?

Any economic or social philosophy that would argue that paying higher taxes in exchange for smaller personal and social benefits is obvious lunacy. This is, nonetheless, exactly the effective outcome of NeoConservative economic philosopy. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.

There can only be a very few Pat Robinsons and Bernie Maddoffs, and the social conservatism of each relys far more upon the philosophy of P.T. Barnum than Jesus of Nazereth.

Krispy Kreem; Mae West and Wingnuttery

Krispy Kreme to Give Out Inaugural Donuts; Right-Wingers Go Nuts | PEEK | AlterNet

"Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be."

Sounds good. A free-donut campaign to coincide with Inauguration Day celebrations seems like a tasty promotional gesture.

But Krispy Kreme used the "c" word, and the American Life League is outraged. "The unfortunate reality of a post-Roe v. Wade America is that 'choice' is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand," the group's president, Judie Brown said in a statement. ALL added, "President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda. Celebrating his inauguration with "'Freedom of Choice' doughnuts -- only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion -- is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy."

There are many things one could say about this reaction. "Bizarre" springs to mind. "Contrived" is one other thought. But then something about the page itself struck me, and I realized it was truly a Mae West moment.



In these days of context-sensitive advertising engines, Mae West's observation about publicity is more true than ever:

"I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right."

Actually, it's a gift from God, as far as I'm concerned - and no doubt to the good people at Krispy Kreem, who may well remember just how Florida Orange Juice (Due to spokescreature Anita Bryant's anti-Gay Crusade) became a touchstone for the Gay community in the 70's and 80's. It no doubt contributed to market share on the west coast. Gay activists credit her for inspiring the political activism of the gay movement today - in the same way as the Dredd Scott decision and various lynchings brought about the Civil Rights Movement in a direct line to Martin Luthor King and Barack Obama.

Well, now, thanks to Winguttia, Krispy Kreme may well be positioned to become an iconic snack of pro-choice voters, thanks to human perversity. But even if that doesn't happen, or is simply a passing ironic social comment, it's still worth noting - as a revelatory "tinky-winky moment."

That is to say, a moment wherein someones belief system - or more usually, their beliefs about someone else's beliefs - leads them to say something so utterly absurd that it provokes disbelief and reconsideration of that person's status as an authority about anything.

There's a precept I was taught long ago that can be summarized like this; "that which you accuse others of doing most frequently is what you are most guilty of yourself."

I think it extremely unlikely that Krispy Kreem would be so foolish to try and market their donuts just to "pro-choice" people. In this case it's pretty clear that the word is intended in the usual, English sense - of celebrating democracy and freedom of choice on inauguration day.

Likewise, I doubt very much they were trying to use "subliminal" or "coded language." That is much more the style of the right wing - who in condemning it as vile and deceptive when they see it in others, name it for the manipulative and dishonest practice that it is. Nonetheless, it's Right Wing - and particularly religious Right Wing people - who give the seminars on the practice. They may see it in the harsh light of day as being a little bit wrong - but not nearly so wrong as permitting the easily led to think for themselves! Nor am I being sarcastic in the slightest.

If you deeply, genuinely fear that people, given a choice, will always make the wrong choice because they are inherently evil, then "choice" is a very bad word indeed, and it makes perfect sense to associate that word with as many things you hold to be depraved as possible - if you believe that choice inherently leads to damnation.

This is, in fact, a fundamental tenant of many of the religions nearby or squarely within the Dominionist camp. All persons are evil, are saved only by coercion and self-denial. All things beautiful and pleasurable, interesting and fun are probably, if not definitely Tools of the Devil, particularly if they contain that most lethal of substances - "Ideas."

Speaking of books that contain ideas, you will not find that doctrine in the Bible. You have to do some pretty bizarre contortions and selective readings to come up with it. But it's accepted as Gospel - heh - within the Right Wing Church.

They believe that people, even children and particularly women are evil. By definition. (The Doctrine of Original Sin)

The only people who may not actually be working evil deliberately are your coreligionists. And of course, one of the greatest proofs of being Not Evil is discipline and Obedience to Proper Authority.

You know, people like Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell. Nor are they exceptional, or "bad apples." They are both pretty typical examples of their sort - grifters, scam artists and profiteers.

The more that I've looked into it, the more I've come to realize that under the rhetoric, the issue of when life begins is immaterial; a mere tactical convenience that allows for visceral emotional, thought-stopping appeals. If that were actually the driving issue, it would imply certain other beliefs and calls to action which either do not exist at all, or do so with little or no support from the hard core "anti-choice" wing; social supports and mechanisms that would make it far easier for women to bring a pregnancy to term and support a child regardless of their personal circumstances.

Couple that to the same people objecting to the idea of birth control measures - even condoms and sex ed - and we realize what the real "choice" they object to is:

The issue is the right to choose to have sex at all, as opposed to an assumed duty to obey someone who's been issued a "fucking licence" by the dual authorities of Church and Male Parent; even when that obedience requires a sacrifice of one's own self interest and individuality.

The issue here is that people are not supposed to have the unquestioned right to choose. Sexual choice in particular; the early church fathers were obsessed with sex to a degree that would point to clinical disturbance in this day and age - but really, the idea of any individual choice is deemed frightening. Consider the practices of various religious orders that exist to make it possible to go through weeks and months, if not years without ever having to make a single, individual decision.

(Religous orders can be good or bad, of spiritual benefit or a system of brainwashing. Arguably, it's difficult to achieve the one without a degree of the other. But it will always turn out for the worse if the practice is accepted from authority as revealed without examination.)

At most, they may expect to have one or two permissible options, but never without the input of an Authority, for - and this is according to the doctrinal underpinnings of right-wing American Protestantism - people are literally incapable of making correct choices without the benefit of "grace," so, those who do not share that faith are obviously, consciously and clearly "of the devil."

By the way, from a theological standpoint, from any reasonable reading of the texts, it's complete nonsense. But it's terribly convenient nonsense, for it makes an authoritarian structure unquestionably necessary for salvation! Disobedience will, absolutely, lead to hell - if you believe the Authorities, who are more than willing to send you there, lest your arguments seem persuasive. Those who disbelieve are either freethinkers - such as myself - or members of various priesthoods. Which one becomes, after actually reading the Bible and the arguments for such silly doctrines really depends on one's ability to stomach hypocrisy in the name of personal advantage and/or "The Greater Good."

That's why it is so important to question authority, to provoke such authorities into making statements; to see if they actually ARE authoritative or are "just playing an authority on television."

As much as I pelt Augustine and Paul with bitter fruit from fallen trees, they had lots of good stuff to say as well. So long as you realize they were human, the products of their time and philosophical context and therefore limited in their ability to give absolutely correct guidance in all matters.

But first, you have to realize that even if the bible WERE the "Inerrant, Literal Word of God," it would still not support such constructs as Reconstruction Theology, Original Sin, Marionism, Calvinism or Augustine's views on the place of women within the Church.

Once you give up the Magic Fairy Dust Theory of Inspiration, the idea that despite centuries of translation, cultural shifts and linguistic difference, the King James Edition is absolutely and literally true, you find that the Bible is one of the more concentrated sources of wise and human advice known to mankind - and that the King James the most beautifully poetic way of expressing it - in the English Language, of course, and In My Humble Opinion.