It’s a simple question really, why do we have wisdom teeth? Most humans don’t have room in their mouths for them which requires a simple surgery and an annoying recovery.
According to the bible we were created that way in god’s perfect plan for us. He gave us extra teeth that would only cause problems because… well because he did, and that’s a perfect plan and you must accept it. At least that’s the answer you’d hear from most Christians.
But if god is real and creationism is what happened, why is god such a terrible engineer? I would think omnipotence would bring better designs but of course my thoughts cannot fathom god’s.
Or can they? It is after all, pretty easy to compete intellectually with imaginary friends. I’m actually undefeated against them.
Evolution has a much more reasonable answer. It states that as primates evolved into modern humans we evolved our eating habits which changed the size of our stomachs, the teeth we have and even our brain size.
Our primate ancestors needed those rear molars to chew and break down food so that their stomachs could digest it easier.
Then we started cooking food, this allowed us to digest food more efficiently beginning the breakdown process before the food was even put into our mouths.
It also made food softer which required less smashing of the food as prep work before digestion rendering our wisdom teeth unnecessary.
Over time our mouths have gotten smaller, evolving to be more efficient. After all, why burn the energy and resources to create extra things if you don’t need them? As our mouths have gotten smaller we ran out of room for our wisdom teeth.
That’s why I love science, it provides reasonable, logical answers for questions such as these. It’s unfortunate that so many others find “god did it” as reasonable and logical.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
First Church of Atheism?
So there's this “church” now, called The First Church of Atheism, I've read a few bits of reviews on it and I can't decide what I think.
On the one hand there is a benefit. The church allows atheists to become ordained ministers so that they can perform various ceremonies usually held by the religious.
One could argue that a person could simply go to the courthouse to have their wedding rather than getting an ordained atheist minister. But that doesn't fly where I live.
I don't know about other states, to be fair I don't truly know about my own (Alabama), but I've always been told that even at the courthouse the judge must be an ordained minister to perform a marriage ceremony. Minister in these parts typically means a Christian minister who is going to work god into the ceremony.
I personally have no want to get married, but if I were to at some point I certainly wouldn't want a minister of any Christian church doing it, even if it were at the courthouse. In that respect, for people like me in my situation, an atheist church could be a good thing.
However, there seems to be a lot of hubbub about how Christians would come back with "See I told you atheism is just another religion" thereby lumping us in with them.
First off, why do we care what they think? They believe in a great magic genie that nods his head and BOOM!, existence.
Secondly, and this is only my opinion, I think there should be some type of organization like a church for atheists to attend.
Part of the reason that the right is so powerful is their infrastructure. The tops of denominational hierarchy can send a message thru regional heads who pass it on to state overseers who pass it on to individual churches. In this manner they can be fairly assured that a singular message will go out to at least 70 to 80 percent of their followers nationwide.
Atheists, at present, cannot compete with that. We have tons of websites and books and groups but there is no head group of atheists that were elected by the masses of atheists who can help us to mobilize and become a stronger minority.
Further, an organization like an atheist church would also provide a community setting. I know I would look forward to going to be with like minded people every Sunday (or whatever day) so that I could become "recharged" and not feel so alone in my beliefs. (Again, I live in Alabama so I am very much alone most of the time.) Yes I do belong to a local atheist group, and have atheist friends, but none that meet so regularly.
This also harkens back to my days as a Christian. I loved knowing everyone in my church, I loved that I grew up with friends, I loved the pot luck dinners, I loved being a part of something like that. I miss it, not the beliefs, but the community we created.
Further, I think it would be a great place for atheists to get together and have a "sermon" of sorts. They should all be scientifically based, or at least philosophically based even though that's more of a pseudo-science.
To have these "sermons" would allow atheists to learn more about the very world they live in, to learn more about the cosmos, the big bang, evolution, and any other scientific subject thereby strengthening our belief system.
I do have to admit, atheism is very religious like. It may not be in the strictest sense of the word, but atheism is, at the least, a path, much like Buddhism.
We have faith, not in science, that would be stupid and unreasonable since science proves itself, but I do have faith in the scientific method. It is not a law, or a rule, it is a guideline that continues to serve humanity well.
More importantly I have faith in mankind, that we will learn and progress and evolve and eventually get to a more positive place for the world as a whole.
We have dogma as well. Science, reason, and logic require evidence, proof, a testable hypothesis, something, some reason to believe. We are required to use the scientific method to discern what is correct and what is not. That is our dogma.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, the way that the major religions grew to their current bloated sizes was by stealing followers from other religions. The disciples allegedly went around proclaiming Jesus as the "unknown" god of paganism, telling pagan followers that he is the one they were worshipping in that temple and that he is the one true god.
People are sheep, I hate to say it, I truly do. But we are a vastly undereducated nation. It disgusts me that the greatest library of information not only exists in our society, but access to just about anything a person wants to know is readily available on their desk. Yet we use it for porn and commerce and little more.
People love their religions, they want them, they need them, it is their security blanket, and if you can't give them something else to put hope in, even if ultimately that hope is in themselves, they will never change.
On the one hand there is a benefit. The church allows atheists to become ordained ministers so that they can perform various ceremonies usually held by the religious.
One could argue that a person could simply go to the courthouse to have their wedding rather than getting an ordained atheist minister. But that doesn't fly where I live.
I don't know about other states, to be fair I don't truly know about my own (Alabama), but I've always been told that even at the courthouse the judge must be an ordained minister to perform a marriage ceremony. Minister in these parts typically means a Christian minister who is going to work god into the ceremony.
I personally have no want to get married, but if I were to at some point I certainly wouldn't want a minister of any Christian church doing it, even if it were at the courthouse. In that respect, for people like me in my situation, an atheist church could be a good thing.
However, there seems to be a lot of hubbub about how Christians would come back with "See I told you atheism is just another religion" thereby lumping us in with them.
First off, why do we care what they think? They believe in a great magic genie that nods his head and BOOM!, existence.
Secondly, and this is only my opinion, I think there should be some type of organization like a church for atheists to attend.
Part of the reason that the right is so powerful is their infrastructure. The tops of denominational hierarchy can send a message thru regional heads who pass it on to state overseers who pass it on to individual churches. In this manner they can be fairly assured that a singular message will go out to at least 70 to 80 percent of their followers nationwide.
Atheists, at present, cannot compete with that. We have tons of websites and books and groups but there is no head group of atheists that were elected by the masses of atheists who can help us to mobilize and become a stronger minority.
Further, an organization like an atheist church would also provide a community setting. I know I would look forward to going to be with like minded people every Sunday (or whatever day) so that I could become "recharged" and not feel so alone in my beliefs. (Again, I live in Alabama so I am very much alone most of the time.) Yes I do belong to a local atheist group, and have atheist friends, but none that meet so regularly.
This also harkens back to my days as a Christian. I loved knowing everyone in my church, I loved that I grew up with friends, I loved the pot luck dinners, I loved being a part of something like that. I miss it, not the beliefs, but the community we created.
Further, I think it would be a great place for atheists to get together and have a "sermon" of sorts. They should all be scientifically based, or at least philosophically based even though that's more of a pseudo-science.
To have these "sermons" would allow atheists to learn more about the very world they live in, to learn more about the cosmos, the big bang, evolution, and any other scientific subject thereby strengthening our belief system.
I do have to admit, atheism is very religious like. It may not be in the strictest sense of the word, but atheism is, at the least, a path, much like Buddhism.
We have faith, not in science, that would be stupid and unreasonable since science proves itself, but I do have faith in the scientific method. It is not a law, or a rule, it is a guideline that continues to serve humanity well.
More importantly I have faith in mankind, that we will learn and progress and evolve and eventually get to a more positive place for the world as a whole.
We have dogma as well. Science, reason, and logic require evidence, proof, a testable hypothesis, something, some reason to believe. We are required to use the scientific method to discern what is correct and what is not. That is our dogma.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, the way that the major religions grew to their current bloated sizes was by stealing followers from other religions. The disciples allegedly went around proclaiming Jesus as the "unknown" god of paganism, telling pagan followers that he is the one they were worshipping in that temple and that he is the one true god.
People are sheep, I hate to say it, I truly do. But we are a vastly undereducated nation. It disgusts me that the greatest library of information not only exists in our society, but access to just about anything a person wants to know is readily available on their desk. Yet we use it for porn and commerce and little more.
People love their religions, they want them, they need them, it is their security blanket, and if you can't give them something else to put hope in, even if ultimately that hope is in themselves, they will never change.
Why Does the Catholic Church Still Have Rights in America?
This story is about a court case in which $12.6 million was awarded to sixteen victims of church abuse by priests.
Cardinal Francis George, who is the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, was quoted as saying:
"My hope is that these settlements will help the survivors and their families begin to heal and move forward.”
Heal? Seriously? How will money help these people? Will it stop the nightmares? Will it stop the insecurities? No.
The article goes on to give statistics from an organization known as “Bishop Accountability” which says that more than 4,000 priests, out of 42,000 total in the US, have been accused of abusing children. Often times, the priests are accused of abusing multiple children.
Further, as I wrote about here, the Catholic church actively pushed any victims, witnesses, and perpetrators to keep quiet about it rather than report it to authorities.
I find it hard to believe that everyone who’s been abused by a priest has publicly made it known. Not only because they tried to hide it, but many who have been abused are embarassed about it and do not want to go thru the emotional stress of bringing it out in the public eye.
But 4,000 out of 42,000 is an insane amount of abuse. That’s ten percent of Catholic clergy in the US! Possibly, probably, more. If you know ten priests at least one of them has abused a child. This is a ridiculous amount of abuse. If a car company was selling a line in which ten percent of the cars on the road blew up spontaneously the car would be pulled and banned from the road.
Why is this organization still allowed in this country? If there was an atheist organization in the US in which 10 percent of the staff was found to be sexually abusing children how long do you think that would last? Inside of a week every building owned by the organization would be burned down and all the known members of the organization would be run out of the country with pitchforks and torches.
I’m sick and tired of the church getting to do what it wants basically without repercussions. I realize that the Catholic church has paid out many, many millions of dollars, but that does not correct this wrong. I think Catholicism should be done away with and banned in any free country.
Cardinal Francis George, who is the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, was quoted as saying:
"My hope is that these settlements will help the survivors and their families begin to heal and move forward.”
Heal? Seriously? How will money help these people? Will it stop the nightmares? Will it stop the insecurities? No.
The article goes on to give statistics from an organization known as “Bishop Accountability” which says that more than 4,000 priests, out of 42,000 total in the US, have been accused of abusing children. Often times, the priests are accused of abusing multiple children.
Further, as I wrote about here, the Catholic church actively pushed any victims, witnesses, and perpetrators to keep quiet about it rather than report it to authorities.
I find it hard to believe that everyone who’s been abused by a priest has publicly made it known. Not only because they tried to hide it, but many who have been abused are embarassed about it and do not want to go thru the emotional stress of bringing it out in the public eye.
But 4,000 out of 42,000 is an insane amount of abuse. That’s ten percent of Catholic clergy in the US! Possibly, probably, more. If you know ten priests at least one of them has abused a child. This is a ridiculous amount of abuse. If a car company was selling a line in which ten percent of the cars on the road blew up spontaneously the car would be pulled and banned from the road.
Why is this organization still allowed in this country? If there was an atheist organization in the US in which 10 percent of the staff was found to be sexually abusing children how long do you think that would last? Inside of a week every building owned by the organization would be burned down and all the known members of the organization would be run out of the country with pitchforks and torches.
I’m sick and tired of the church getting to do what it wants basically without repercussions. I realize that the Catholic church has paid out many, many millions of dollars, but that does not correct this wrong. I think Catholicism should be done away with and banned in any free country.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Why Would God Not Show Himself?
Shelley once wrote “If God has spoken, why is the world not convinced?”
Though I did not know the quote at the time, the principle behind it was one of the greatest motivators in my move away from Christianity which eventually led me to atheism.
Jews and Christians worship the same god, something fairly well known amongst Christian followers. But Islam serves the same god as well, something not well known amongst Christians which is highly surprising to me.
According to Christian dogma one must accept Jesus as their savior before they can get into heaven. This means that any Jew or Muslim will not enter into heaven based on the Christian bible. That must have been a bitch for the Jews, they invented the god and the book that would ultimately be used against them.
Why won’t the Jew or the Muslim get into heaven, regardless of how devout a follower they are? Because of Jesus. Because of one name, semantics, nothing more.
This means that the most pious, the most devout, the most righteous, the most reverent of Jews and Muslims will suffer hell, for all of eternity. It won’t matter that they followed the path of their faith, it won’t matter that they lived chaste lives, it won’t matter that they worshipped the exact same god to the best of their abilities and knowledge, giving him all honor and praise and glory. None of that will matter simply because of a name, semantics, nothing more.
Oddly, I continue to find, since my first question to my current search for evidence against Christianity, one common theme. It is Christianity itself that is its own downfall. The very bible itself is what makes the religion so ludicrous. It’s the act of requiring followers to accept semantics over philosophy that trips the faith up.
God is also guilty, he is referred to as omnipotent, loving, merciful, benevolent and so on, but this does not match up with what is seen here in real life.
Jews and Muslims suffering hell is a perfect point of how the bible and God contradict one another. If god is so loving and benevolent how could he sit there accepting the praises of Muslims and Jews, accepting their prayers, accepting that they have given their lives over to him only to punish them because they didn’t accept Jr.? What kind of being does that?
Why would all powerful, omnipotent god not move in their lives so that these people could accept Jesus? There have been men of all religions who led very good lives, better than many of us could ever claim, yet I am supposed to believe that god could not find the time to “save” these men by introducing them to Christ in a way that would ensure their move to Christianity?
I find this to make no sense and if the bible is true and there is a god and Jesus is required for entrance into heaven, then god is a very mean fellow and not worthy of anyone’s devotion or praise.
Though I did not know the quote at the time, the principle behind it was one of the greatest motivators in my move away from Christianity which eventually led me to atheism.
Jews and Christians worship the same god, something fairly well known amongst Christian followers. But Islam serves the same god as well, something not well known amongst Christians which is highly surprising to me.
According to Christian dogma one must accept Jesus as their savior before they can get into heaven. This means that any Jew or Muslim will not enter into heaven based on the Christian bible. That must have been a bitch for the Jews, they invented the god and the book that would ultimately be used against them.
Why won’t the Jew or the Muslim get into heaven, regardless of how devout a follower they are? Because of Jesus. Because of one name, semantics, nothing more.
This means that the most pious, the most devout, the most righteous, the most reverent of Jews and Muslims will suffer hell, for all of eternity. It won’t matter that they followed the path of their faith, it won’t matter that they lived chaste lives, it won’t matter that they worshipped the exact same god to the best of their abilities and knowledge, giving him all honor and praise and glory. None of that will matter simply because of a name, semantics, nothing more.
Oddly, I continue to find, since my first question to my current search for evidence against Christianity, one common theme. It is Christianity itself that is its own downfall. The very bible itself is what makes the religion so ludicrous. It’s the act of requiring followers to accept semantics over philosophy that trips the faith up.
God is also guilty, he is referred to as omnipotent, loving, merciful, benevolent and so on, but this does not match up with what is seen here in real life.
Jews and Muslims suffering hell is a perfect point of how the bible and God contradict one another. If god is so loving and benevolent how could he sit there accepting the praises of Muslims and Jews, accepting their prayers, accepting that they have given their lives over to him only to punish them because they didn’t accept Jr.? What kind of being does that?
Why would all powerful, omnipotent god not move in their lives so that these people could accept Jesus? There have been men of all religions who led very good lives, better than many of us could ever claim, yet I am supposed to believe that god could not find the time to “save” these men by introducing them to Christ in a way that would ensure their move to Christianity?
I find this to make no sense and if the bible is true and there is a god and Jesus is required for entrance into heaven, then god is a very mean fellow and not worthy of anyone’s devotion or praise.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
California Gets it Wrong
A federal judge ruled that a cross standing above a war memorial on publicly owned land as constitutional last Tuesday according to this article .
According to the story via the LA Times U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns wrote:
"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice. As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."
WHAAAAA?????
How in the hell is a cross nonreligious? That’s like saying a pentagram is just a different way to play hopscotch.
Quite possibly the cross is the most well known symbol in the world and it is known as a Christian symbol, end of discussion.
Burns did agree that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christians but also wrote:
"It does not follow the cross has no other meaning or significance." He cited exhibits on public beaches in nearby Santa Monica, and went on to state that the cross is also displayed "along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message."
I disagree Judge, a cross placed in a myriad of secular symbols (they remained unnamed in the story) would seemingly stand out even more as a religious symbol.
It’d be different if the park were sponsored by the letter "t" but this is blatant endorsement of religion.
I feel like if I had served then I would be pissed and feel a little pissed on by the very government I was protecting.
According to one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a member of Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, there are other religious symbols at the memorial but none near as large as the 43 foot tall cross.
According to the story via the LA Times U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns wrote:
"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice. As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."
WHAAAAA?????
How in the hell is a cross nonreligious? That’s like saying a pentagram is just a different way to play hopscotch.
Quite possibly the cross is the most well known symbol in the world and it is known as a Christian symbol, end of discussion.
Burns did agree that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christians but also wrote:
"It does not follow the cross has no other meaning or significance." He cited exhibits on public beaches in nearby Santa Monica, and went on to state that the cross is also displayed "along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message."
I disagree Judge, a cross placed in a myriad of secular symbols (they remained unnamed in the story) would seemingly stand out even more as a religious symbol.
It’d be different if the park were sponsored by the letter "t" but this is blatant endorsement of religion.
I feel like if I had served then I would be pissed and feel a little pissed on by the very government I was protecting.
According to one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a member of Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, there are other religious symbols at the memorial but none near as large as the 43 foot tall cross.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Christians Quicker to Irrational Anger than Muslims
Remember after 9/11 when a lot of conservative right wingers were talking about how Islam was a religion of hate, and that Muslims were quick to strike at any one who disagreed with them? Or even after the cartoon in the Netherlands when many Muslims protested and cried out against the paper publishing caricatures of Mohammed and Christians poked quiet fun at their overreaction to a cartoon?
Enter the cracker.
If you kept up with the Webster Cook stories you’ll love this piece from cnsnews.com. Though you wouldn’t know it had anything to do with Webster Cook if you read cnsnews’s version of the latest happenings.
Allison Aldrich, the credited writer for the piece, seems to be rather forgetful about many of the details, or more likely that she just didn’t do any research. She also seems to be making a few items up as well.
Quick back story, UCF student Webster Cook came under fire for not immediately consuming a communion wafer. Professor P.Z. Myers blogged about it stating that Catholics were overreacting, which was true. He stated on his blog that if anyone could get some consecrated wafers to him he would desecrate them with much fanfare. Then all hell broke loose including death threats, people losing their jobs, and thousands of bits of hateful speech flung from one side at the other.
Allison states in the article that Myers wrote on his July 8 blog that he pledged to “treat that silly book [the Koran] with disrespect” and pledged to desecrate the Eucharist, “which he referred to as ‘that *******d cracker.’”
Actually Allison we’re all adults here, he called it a goddamned cracker, grow up, it’s just a word. Besides, even according to Christians it would now be literally damned by god since it were desecrated I would think.
Further, in this thing called “journalism” most members of the press try to actually quote the subject correctly, rather than just make stuff up. I just read Myer’s July 8th post and maybe I missed it but I saw no reference to the Koran in that piece. Matter of fact I did follow the story fairly closely and as I recall it was Catholics who routinely brought up desecrating the Koran. The gist seemed to be that it was fine to desecrate others religious symbols but an unthinkable hate crime to do it to the Catholics’ cracker.
From what I can tell no research was done on the part of Aldrich for this piece. She starts quoting one Susan Fani, the Catholic League’s director of communications. Susan and Allison must have gotten along fabulously because they both seem to not know what they’re talking about.
Susan Fani, as well as other Catholics, tried to state that since Myers blog was linked to his page on the school website that Myers’ anti-religious speech broke the University’s code of conduct.
It did not. As a free citizen P.Z. Myers can say whatever the hell he wants, if he wants to call it a goddamned cracker and say that Catholics are a bunch of fuckwits that’s fine. It’s the same right you have to say that liberals should die, a sentiment Myers received often in emails from Catholics according to his site.
His blog was linked to his university website simply because his blog does deal with biology. He even has regular pieces that are only about biology on his site.
Had Myers said these things in class, to a roomful of students, then yes, that would be a breach of protocol. Free speech however is not a breach of anything. Are these concepts hard for other people or is it just the right wing that believes “agree or suffer”?
Allison went on to quote another apparent moron, Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. Gary thinks that the University of Minnesota (Morris), Myers employer, is agreeing with Myers actions since Minnesota (Morris) doesn’t, you know, burn him at the stake. Again, and please pay attention this time, it’s called freedom of speech, do you right wingers know anything about the constitution? I get that the president doesn’t but it doesn’t mean the rest of the nation shouldn’t.
Poor Gary goes on to say “What constructive result did this man achieve except demonstrating his own basic incivility?” Well Gary, what he did was expose Catholics as being a bunch of unreasonable, over dramatic, hate-filled, hypocritically bigoted followers of Jesus.
Myers got many death threats, over 12,000 hateful e-mails, and people calling for him to be fired. A priest compared Webster Cook’s actions to kidnapping, and a hate crime. It just got worse from there.
The church on the campus that this all started with has since filed claims against Webster Cook and his friend who was with him but had nothing to do with the original story. Last I’d heard neither of them could even register for fall classes at the school they’re paying to attend. Also, Cook was a member of the SGA at UCF, but impeachment processes have begun, all over a cracker. The Catholics have taken away these kids rights to an education over a cracker!
Allison also mentioned that Myers did desecrate the cracker and she stated that he nailed it to pages from the Koran. What Allison failed to mention was that Myers also nailed it to pages from Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” which many consider to be a seminal work in atheist literature. His point was that nothing was sacred and the point was good.
In the end it’s just paper with words on it and a bad cracker with an old nail thru it.
The amazing thing is that all this time we’ve been told how irrational Muslims are and that they get too worked up over little things. However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not planning to take any actions against Myers according to a spokesman for CAIR. They’re not sending hate emails, there are no death or jihad threats, there are no Muslims calling for Myers dismissal. They simply ignored it as if it didn’t matter.
So let me see if I’ve got this, Muslims should be feared according to the right, because they’ll jihad you and what not. But, in this instance where their holy book was actually desecrated they shrugged it off merely calling Myers a publicity seeking bigot. Yet the loving, turn the other cheek, rational Christians went ape shit and acted like 5 year olds throwing a temper tantrum. But, when you live in a child’s fantasy world I guess you act like a child.
Enter the cracker.
If you kept up with the Webster Cook stories you’ll love this piece from cnsnews.com. Though you wouldn’t know it had anything to do with Webster Cook if you read cnsnews’s version of the latest happenings.
Allison Aldrich, the credited writer for the piece, seems to be rather forgetful about many of the details, or more likely that she just didn’t do any research. She also seems to be making a few items up as well.
Quick back story, UCF student Webster Cook came under fire for not immediately consuming a communion wafer. Professor P.Z. Myers blogged about it stating that Catholics were overreacting, which was true. He stated on his blog that if anyone could get some consecrated wafers to him he would desecrate them with much fanfare. Then all hell broke loose including death threats, people losing their jobs, and thousands of bits of hateful speech flung from one side at the other.
Allison states in the article that Myers wrote on his July 8 blog that he pledged to “treat that silly book [the Koran] with disrespect” and pledged to desecrate the Eucharist, “which he referred to as ‘that *******d cracker.’”
Actually Allison we’re all adults here, he called it a goddamned cracker, grow up, it’s just a word. Besides, even according to Christians it would now be literally damned by god since it were desecrated I would think.
Further, in this thing called “journalism” most members of the press try to actually quote the subject correctly, rather than just make stuff up. I just read Myer’s July 8th post and maybe I missed it but I saw no reference to the Koran in that piece. Matter of fact I did follow the story fairly closely and as I recall it was Catholics who routinely brought up desecrating the Koran. The gist seemed to be that it was fine to desecrate others religious symbols but an unthinkable hate crime to do it to the Catholics’ cracker.
From what I can tell no research was done on the part of Aldrich for this piece. She starts quoting one Susan Fani, the Catholic League’s director of communications. Susan and Allison must have gotten along fabulously because they both seem to not know what they’re talking about.
Susan Fani, as well as other Catholics, tried to state that since Myers blog was linked to his page on the school website that Myers’ anti-religious speech broke the University’s code of conduct.
It did not. As a free citizen P.Z. Myers can say whatever the hell he wants, if he wants to call it a goddamned cracker and say that Catholics are a bunch of fuckwits that’s fine. It’s the same right you have to say that liberals should die, a sentiment Myers received often in emails from Catholics according to his site.
His blog was linked to his university website simply because his blog does deal with biology. He even has regular pieces that are only about biology on his site.
Had Myers said these things in class, to a roomful of students, then yes, that would be a breach of protocol. Free speech however is not a breach of anything. Are these concepts hard for other people or is it just the right wing that believes “agree or suffer”?
Allison went on to quote another apparent moron, Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. Gary thinks that the University of Minnesota (Morris), Myers employer, is agreeing with Myers actions since Minnesota (Morris) doesn’t, you know, burn him at the stake. Again, and please pay attention this time, it’s called freedom of speech, do you right wingers know anything about the constitution? I get that the president doesn’t but it doesn’t mean the rest of the nation shouldn’t.
Poor Gary goes on to say “What constructive result did this man achieve except demonstrating his own basic incivility?” Well Gary, what he did was expose Catholics as being a bunch of unreasonable, over dramatic, hate-filled, hypocritically bigoted followers of Jesus.
Myers got many death threats, over 12,000 hateful e-mails, and people calling for him to be fired. A priest compared Webster Cook’s actions to kidnapping, and a hate crime. It just got worse from there.
The church on the campus that this all started with has since filed claims against Webster Cook and his friend who was with him but had nothing to do with the original story. Last I’d heard neither of them could even register for fall classes at the school they’re paying to attend. Also, Cook was a member of the SGA at UCF, but impeachment processes have begun, all over a cracker. The Catholics have taken away these kids rights to an education over a cracker!
Allison also mentioned that Myers did desecrate the cracker and she stated that he nailed it to pages from the Koran. What Allison failed to mention was that Myers also nailed it to pages from Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” which many consider to be a seminal work in atheist literature. His point was that nothing was sacred and the point was good.
In the end it’s just paper with words on it and a bad cracker with an old nail thru it.
The amazing thing is that all this time we’ve been told how irrational Muslims are and that they get too worked up over little things. However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not planning to take any actions against Myers according to a spokesman for CAIR. They’re not sending hate emails, there are no death or jihad threats, there are no Muslims calling for Myers dismissal. They simply ignored it as if it didn’t matter.
So let me see if I’ve got this, Muslims should be feared according to the right, because they’ll jihad you and what not. But, in this instance where their holy book was actually desecrated they shrugged it off merely calling Myers a publicity seeking bigot. Yet the loving, turn the other cheek, rational Christians went ape shit and acted like 5 year olds throwing a temper tantrum. But, when you live in a child’s fantasy world I guess you act like a child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
