Berlzebub's Inferno

Team Building, My Ass!!

2009-09-09T15:44:00.004-04:00

Rebecca just put up a post on Skepchick about some members of a football team who were taken to be baptized. Among those present at the baptism were the coach, superintendent, and a few of the parents.

In the comments of the post, owheelj said:

I can’t say I understand the outrage that much. If you actually believed that it had some power perhaps, but all that really happened was the kids in the football team got dunked in water. No harm in that. The kid with the Catholic dad is still free to choose whatever religion he likes.

I have to correct owheelj on one aspect. I'm not outraged, I'm fucking livid!

What parent wouldn't be outraged at their child being taken somewhere without their consent.

When Dannie Ammons' 16-year-old son, Robert, left on a school bus bound for a neighbouring Kentucky county two weeks ago, he thought his son's high-school football team was off to hear a motivational speaker and enjoy a steak dinner.

So the father wasn't even told where his son was going.

Instead, Robert was baptized and, along with eight other members of the Fighting Tigers football team, accepted Christ as his saviour.

Mr. Ammons, who is Catholic, said his son received the religious sacrament without his knowledge or consent.

Some of the parents weren't told of what the trip actually entailed.

Robert, a sophomore who plays safety, told his father that his coach, Scott Mooney, said partaking in a baptism would be a team-building experience. "He said it would bring the team together," Robert told the Louisville's Courier-Journal.

The coach abused his position of authority and trust, along with peer-pressure.

Roughly half of the team's 40 players participated in the excursion on Aug. 26 to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church, the coach's church, for which permission slips were not required. That night, Robert and eight of his teammates -- all minors -- swapped their jeans and T-shirts for white robes, and were submerged in baptismal water during a 20-minute ceremony.
[emphasis mine]

None of the players were required to have a permission slip to go on a field trip across county lines? Things must have changed drastically since I was in school. If it wasn't known to the parents, such as going to play at a game or the daily trip to the vocational school, there was a permission slip to be signed.

"I believe the faith was pushed on my son," Mr. Ammons said, adding that he and his wife, who is a Baptist, hoped his son would wait until he was older to decide his faith.

"I think the coach used his faith as a weapon, and my son followed along. We feel like he was brainwashed.... I asked my son if he even knows what it means to be baptized as a Baptist, and he has no clue."

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Ammons is correct on this one.

Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is also a member of the church and who witnessed the ceremony, said she thought parents were aware the event included a church service and said participation was voluntary. "The coach requested the use of a school bus," she said in a statement released last night. "The cost of the fuel was donated, and the driver volunteered."

Superintendent Meeks should have been sure that parents were aware, and damn well shouldn't have allowed the use of school property. If they wanted to get the boys there, they should have provided private transportation.

Although Mr. Ammons said most parents were "kept in the dark," a handful of parents knew their sons were heading to the revival service. In fact, some parents travelled the 40 kilometres to the Baptist church to attend the event.

Who wants to bet that the ones who actually knew were Baptist. Only letting certain parents know what was going on only supports Mr. Ammons suspicions.

"We had invited the coach and his team for a night of encouragement," said Rev. Ron Davis, who baptized the players. "Those boys made the decision in that moment to be obedient and know Christ."

My bullshit detector just went into overdrive. The church is 40 kilometers away, and in another county. I suspect that the reverend was only thinking about proselytizing. I've never met a religious authority figure who was more intent on getting a team to win a football game than preaching the word of their deity.

Also among the 700 congregants was the coach's daughter, who was also baptized at the service. Although Rev. Davis typically seeks parental consent for baptisms involving minors, he said the boys were "bulked up" and looked older than their 16 years.

Wow, they looked older than 16. Perhaps the reverend should have asked to make sure before going through with the baptism.

"I didn't check their IDs," he said, adding that Mr. Mooney -- who has brought players to church services in the past -- did not pre-arrange for the boys to accept the sacrament.

Did any of the ones before get baptized, and where their parents aware of it? Mr. Mooney's judgement has been seriously called into question, now.

"If I had known his mother and father would be upset, I would have tried to persuade him to wait."

Tried? How about, "Not until your mother and father give their permission, or you're a responsible adult." The last of which means the coach isn't ready to be baptized yet, either.

Indeed, Mr. Ammons and his wife, Michelle, are planning to consult a lawyer. "I want something done, this whole thing is just wrong," said Mr. Ammons, adding that his son thinks he is overreacting and fears ruffling feathers among the team. "This doesn't happen every day."

It doesn't matter if this never happened before. It should never happen again. The primary blame goes on Mr. Mooney, and disciplinary action should be taken. He has a responsibility to the parents of the kids on his team. His responsibility concerns football. The conditioning, discipline, and rules of the game should be his concern. Not what religion the members of his team accept.

I don't care if the field trip is to the Creation Museum, or the Museum of Natural History. The school authorities should obtain the consent of the parents, and be honest with the parents as to where the trip is going and what is there. They are there to make sure our children learn. Be it a football coach or biology teacher, their responsibility to our kids is teaching first and religion last. If they get their priorities screwed up, they're too dumb to be in their job.

And I have one other question. Did the boys actually get their steak dinner?

Munchkin and the Twins

2009-09-03T09:13:00.005-04:00

Everyone in our household has had to make adjustments to the twins' arrival. For Princess and me, it's been the late night feedings and logistics. However, the person who's been impacted the most by the twins' birth is Munchkin.

For five+ years Munchkin has been an only child, and the youngest grandchild on both sides. When family came to visit, she didn't have to share attention with anyone else, and even when there were other family around she was always the youngest. Being the youngest meant that most gave her more attention. However, now that Peep and Boo are in the picture, all of that has changed.

We are having to spend a great deal of time with the twins. Since they can't eat their own food, change their own clothes, take their own baths, etc. they require attention. Munchkin is used to having that attention available to her, but now she's adjusting. Having my in-laws, and soon Mama and Padre, here has helped tremendously. It's also given Munchkin the chance to get attention from someone else when we aren't available.

We've made an effort to spend time with her, even if the twins were wearing us out. I get up early enough that I can see her onto the bus, and we both spend time with her in the afternoons going over her kindergarten homework. If the twins are sleeping we put them down and give her our undivided attention for a while, doing something that she wants to do with us. We've also found ways to keep her occupied when we're busy with her sisters.

If I'm changing one (or both) of the twins, she helps me get the diaper, wipes, ointment, etc. If one of us needs to do something we let her hold the less fussy of the twins while we do it, and we're working on setting up a way that she can help feed them.

However, one evening we had a conversation on the difference between "love" and "attention". It went something like this:

Munchkin: “[My friend] said that now you won’t love me as much because you have the twins to take care of, but that's okay.”

[Princess looks at me with surprise]

Me: "That's not true, Munchkin. We love you just as much as we did before we had the twins, but they need more attention. They can't put on their own clothes, eat their own food, or tell us what they need like you can, so we have to spend more time with them. That doesn't mean we love you any less."

Princess: “Do you remember what I told you about when you make me mad?”

Munchkin: “Even when I make you mad, that doesn’t mean that you don’t love me.”

Me: “That’s right. We will always love you, even when you drive us nuts, just like your sisters probably will sometimes.”

Munchkin: ”…”

Munchkin: ”But daddy, I can’t drive.”
...
Munchkin: ”What's so funny?"

Since I don't live in the household of Munchkin's friend I can't say for sure what made her friend say it, but Munchkin's friend has a little sister that isn't quite preschool age. Her father also has health problems, so that would probably play a part in it.

The next time Munchkin's friend visited I sat down and talked to both of them about it. I told Munchkin's friend that if she feels her mom and dad don't love her to talk to them, and if she didn't feel comfortable doing it to come tell me and I'd do what I could to help her.

Thanks to our reassurances, and probably moreso to our actions, Munchkin is coping quite well with the change. She even volunteers to help when I'm changing diapers. Although, I suspect and ulterior motive to helping me change them. She was at the hospital when Boo pooped on me (I won't go into details, here), and I'm pretty sure Munchkin is just waiting for it to happen again.

Atheist Analogy #5: Spirituality

2009-09-01T10:07:00.009-04:00

This atheist analogy is about spirituality. Aaron, who I wrote about in my last post, did a more recent post on Atheist Spirituality.

Aaron saw a tweet by Leonard Sweet that said:

most atheists now claim to be "spiritual;" has spirituality become a shopping bag in which to collect the ultimate in fashion accessories?

My first thought was to question where Mr. Sweet got his information. All too often the term "atheist" is used as loosely as "spiritual". People will use the words, but not actually contemplate what the terms actually mean.

However, instead of questioning what Mr. Sweet actually means by "atheist" the comments had me thinking about the term spiritual.

As I wrote in the comments, if spirituality means "disconnected embodiment of self" then I am most definitely not spiritual. The term "spirit" is often used interchangably with soul, and as I wrote in that piece I don't believe in a soul in a supernatural sense.

The belief that the spirit can transcend the present plane is prominent in many different religions. Even some non-theistic religions, such as some forms of Buddhism, are spiritual in nature. The belief that there is more to a person than just their physical body and mind permeates religions of all types. Without including something "spiritual" that lasts beyond the lifespan of the body most religions would be impossible. An afterlife, reincarnation, transcendence... All would be moot without the inclusion of something insubstantial to benefit from the ideas.

So how can spiritual apply when you don't believe there is anything beyond the physical plane in which we currently exist? If the soul is simply "a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs", then of what use is spiritual?

Perhaps it's spiritual when you look up at the night sky with awe and wonder knowing that there are billions of galaxies up there that only appear as pinpoints of light along with billions of other stars in each galaxy including our own, perhaps it's spiritual when you see your own children born knowing that you not only helped to create a new life but will have a responsibility in making sure that newborn will grow up to become a real person, or perhaps it's just an experience that fills you with emotion. Any of those could be considered spiritual, although in a very loose sense.

However, I have quit using the term "spiritual". The main reason is that it's become so overused that it's became a buzzword. Each time someone says it they seem to be expecting the people around them to react as if they've said something profound. Here's some news. If everyone and their brother, from the New Age movement to mainstream religions, are using the same word it isn't profound. It's boring.

The Lamb Among the Wolves

2009-09-01T09:01:00.004-04:00

Via Mixter I found out about a Christian who attended the Creation Mausoleum with the SSA. As I wrote in an earlier post there was some concern about fanatical Christians joining our group as a fifth column. Fortunately, Aaron (the writer of the post) didn't join the group to cause problems.

"What would it be like to be a Christian and a fly on the wall as a group of atheists peered at exhibits that attempted to prove them wrong? How would the creationist lecturer react to challenges and would he gloat when he wins a point?"

Aaron writes from the perspective of a believer mingling with the heathens, and some of what he says is quite interesting.

I was surprised at the number, and visibility, of the security people, but since Aaron's wife had been there before she had a different perspective. Most places I've been effort has been taken to make the security personel blend in. However, at the Creation Mausoleum the purpose of security seemed to be intimidation instead of keeping of order.

I also caught some of the stares, and was ignored by some if I nodded and said "Howdy" (sue me, I'm southern). I honestly expected it, and it didn't bother me. When you come from a town where everyone knows everybody there are those who know things about you that they disagree with, and if they are of the civil sort they will ignore you. I also never heard the whispers, but then again I was more interested in the displays.

I have to commend Aaron for doing something that not many would even think of doing. He walked a mile (although it seemed like ten to me) in secular shoes, and was disappointed in what he found. His disappointment didn't stem from the actions of the secularists who attended the tour, but of how his own treated his fellow man.

While I don't agree with everything Aaron has written (and I've only read a few of his other posts) I do find his writing thought provoking, and he does seem to be open to conversation and debate. That's why he's soon going to appear on my blogroll.

The Issues of Arrival

2009-08-31T12:26:00.006-04:00

In "The Expectation Came Unexpectedly" I hinted at at least one issue during the birth of our twins (the oxygen mask shown in the second picture). However there's a couple of other things that readers might find interesting, or at least helpful if they find themselves in the same position.

I talked about Princess's back labor and how that influenced her decision to go with a c-section. Well, after they had pulled the twins, and their placentas, out there was some internal bleeding. Not enough to be life threatening, but enough that the doctor felt they should give her fluids and keep an eye on her. I'm not sure of the technical term, but they were afraid that the placenta had grown into the uterus. However, the evidence didn't add up, and a second opinion confirmed that it was something relatively rare but not life threatening. It did require some internal stitches (along with the additional blood loss), but not much more than that.

Princess also became violently ill once again. This time the nausea came prior to the medication. This suggests that it is the labor that caused her vomiting. Now that some time has passed, we've termed it "an allergy to labor". It's funny now, but 36 hours of being unable to eat wasn't very humorous at the time.

Princess had some problems breastfeeding Munchkin. Basically, we switched to formula to keep Munchkin from screaming from hunger. She chalked it up to inexperience, and since I had no experience in the matter, we left it at that. However, the same problem occured this time. This caused some distress in Princess, since we know of several people who were able to. It doesn't help that there are some (although it seems a small but vocal minority) who are fanatical that a mother who doesn't breastfeed is tantamount to child abuse. It turns out that Princess's mother wasn't able to breastfeed either. Both produced the milk, but were unable to express enough to feed the children. Perhaps there's a genetic predisposition to being unable to breastfeed.

Boo had to be given oxygen when she was first born. She wasn't able to expel the fluid from her lungs very well, so they gave her some oxygen to help her breath until she could get clear her lungs. It didn't take long for us to know that she was going to be the most vocal of the two.

We also have to take Boo for an MRI in about a month. She was breech for quite some time, and that means there's a possibility of hip dysplasia. The nurses and doctors who've examined her aren't that concerned with it, but MRIs are a standard procedure in those cases (read CYA). Judging by how well Boo and Peep kick when we're changing their diapers, I'm not that concerned either.

Peep and Boo were originally Peek and Boo. They both would lift their arms and cover their eyes, but then lower them when it came time to let us know that they needed fed/changed/held etc. Since Boo is the less... reserved of the two, she would almost always be the one to cry first. However, when Peep got the hiccups she made this adorable little "peep" sound that cemented the change to her nickname.

The week passed and we were beginning to get into a rhythm. Granted, the rhythm we're getting into is conflicting with our circadian rhythm, but we're getting a rhythm. Princess is very surprised at how well I can function with lack of REM sleep, but several years of late nights and early mornings (involving alcohol, of course) might have prepared me for it.

Where was I going with this? Sorry, lack of sleep makes it easier for me to go off on a tangent. Anyway, last night Princess's incision started leaking. By leaking I mean we thought Boo had pooped on Princess. There was a smell to it that supported the crap hypothesis, but when Princess went to check on it she found that it was leaking from her incision. We called her OB-Gyn, and she asked a few questions. Since there was no fever, and the leaking subsided there didn't seem to be that much of a problem. They still saw her today and examined the leaking. It turns out not to be a big deal, but last night I prepared myself for a late night ER visit and a phone call to my boss telling him I might be a little late.

Now, things have settled down, at least until the next bit of drama occurs. Everyone is doing well, and Princess is now capable of driving. Grandma and Grandpa will be at the house until Friday, and then Mamaw and Papaw will come to relieve them (and Papaw will become Munchkin's jungle gym).

My intent is to next make a post on some suggestions on preparations on twins. It has more to do with what I found besides the list of things to bring with you to the hospital.

"Your Name"

2009-08-31T11:47:00.003-04:00

A reader sent me an email with a link to a youtube video. It's a song sung by Gory Bateson called "Your Name". At first, it seems to be a typical country-western/gospel song until you listen closely to the words. Expand this post to see the video.

Gory gets extra points for using the word "fuck".

(Tip o' the trident to Nick at CSUS)

The Expectation Came Unexpectedly

2009-08-31T09:16:00.007-04:00

On Friday, Aug. 21st, I wrote that Princess and I were getting closer. Well, as John Lennon once said:

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

John Lennon, smart man, shot in the back very sad.

Okay, I'm rambling a bit. Sue me. I'm only getting about an hour and a half of sleep at a time.

On my way home from work on the 21st, a little after 5 pm, Princess called. Just as I answered I hit a dead zone (yes, they do exist even with Verizon) and had to wait a couple of minutes to call her back. When I did, she told me to all a wonderful, amazing, stupendous friend who had volunteered to watch Munchkin when Princess went into labor.

A couple of weeks earlier, Princess's phrasing had almost made me panic and run home from work early. So this time I verified that she meant what I thought she meant, and then completed the final three minutes of the trip home in about a minute and a half. Apparently, I also called our friend.

We grabbed all of the bags containing our clothes, toiletries, etc. and piled into the minivan. Well, I actually had to help Princess to the minivan because she was having back labor, again. We picked up Munchkin, who was playing at a friend's house, and headed to the hospital.

We made it there in record time, and that was with Princess attempting to crush my hand every two minutes. Munchkin helped carry some of the items, and we grabbed a wheelchair so Princess wouldn't have to walk. About ten minutes after we arrived, our friend's husband arrived and took Munchkin to their house to play with their two daughters.

Princess used some very colorful language to tell them to give her some chemical help in dealing with the pain. She also found out that Baby "B" was still breech. Her original intention was to attempt a VBAC, but elected to go with c-section when she found out that Baby "B" may need an emergency c-section anyway.

Actually, I think it went something like:

Get the fucking scaple.

The medical personel started to work then Baby "A", hereafter referred to as Peep, was born (click on picture for stats).

From IVF

Then, a minute later Baby "B", hereafter known as Boo, was pulled out into this world.

From IVF

(Notice the oxygen mask. I'll give some additional details later)

So for the past week plus, I haven't been able to get online, return phone calls, sleep, have any coherent thoughts, or sleep. Yes, I know I mentioned sleep twice, but there's a reason for that.

Now, the week has passed, and I'm back at work. My M&F-I-L are visiting to help, and after they go back to their home my Mamma and Padre will be coming by to help, so we do have help for now. We also have several close friends who have volunteered to help in any way that they can.

That's the story for the past week. If you'll excuse me, I'm now going to paint eyeballs on my eyelids and attempt to get some rest before I go home at 5 pm.

Getting Closer

2009-08-21T08:22:00.004-04:00

As some of you know, Princess and I are expecting twins. Well, unless they decide they don't want to wait, they will be born on Monday, Aug. 24th.

Princess says that she must have a comfortable womb, because no one who's been in there has ever wanted to come out. For Munchkin labor was actually induced a couple of days after her actual due date, because of pregnancy induced hypertension. Even then there was an issue that prevented Munchkin from being born naturally, and she was eventually delivered by c-section.

To give you some idea, we arrived at 6:30 am, they started the drip for the induction medication, Princess's labor actually started around noon, and Munchkin was finally delivered via c-section at 11:05 pm. That doesn't include Princess's adverse reaction to the pain medication given to her.

There are some signs that Princess won't make it to Monday, but we're going to have two more girls in our lives by this time next week.

What is "Traditional" Marriage?

2009-08-20T09:42:00.008-04:00

Recent articles by Rebecca and PZ talk about some in the Bahama's protesting a bill that would outlaw marital rape. Why are they protesting?

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

...

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape," he said.

And it's not just the men...

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

...

Coralee Clarke told the Journal that although she is not married, she believes that a man is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he feels like it.

"If a man wants to have sex with his wife he is supposed to [have sex with her] regardless of what the circumstances [are]. I don’t see why he should be charged with raping his own wife, she is never supposed to say no," said Ms. Clarke.

"If I were married and my husband wanted to have sex with me I wouldn’t stop him, [because] I’m not supposed to, even if I was tired or feeling sick, I wouldn’t tell him no."

There are some who support the bill of course, on grounds that rape is rape.

Reading the comments of the protestors, and thinking about objections to gay marriage has gotten me to thinking. My marriage is by no means a "traditional" marriage.

Calling our marriage "traditional" is a stretch, unless the only criteria is "one man + one woman". Otherwise, there are several aspects of it that go against tradition.

The most obvious is probably my non-belief and her self-identification as a christian. There are some who consider that aspect opposite of the purpose of marriage.

Malachi 2:15 informs us that an important purpose of marriage is to produce godly offspring—

According to this, our marriage wouldn't be "traditional" even if we were both atheists. We're more interested in teaching our daughters to think for themselves, and give them the tools to choose their own paths.

According to the protestors in the Bahama's, ours isn't a traditional marriage because Princess is not my property. We're equal participants in our marriage, and we purposefully kept "obey" out of our vows. We both work (although she's off work now because of the impending births of our next two girls), we share the responsibilities of child rearing, and we both do the house and yard work. We talk over decisions that need to be made, and her input is just as important as mine.

Then there's the ceremony. At the time we got married, in late 2000, I was a non-practicing Pentecostal (i.e. agnostic) and she was Roman Catholic. In order to prevent making some of my family uncomfortable she elected not to have mass during the ceremony (something my MIL couldn't understand). As I wrote earlier we kept "obey" out of the vows, and the participants were a bit non-traditional.

In our party, we had a mixture of "witnesses". On my side I had my "best man" (I'll explain the quotes later), my two cousins (twins and Pentecostal), and a friend who is a child of Arab christian parents. On her side it was the "maid of honor" (again I'll get to this), a former co-worker of Princess's who was the matron of honor, and a bridesmaid who has been her friend for many years. Basically, our party was a mixture of friends, and some happened to be family.

Now for the part that was non-traditional, and caused some confusion among the attendees. The "best man" was a female friend of mine that introduced me to Princess, with the help of her mother. The "maid of honor" was Princess's brother. She wore a black dress of the same cut as the bridesmaids, and he wore a tux. My "best man" was willing to wear a tux, but only if the "maid of honor" wore a dress. Unfortunately, the open bar at the reception was after the wedding, so we couldn't convince him to do so without including money. Needless to say the duties of both of them didn't exactly fit into the normal niche.

So there are many aspects of our marriage that are "non-traditional", and it starts at the ceremony. However, I have never heard anyone complain that she and I should not be married. I have heard a few complain that we seem too happily married, but I have no idea what that means.

My point is that a marriage is a marriage. There is no such thing as a "traditional" marriage. Throughout history marriages have been about politics and power, convenience and appearances, and sometimes love has been involved. Sometimes its one man and one woman, except in the cases of multiple women, additional concubines, and sometimes an understanding that they are allowed to see other people. The purposes and participants in "traditional" marriage are so varied that it makes the very concept of a "traditional" one defunct.

Traditional has come to mean "I like it the way it is, and I don't want it to change". The problem is the reasoning behind their opinion. People keep tagging onto the end, "... even if it doesn't affect me and benefits others."

What if I'm Okay with Dieing?

2009-08-18T13:31:00.008-04:00

If you haven't been living in a bubble for the past few weeks, you've heard talk of the Death Panels. Of course, it all seems to be the opposition crying "the sky is falling", when all it's all really just a few drops of rain.

My biggest confusion is why talk of living wills and the option to die painlessly is such a big topic of discussion. As Mrs. Lemming said in a letter to the Cincy Enquirer,

"No one ever gets out of here alive."

Why is it such a bad thing to be able to be given the options and then choosing our exit?

Death is inevitable. Even religions acknowledge that eventually our body is going to stop functioning. In order for your soul to go to heaven (or hell), your body has to die, in order for your soul to be reincarnated in another body (whether human, mouse, or cow) you have to die, and in order for you to make it to Valhalla you have to die (in battle).

Death is more inevitable than taxes. Every body has a finite number of heartbeats, breaths, and exchange of electrical charges between neurons. You can't file a complaint with the government to keep it from happening, you can't hide your heartbeats through creative bookkeeping, and you can't move to a land where death doesn't exist. Eventually, all that will be left of us are a conglomeration of organic molecules that no longer function as they did when we are alive.

The only thing you can do is live your life, and prepare for the eventual end of it. No, I don't mean attempting to cover your bases on an afterlife, but making sure that if you have fewer heartbeats than you allowed for that you've covered everything you can.

In the past couple of years, my wife and I have been going over such things. We've both updated our life insurance policies so the one that survives has enough capital to go on, and if something happens to both of us Munchkin (and now her soon to be born siblings) have a guardian and some financial help with their upbringing. We've filled out a living will and DNR giving some legal clout to our wishes should we be incapable of telling a doctor the extent of life support that we want, and made sure that the other knows of our wishes. There's still a few more 'i's to cross and 't's to dot, but we're taking the steps.

As much as I would like to bounce my great-great-great(ad infinitum)...grandchildren on my knee, I know that is very unlikely to happen. The best I can do is make sure my family will be taken care of after I'm gone, and that I can make my wishes known for how my final days/hours/minutes will be dealt with.

If at the end of my life my organs are failing, I'm going to be unable to talk, or listen, to my wife and children because my brain isn't aware of the rest of my body let alone the outside world, and I won't be able to leave a bed because it's only the machines hooked up to me that are keeping me alive then I want the plug pulled. If someone else wants to be put onto life support until even the machines can no longer keep their body alive then that's up to them. However, whether I'm kept alive artificially or not should be my choice.

And that's what it comes down to. Everyone should be given the choice, and, just as important, everyone that may get into such a situation should have it explained to them what their choices are. Contrary to what the opposition would have you believe the Death Panels are not going to tell you how you'll die. A representative is going to tell you what your options are and let you choose the one that most appeals to you.

It's not about the government gaining the ability to euthanize. It's about giving everyone the liberty to die as they wish.

Health Care (Bill) Warning... Hoax

2009-08-12T14:04:00.031-04:00

Last week, on August 6th, I received an email from a coworker. It was the day before the SSA trip to the Creation Mausoleum, and I was a bit busy so I didn't worry to much about it. However, the coworker made a few errors.

The email pertained to the subjects of politics and religion (double whammy).
The email was sent to the "everyone" address of our company, and the two sister companies that share the building with us (triple whammy).
After I did a quick check of the first seven points mentioned in the email, I didn't find that one of them wasn't misleading (hat-trick whammy).

If anyone else receives and email titled "Prophet warning in Health Bill", I have two words for you:

DON'T PANIC

Below is the email that I got from my coworker. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll do my best to translate the legal speak in the actual bill.

For clarity, I'm going to use this layout in going through it:

The text of the email in italics

The actually wording of the bill in quotes (if applicable)

My comments underneath

Now, away we go.

Subject: FW: Prophet warning in Health Bill

Good Morning Everyone,
Pleasant enough start, but seeing the word "prophet" in the title raised a red flag.

I am forwarding a message I received from a good and well respected
friend of mine whose opinion I value highly. Even before receiving it I
heard about it from my daughter and son-in-law who is a physical
therapist and a family medical doctor. The message is about the Health
Bill being proposed in congress and what it really means to us as
individuals and as a nation if this were to pass. After reading the
e-mail I decided that I must share this message from Rick Joynor and
Mathew Staver with as many people as possible.
It starts off with an appeal to authority. Not a good sign.

Once you read down a little more, you'll find that he (and the person who sent the email to him) got one of the names wrong. It's Rick Joyner, and when I read this article about him my BS meter pegged at its highest reading.

Then I did a search for Mathew Staver, and got this. Yes, Mr. Staver is dean and professor of law at Liberty University. Yes, that Liberty University, the one that "trains champions for Christ".

First of all let me say I have never sent out a mass e-mail because I
don't like to waste time, mine or anyone else's; however, this message
is of the utmost importance to us all.
Actually, it was a waste of time on everyone's part, but I'll get to that when we get to the point by point included (that goes on forever).

Second, this is a long message and will take some time to read and
digest. Please forward the message to your home e-mail and read it
there or read it at lunchtime. As important as this is we all still
have a job to do and we must maintain good work ethics.
Speaking of work, he really should have paid more attention to the employee handbook when it talks about what we can and can't use company email for.

Thank you for taking the time to read this later and understanding the
gravity of what is happening in Washington. We can do something about
it and make our voices heard by doing what Mr. Joynor asks at the end of
his e-mail.
If I agree with what Mr. Joyner says, sure. However, I'm not just going to take his word for it.

Thank you and God Bless,
[Name Redacted]
I hear a bell tolling.

Now, onto the rest of the email.

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Prophet warning in Health Bill
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:01:08 -0400

Rick Joynor, a prophet in his own right has sent out this important
message. We must pray for its defeat and take some action in the natural
by contacting our representatives.
Still didn't get the name right. Some "prophet" he must be. I have to admit that I am impressed that they didn't start calling for prayer warriors, though.

SPECIAL BULLETIN
NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE

By Rick Joyner
Mr. Joyner must have signed this himself, since they finally got the spelling right.

When I read the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill that is now being presented before Congress, I could not believe I was reading something that was actually being considered in the United States of America. This is not about money or government mismanagement-this is about something far more diabolical than that. As incomprehensible as it may seem, this is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed-it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke-this is actually the nature of what is being proposed in the National Health Care legislation, and it is the obvious reason why the Obama Administration wants to ram it through Congress before anyone gets a chance to read it.
Wow. The first paragraph and he's already bringing up euthenasia, Hitler (see Godwin's Law), and Stalin. After reading about Pastor Joyner, I'm expecting to be more entertained than scared.

The paragraphs following aren't much better, and the ones I scanned didn't contain any useful information. Mostly complaints about bureaucrats and talking about praying, quite often specifically praying for President Obama.

The following is a brief outline of this bill put together by
Mat Staver of the Freedom Foundation and Liberty Counsel (contact info
is at the end). The comments by the brief are Mat's, except where I have
noted my own by putting them in italics. The bold is also mine.

After reading, please do not wait to contact your representatives to
protest this. If you don't get through, keep calling, send emails, but
do not stop until you know your voice has been heard.
Now, keep in mind that the bill itself is 1,017 pages. So Mr. Staver was able to find fault with quite a few sections. However, my reading of it didn't feel as "SINISTER" as Mr. Joyner (or Mr. Staver) found it.

Since I talked about finding errors in the first seven point, I'll keep them in here.

Obama Health Care Plan Details

HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives
I linked to the bill above, but if you want to verify that I have put in the right wording you can find it here.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit the books of
ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
9 (C) The financial solvency and capital re-
10 serve levels of employers that self-insure by em-
11 ployer size.

Since he doesn't actually give any details, I'm going to assume this is the section he meant. However, if you read pg. 21 (starting on line 26) you'll find that this section pertains to a "...study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:"

First of all, a "large study" does not imply "ALL EMPLOYERS". Second, unless such a company had something to hide, why would they care? Don't they have to pay taxes and such to the government on their earnings anyway?

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC Bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar-
5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec-
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con-
15 sumer Price Index (United States city average)
16 applicable to such year.

Again, if you read the part before it says "(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care."

He may even be right on this one, but I have to ask, aren't we currently rationed, anyway? As David Leonhardt of the New York Times put it:

...rationing is an inescapable part of economic life. It is the process of allocating scarce resources. We ration spots in good public high schools. We ration lakefront homes. We ration the best cuts of stake.
Healthcare, I realize, seems as if it should be different. But it isn't.

If you go to visit your general practioner for something you feel is wrong, does he keep you there until he finds out what is wrong? Nope. He rations you to about 15 minutes or so to explain your symptoms, and then he gives a diagnosis and possibly medication. If that doesn't work, you have to call and make another appointment.

That's rationing, and we deal with it every day.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that
decides what treatments/benefits you get

11 SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri-
14 vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec-
17 ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a
20 member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advi
21 sory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi-
23 sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(pg. 31)
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal em-
2 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em-
5 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi-
13 cers, as the President may appoint.
14 Such initial appointments shall be made not later
15 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
16 Act.

Wasn't Mr. Joyner earlier complaining about there no medical knowledge being needed? I'm actually impressed with the idea, but I'm going to reserve judgement on how it will work in reality.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your
benefits for you. You have no choice!

4 (a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for
5 carrying out the following functions under this division:
...
15 (3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
16 The administration of individual affordability credits
17 under subtitle C of title II, including determination
18 of eligibility for such credits.

The benefits are chosen by your income. There's a table on page 137 that helps to clarify it. It starts at 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, and continues up to 400%. Anyone below that 133% is considered to have income of that 133%.

So, in essence they base your benefits on your income. Now we're forced to do that anyway, because a persons income and expenses affect which benefits package we can afford. However, with this it means that those who are at or below the poverty level can still get insurance. The horror.

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC Bill - HC will be provided to ALL non-U.S.
citizens, illegal or otherwise

21 SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per-
23 mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations con-
24 sistent with this Act, all health care and related services
25 (including insurance coverage and public health activities)
(pg. 51)
1 covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
2 personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
3 high quality health care or related services.
4 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To implement the require
5 ment set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health
6 and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after
7 the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such
8 regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that
9 all health care and related services (including insurance
10 coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act
11 are provided (whether directly or through contractual, li-
12 censing, or other arrangements) without regard to per-
13 sonal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high
14 quality health care or related services.

Someone who doesn't fear every word written by the "Obama Administration" could also be taken to mean that coverage can't be denied, no matter what the persons race, sexual orientation, or any other bias may be present.

Also, Mr. Staver must have skipped section 246, on page 143, in his reading.

3 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
4 ALIENS.
5 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
7 not lawfully present in the United States.

Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's
finances and a National ID Health Care Card will be issued!

5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa-
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma-
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi-
13 fication card;

Currently, the government has a record of every cent I make. Sometimes, they even give me money back. According to this, W-2's are some sort of conspiracy.

Also, I right now carry an insurance card in my wallet that tells any medical facility how much my copay is. Big whoop.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your
banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.

21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad-
24 vice;

You mean like we can make an electronic transfer of money to pay our various bills, now? Or possibly the debit card that I use to buy groceries and other items?

Welcome to the 21st century, Mr. Staver.

(NOTE FROM RJ-This really does mean they can take your money at any
time. Who will have this authority?-a government bureaucrat.)
If they could, this would mean that the clerk at Shell, or the "bureaucrat" at my electric company could clean me out.

For some reason, I'm picturing Chicken Little here.

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their
families in unions and community organizations (ACORN).

12 SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.
13 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after
15 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
16 of Health and Human Services shall establish a tem-
17 porary reinsurance program (in this section referred
18 to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reim-
19 bursement to assist participating employment-based
20 plans with the cost of providing health benefits to
21 retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses
22 and dependents of such retirees.

He read that and immediately thought of ACORN? I read that and think of the Teamsters, UMWA, and health insurance plans for those who retire from a job.

And for the record, I don't think ACORN is the devil they make it out to be.

Now, I'm going to skip ahead to the points that deal with "euthanasia".

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning
Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
(Perhaps Mr. Staver read an earlier version. In the one I found online it's lines 3-11)

3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
4 vance care planning, including key questions and
5 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
6 ple to talk to.
7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
8 vance directives, including living wills and durable
9 powers of attorney, and their uses.
10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
11 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

The government mandates that the practioner tell them what their options are. I have trouble seeing that as a problem.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding
living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
13 of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
14 sumers and their families with advance care plan-
15 ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-
16 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
17 service organizations (including those funded
18 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

Actually, the "practioner" will give them a "list of national and State-specific resources... (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965)." So it's mandatory for the practioner to tell you where you can find the resources. Somehow, I don't believe this section is as nefarious as Mr. Staver makes it out to be.

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of
end of life resources, guiding you in death.

19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
21 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
22 fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
(page 426)
1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
3 orders, which shall include—

They don't guide. They tell you your options. Also, notice that line three continues:

4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
6 the individual’s family and the reasons why
7 such an order should be updated periodically as
8 the health of the individual changes;
9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-
10 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci-
11 sions regarding the completion of such an
12 order; and
13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
14 an individual may use to determine the require-
15 ments of the State in which such individual re-
16 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi-
17 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
18 able to communicate those wishes, including re-
19 quirements regarding the designation of a sur-
20 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).

Basically, this is to make sure that the wishes of the person are carried out. You fill out the paperwork, and your wishes are carried out. No one else has any say on how you are treated when the time comes that your body is failing.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of
life. The government has a say in how your life ends.

13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
14 orders to physicians and other health profes-
15 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
16 fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
17 orders for life sustaining treatment;

Umm... Line 17 says "life sustaining treatment". In other words, withing the limits of state laws doctors and other health professionals can override a living will under certain circumstances.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used
frequently as patient's health deteriorates.
(in the copy of the bill I found, it starts on page 428)

17 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
18 spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
19 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
20 change in the health condition of the individual, including
21 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
22 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
23 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
24 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
25 a hospice program.

I cannot find anything bad about this. As the patients health gets worse, they consult the patient to make sure the patients wishes are followed.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for
end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.

1 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
2 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.

Actually, the order is from the patient, and has the weight of the government behind it when it comes to following the patients wishes. From page 429 lines 17-20:

17 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
18 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
19 cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
20 sired by the individual;

So the preferences can include anything from do everything possible, to just make the patient comfortable. It's up to the patient, but the government order is to follow the patients wishes.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which doctors can
write an end of life order.

8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
9 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
11 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au-
12 thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
13 cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
14 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
15 dividual and be followed by health care professionals
16 and providers across the continuum of care;

Actually, State law decides who has enough authority to witness the patient's wishes. Still, it's up to the patient how their care will be done.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment
you will have at end of life.

4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
5 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
6 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
8 clude indications respecting, among other items—

No, the government will order the caregivers to follow the patients wishes, as outlined in paragraph (A) (ii), which I quoted above (page 429 lines 17-20). The patient gets to decide and put their wishes in writing, and the government backs their decision. The government no more gets to decide a patients healthcare than they get to decide who a person votes for in an election.

(NOTE FROM RJ: The above really does give the government the authority
to determine who lives and dies, and when. A government bureaucrat
really will be making this decision for you and your loved ones.)
I'm calling bullshit. It doesn't give the government authority. The government backs the wishes of the patient.

The rest of the email is virtually identical. Take issue with everything involved, and make it seem like the government is going to take everything out of the hands of the individual. It's a scare tactic.

Mathew D. Staver*
Founder and Chairman Dean and Professor of Law Liberty Counsel
Liberty University School of Law Offices in Florida, Virginia and the
District of Columbia, Lynchburg, Virginia
(800) 671-1776 - Telephone (434) 592-5300 - Telephone
www.LC.org

www.law.liberty.edu

*Licensed in Florida and the District of Columbia

Now do you understand why we have to stand up today against this bill
and declare with all of the courageous souls who are sounding the
alarm and let us say to the bill-
"YOU SHALL NOT PASS."

Click here to search for your local Representative

Click here to search for your local Senator

The entire email is full of misrepresentation and cherry-picking. As an example, they completely skip over the section that starts on page 170:

19 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—
20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
21 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
22 child residing with such individual) for any pe-
23 riod if such individual has in effect an exemp-
24 tion which certifies that such individual is a
25 member of a recognized religious sect or divi-
(page 171)
1 sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
2 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
3 of such sect or division as described in such sec-
4 tion.

So if you have a religious objection, as Mr. Joyner and Mr. Staver apparently do, not only do they get to opt out but they can also opt out their "dependents". Somehow, I don't see the holocaust or the purge in Russia being as effective if it was voluntary.

Expanding Post Test

2009-08-12T13:33:00.004-04:00

If this works, and you want to be able to compress your posts for easier viewing, you can thank...Bronze Dog by going to this link.

What I Learned At the Creation Mausoleum

2009-08-11T09:00:00.008-04:00

On Friday, August 7th, I attended the Creation Mausoleum with over 300 other atheists. Actually, it was a mixture of atheists, agnostics, and secular people of varying views but to the Mausoleum anyone who doesn't believe the way they do are atheists.

I arrived a little early. I pulled into my parking space at about 9:15 am, and signing in and picking up your ticket was to start at 9:30 am. I was directed to my parking spot by what appeared to be officers of the law, but in reality they were just the security for the Mausoleum. Before I saw their arm patches, I thought that the museum had possibly had the local sheriffs to come in just in case us rowdy atheists wanted to make some trouble.

Not long after the lines started forming, and everyone got in place to go and get their tickets. Since my last name is in the last half of the alphabet, I was in the line that passed closest to the mausoleum. While in line I struck up a conversation with the No Guy In The Sky and Mixter. This was the first time that I've had a real world conversation with someone as irreverant as me, and it was a refreshing experience.

After getting my ticket I had a gentleman, Mike from Kentucky, take my picture with PZ. Others were waiting to get their picture taken with the atheist celebrity, so I went on my merry way to see what the mausoleum had to offer. I also took off the armband, because I now had the SSA nametag and nifty pin on button.

Once in line, I met a history major who happened to be working on some research in Cincinnati. I can't remember his name, but I remember his research was on radiation effects. He mentioned Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl (and a glowing forest near it). Unfortunately, before we could get deeper into the conversation we saw a kid sitting near a couple of velociraptors.

Him: What's wrong with this picture?
Me: There's no running, screaming, and dieing.
Him: Those teeth weren't made for eating leaves.
Me: Nope... Haven't you heard. They were made for cracking coconuts.

After this, things went downhill. If not for the other rational thinkers, I believe I might have ran out screaming in pain before I reached the display of Martin Luther.

The kid and velociraptors were on display while we were in line for the Walk Through History. While in line, there was a plaque that the 7 C's in God's Eternal Plan. They were:

Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consumation

However, 2, 3, and 4 were the only ones that seemed to aptly describe the mausoleum.

I first "Twilight Zone" moment was the display of two paleontologists. Well one paleontologist that follows the evidence, and another who considers the Bible to be the only evidence he needs. This was the beginning of a trend. Find a passage of the Bible that could be referencing something like real science (if you close one eye, tilt your head three degrees to the north, and scream "LALALALALA" at the top of your lungs), and try your damndest to make the evidence fit your pre-selected conclusion by cherry-picking.

Another theme was putting "Human Reason" in one column and "God's Word" in another. Also, don't worry about the order that scientific consensus has established for how things came about. They utilize section 4 article 6 of their Statement of Faith to it's fullest extent all through the mausoleum.

Early on, they concluded that coal didn't come about the way geology has explained. Their explanation (I kid you not) is a floating forest. My first thought was those forests would have to be huge. Coal seams in the Appalachian Mountain range of Virginia can run through several counties. Not to mention that there is usually several feet between coal seams, with some existing so close to the surface that the floating forests would have been noticed by early explorers, if not, in some cases, in recent memory of the current habitants.

According to the mausoleum's explanation for strata, rock layers are a result of the flood. However, the mass of solid minerals shows, in kilograms per cubic meter, 1346 for bituminous coal, 1506 for anthracite coal, 2611 for limestone, and 2323 for sandstone.

In water heavy materials settle first. That means that the layers should have the heaviest at the bottom, and the lightest at the top. E.g. limestone, sandstone, anthracite, and bituminous. However, coal seams can be found in between layers of sandstone in virginia. In most cases, there's more than one coal seam in any given area, with tens of feet of sandstone separating them. According to the floating forest hypothesis, the FFs would have needed to drop the "bark peat" at random intervals, over a vast area in exactly the same time period to boot, in order to create those seams in the way that we see them today.

The ignorance and misrepresentation doesn't stop there. Continuing on the walkthrough, you reach a section that becomes darker and more sinister. This is the beginning of the "Reason and Atheists" (R&A) section, as I would like to call it. In this one, they use infidel philospher as an adjective to describe Voltaire, they have a large newpaper article printed on the wall calling a self-professed agnostic an "atheist", and following the newspaper graffiti they have the book that the agnostic wrote about his agnosticism.

Honestly, when I saw Charles Templeton's name I immediately thought of the Templeton Foundation. However, the two are apparently unrelated. Still, there seems to be a bur under the dinosaddle that a onetime evangelical Christian would eventually begin criticizing his former faith.

After that they begin blaming Adam and Eve for all of the world's woes, that is until they get to a display that is supposed to represent modern times. Then it starts reiterating the blame of R&A. Once I made it through that, things were pretty much a blur. All I did was take pictures, and continue on my way. The mind can only take so much stupidity before it goes on autopilot, I guess. Kind of like the way a person will faint when pain gets above a certain threshold.

The next thing I remember is smelling food. I was able to make it to the Palm Cafe area to have my lunch, and listen to others in our group discussing what they had seen so far, and even just everyday humdrum things. Then one of our group came up to tell me that the next room had the saddled triceratops. Like a few others, I was debating getting my picture taken on it, but was informed by other attendees that no one over twelve was allowed on. I don't recall seeing any sign near it (see the picture at the last link), but I just decided to move on. Then I saw two pictures that disturbed me more deeply than anything I had up to this point. I almost felt like running, but kept my self discipline enough that I made it to the Dragon Hall Bookstore.

Once there, I took a little time to browse and try to calm down. A DVD caught my eye. The title was Genesis: Today's Answer to RACISM. Vaguely, I recalled the Tower of Babel section of the tour, and shuttered to myself. However, when I turned it over I read this:

Racism has infected our culture, and evolutionary beliefs have dehumanized our perception of different people groups.

Thoughts of slaves being brought to the New World, having their progeny continuing to be enslaved for two hundred and fifty years, and then the passing of the 13th Amendment six years after the publication of The Origin of Species. I stumbled my way outside, either to get some fresh air or throw up, and saw the Botanical Gardens.

I took a few calming breaths and thought a walk among the flowers and trees would do me some good. I resolved to not look at any of the plaques, and to just enjoy seeing the pond, flowers, buzzing bees, and listen to the breeze through the leaves. Just as I was beginning to recoup my sanity, I saw something out of place over top of the leaves. With a groan, I walked around until I could see for myself that it was what I thought it was. Yes, it was a T-Rex among the trees, and to further push my sanity to the breaking points I saw it decorated with green Christmas lights.

A low groan may have escaped, but I trudged on hoping to find some semblance of sanity on these delusional grounds. There were some waterfalls that were beautiful, if you ignored the pump station that was so visible among them, the pond was teaming with pan fish and koi, pink blooms were blossoming from the lily pads at the edge of the pond, and another waterfall greeted my eyes and calmed my senses.

However, it was not to last. On my way back to the museum I took a path that dead ended at the edge of the pond. Beyond the leaves I saw something that caused me to question my sanity once again. Moving back to the first spot that I took a picture of the gardens, I saw what my mind had subconciously blocked out before.

The mausoleum had stuck Nessie into their pond. Memories of PZ's recent post about Nessie vs. evolution popped up in my head. The world started spinning, and I'm not sure if the laughter I heard was from others or from myself (either outloud or inside my head).

Regardless, I glanced at my watch and saw that the time was only a little after noon. For a split second, I debated walking around some more to see what other insanity and delusion the mausoleum had to offer, but that laughter inside my head changed to a chuckl and I decided that I was pushing my limits of tolerance of ignorance.

I regret that I didn't continue to explore and talk to the other secular folks who attended. However, my mind has limits on the amount of stupidity that it can take, and I learned the threshold when I went to the Creation Mausoleum.

Mausoleum Tour Pictures

2009-08-09T19:16:00.004-04:00

From Creation Museum

I've met PZ, and had my picture taken with him. There's also an album of the pictures I took. Sorry some are blurry, but laughter made the camera shake a little.

Things have been a little busy, this weekend, but I hope to give a few highlights in the coming days. Just wait until you hear about how "infidel philosopher" can be used as an adjective. It's priceless.

Skeptilove

2009-08-04T09:06:00.004-04:00

Allison Smith, known to some by her founding of SAPS, has started a blog called

Skeptilove
Reporting on the selfless, generous acts of non-believers.

The cause?

SkeptiLove is devoted to reporting on the generous acts of non-believers (and differently abled believers), and to bringing skeptics, critical thinkers, agnostics, atheists, humanists, and secularists together to participate in charitable projects.

Are you an atheist, agnostic, Bright, or free-thinker that is tired of hearing the canard "You can't be good without God"? How many times have you heard someone claim that without religion and churches nothing would be donated to the needy?

Skeptilove has done an articles on a non-believer working with Habitat for Humanity, Kitty Mervine who made wool hats for people in Afghanistan, and JREF donating shirts to an organization that educates children of low-income families.

Techskeptic did a post on Atheist Charities a while ago, and now we have a blog that gives examples of individuals giving their time, and sometimes platelets, to help others.

I think the idea is wonderful. Promoting "Be good for godness sake", and even taking suggestions for charities that atheists might feel more comfortable about giving money to.

(Via Skepchick)

Fifth Column Concern

2009-08-03T11:34:00.008-04:00

With the upcoming trip to the Creation Mausoleum many have voiced concerns about everyone in the group behaving themselves. The most likely scenario involves a skeptic who gets fed-up with seeing/hearing the propoganda coming from AiG and blows their top. However, another concern is the possibility of fifth column attendees.

Fifth column refers to having people in the group who are there specifically to undermine the group's efforts. While I agree that the underground popularity of the event could make it a target, I don't think it's likely.

However, I thought of a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Ask them a few simple questions that I would expect anyone going on this trip would have an answer to.

What is the current scientific concensus for the age of the Earth, based on scientific evidence?

What is the current scientific concensus for the age of the universe, based on scientific evidence?

or even

Can you give a description of the Theory of Evolution?

In most cases the answers I've seen from creationists to the first two will be off by orders of magnitude, and for the last it often starts with cosmology (Big Bang Theory) and goes on to abiogenesis without ever touching on the actual definition of ToE. However, I would think that anyone skeptical about creationism would have knowledge of at least one of those questions.

During my contemplation of this other thoughts occured to me. The foremost being why are we concerned about this in the first place? Do we really have so little trust in mankind that we think they need told to behave in an appopriate manner, or that they will actively try to discredit our group? Unfortunately, the answer for that is yes.

The reason for mistrusting those who actually belong in our group is human nature. Some people are just unable to keep their heads when listening or seeing fallacious arguments or listening to people spout complete ignorance. Some people are willing to listen calmly, point out the errors, and then laugh when they are at a more appropriate place. However, some can't keep their heads for long enough to make it through the claims by the creationists. Of course, some people are also just assholes.

Mistrust of creationists is even more common. Considering the descriptiive caricatures that creationists, and even those who are simply believers, often misrepresent us with it's hard to dismiss the idea that some are zealous enough in their beliefs to actively cause trouble. It's not difficult to envision someone fanatical enough in their beliefs that they attempt to discredit the group by posing as a member and then causing a problem. However, as I pointed out above, I don't think they could fit into the group well enough to make it very far into the tour with us.

The highest possibility that I see is a protest group. Even then, I don't expect there to be any sort of confrontation, at least if AiG upholds the policies as they were explained to PZ. I expect that all of us who registered will go on the tour, listen calmly, and hopefully get the chance to ask questions of the staff at an appropriate time. I don't expect a battle between Ken Ham on a T-Rex and PZ on a giant squid, but I don't see AiG's claims made during the tour going unchallenged when the time comes that we can ask questions.

Honestly, I only expect that I'll wake up Saturday morning with nothing having changed, except that I will have finally met PZ Myers and several other free-thinkers and skeptics.

Want To Meet PZ... and Me?

2009-07-29T08:13:00.006-04:00

On Friday, August 7th, there's going to be a large group of people going to the Creation Mausoleum. The event is sponsored by the Secular Student Alliance, and PZ Myers is going to be one of the chaperones.

I've been debating on taking a tour for a while, and the combination of the $10 tickets and the knowledge of how limited my time will be after the twins are born brought me to the decision to join this group. If anyone else would like to go, you can register for the group rate here.

If you'd like to tag along, I've also got three seats available in my car. I won't even ask you to pay gas money. You have to pay your own entry fee, though.

I'll be wearing an armband. I'm not sure what color, yet. It depends on what I have available. I'm also intending on decorating it a little.

However, on a side note, I do expect everyone to be on their best behavior. If you attempt to cause any sort of disruption you will be asked to leave by the members of our group, and you will also have to walk home if you ride with me.

I'm not going to be able to make it to the SSA conference, later that day, but I look forward to spending time with like minded people.

Atheist Analogies #4: Signs and Omens

2009-07-24T07:43:00.006-04:00

This atheist analogy is about signs and omens. Signs and omens are similar, but omens most often "foretell" while signs are either related to past, present, or even future events.

Signs, in the supernatural sense, are often used to make the person who witnesses them more comfortable with a decision. They may have been thinking about doing something, then something occurs that is related to the idea and they take it to mean that the occurance is a sign that they should do it. It also can make them feel that a decision that they already made is the right one.

If it is something that they are thinking of doing, then most often the sign is related to their idea. For instance, I've been thinking about writing this post for a little while, and a post on Skepchick appears talking about Eclipses and Omens. Was this a supernatural sign that I should write this post?

As I said, I've been thinking about writing on this for a little while. I'm not sure of the amount of time, but it's been more than a week ago that the idea started working around in my head. Visiting quite a few skeptical blogs, and the superstitions involved with eclipses, made it much more likely that I would read something that started those thoughts to coallesce into this post.

Some may have taken it as a sign or omen that they should write the piece, but for me it was just a reminder which resulted in the post you are reading now.

In the case of a sign justifying something that has already been done, it can be almost anything. An example of this is a colleague who's church helped build a church in India. My colleague was one of those who got to travel to the country for the opening of the church, and while there he went on a "safari" with a guide who was also a member of the new church. During that time my colleague saw a black bear and a deer escape from a tiger. His interpretation of these events was that God was giving him the sign that helping build the church was the right decision.

His "reasoning" about the bear was the guide saying that he'd only seen a black bear one time in the last twenty years. The guide also gave him the "statistics" that a tiger will catch prey in one in ten attempts, but is "99% successful" once it has actually caught the prey. My question was that if it is known that the bears are in the area, and it is also known that prey sometimes escapes tigers, how is that a "sign"? Since this was in a work environment, and he sits very close to me, I kept the questions to myself.

Seeing the bear, while interesting and very cool, I'm not sure if they are as rare as the guide said. There's also some suggestion that prey escaping a tiger once attacked isn't that rare of an occurence. I also wonder if their proximity to the tiger when it ambushed the deer was a factor.

Basically, if someone wants justification for a decision any "sign" seems to fill that need.

What it comes down to is that in the case of something I've been thinking about a reminder of it, or an opportunity to do it, is most likely to cause me to go through with it. There's no need for a supernatural "sign" that I should do something.

In the case of a past action people seem to consider any "rare occurence" as a supernatural Post-it note that says, "Good job". Is their need for gratification so great that they need to interpret some event as a "sign"? For me, seeing a positive effect from my efforts is enough a reward.

Signs and omens are peoples way of trying to make predictions when they don't have the knowledge to examine the evidence. Like many superstitious beliefs, it gives them comfort to have an explanation or prediction for something that is beyond their control.

My personal philosophy is more accepting of the fact that the only actions I can control are my own. Any prediction has some degree of error, and assigning an arbitrary occurence as the prediction won't change what will happen. I also don't need to see a rare occurence to find out if a prior action was right or wrong, because the end result itself will tell me if it was.

Atheist Analogies #3: Religious Experience

2009-07-21T13:25:00.007-04:00

This atheist analogy is about religious experience. Religious experience can take many forms for different people. For some it's just a euphoria that fills them when they are listening to their pastor or praying, for others it involves speaking in tongues, and for others it involves the use of hallucinogens.

Growing up in a rural town in the Appalachian Mountains I got to witness quite a few examples of the first two. However, the only common local drug was cannabis, and that was used for recreational purposes. Keep in mind that where I grew up the Pentecostal and Baptist religions were virtually the only regional religions for many years. In such a culturally isolated location it wasn't very difficult for the fundamentalist and evangelical churches to thrive.

There wasn't a time that I didn't go to church and see someone nearby standing, holding their hands up, and saying "Thank you, Jesus" or some other platitude. Usually this involved a slight swaying to their stance, reminiscent of seeing someone inebriated.

Speaking in tongues was also fairly normal. There were few churches in my localized area that didn't have occurences, and most had them with each service. For a few, the platitudes that I spoke of above would be replaced with an inarticulate babbling, and quite often with trembling. Others would run around among the pews and people, holding their hands up and loudly making noises similar to the babbling of the more sedate group but higher in volume.

Since I grew up with these sorts of occurences, I found them normal when attending a service. It wasn't until I in my teens, and attended a few churches further removed from my locale that I noticed that not everyone did it. Later examinations of the occurences in the churches I regularly attended seemed to show some correlation between the self-viewed "piety" of the person and the severity of their experience.

Like many others I found myself wondering why I didn't share the same experience as the others. I prayed and "listened" for any sort of response, but I never felt the euphoria that the others seemed to experience. However, I did find that other things could give me a similar experience.

Some of you may have listened to music that elicited an emotional response. It was music that caused, and causes, a catharsis for me. A song with just the right combination of tone, rhythm, and "message" can bring on that euphoric religious experience that I witnessed so often growing up. I've even found that simply standing in an isolated location with a wonderful view, which there is no shortage of where I grew up, can cause me to feel calmer and more at ease and peaceful.

In the ~20 years since my discovery I've had several "religious experiences", but none of them have occured inside of a church or during prayer. Anything that can cause a strong emotion causes the same reaction from me (minus the running around and babbling) that I witnessed in those who I attended church services with. However, I don't find it necessary to call upon the supernatural to have a religious experience. I just allow myself to experience the beauty of the world around me.

Elephant Email

2009-07-21T12:20:00.002-04:00

I recieved and email on my post on the Buddha and elephants story. Apparently, the link I provided got the attention of one of the admins for the site it came from. The email was very polite and quite understanding of my views.

Hi Berlzebub...

I came across your blog (http://berlzebub.blogspot.com/2008/11/elephant-apologetics.html) when I traced back the link you'd given to one of the stories we have on www.spiritual-education.org. It was the story of the blind men and the elephants and I read, with interest, your answers to the questions we asked at the end of that story.

I just wanted to drop you a line and say, first, thanks for the link. ;) and, second, I like your answers to the questions. They're refreshing and informed. To be fair, though, the story was aimed at a religious audience, so perhaps it wasn't so much an attempt at apologia, but rather a simple way (for simple folk) to try and understand that what they feel they know / see / feel isn't the end-all and be-all of "truth"... the implication being that we ought to stop trampling on one another (physically, or mentally, or emotionally) simply because of perceived differences (at least in ideas and concepts that are not subject to rational understandings and proof like love, politics, the stock market, and religion).

For what it's worth, I'd encourage you to take a look at the lesson that story was used as a way to give some support to my claim about the intended audience. Because, after all, as we say on the intro page of our site, "Our children will not be able to live in peace until a majority of the people of the world adopt an all-inclusive view of religion and spirituality. The increasing turmoil in the world demonstrates that our lives depend on a unified understanding of the concepts of God and religion that can offset the rampant brutality and devastation caused by sectarian and religious prejudice." The operative notion here is that we say people should adopt an "all-inclusive view" *of* religion, and not an all-inclusive religion.

Best regards,
[SL]
for spiritual-education.org
(Sender referred to as [SL] for privacy reasons)

I honestly didn't expect to get an email, let alone one so polite, regarding that post. The purpose of spiritual-education.org is noble, and I honestly agree with what they are working toward. If everyone would treat religion as a private matter without letting it affect their interactions with other individuals, races, religions, etc. then the world would be a better place.

The moderates of the world's religions (both the moderate religions and the moderate individuals) would most likely agree with the goals of the site. However, the hardest to reach, and the ones who get the most press, would be the fundamentalist extremists. Each one takes their theology more seriously than the moderates, and their books don't allow them to see other religions as being acceptable. Most of those religions actually see at least one other as being an enemy.

Another thing that got my attention was a similarity to something Techskeptic and I discussed on my post about "good".

"...we ought to stop trampling on one another (physically, or mentally, or emotionally) simply because of perceived differences (at least in ideas and concepts that are not subject to rational understandings and proof like love, politics, the stock market, and religion)."

If people would look at their beliefs critically, those perceived differences would be minimalized. They might even disappear altogether. Unfortunately, some have such an investment in those beliefs that questioning them never enters their minds. In some cases, having those beliefs questioned causes an irrationally defensive response. The world does seem to be very slowly moving toward the moderate scale of religious and other beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are so ingrained in our cultures that it will take a great deal of time to overcome them.

Now, while I can understand why those who run the site don't see the elephant story as apologia, I would like to explain why I do.

In the story the six blind men describe the elephant as a tree trunk, a wall, a fan, a piece of rope, a spear, and a snake. Yet still in the end the audience proclaims that "All of them are right".

No they weren't. What they were touching was an elephant. Each was too lazy to examine further than the feature their hands first touched. None of them said it was an elephant, and the only animal described was a reptile (and elephants don't have scales). All in all, the parable only seemed stereotypical of the intellectual laziness of theologians in general.

I'll admit that I haven't done much studying of Buddhism, but if that is an actual parable from Buddha I'm disappointed.

Atheist Analogies #2: Morality

2009-07-09T09:49:00.007-04:00

This atheist analogy is about "morality", or right and wrong. Different people have different views of what is moral, amoral, and immoral depending on their personal philosophy.

Where do we get our personal philosophies? The primary answer from most, I would expect, would be religious affiliation. However, it's not that simple. Society, our upbringing, friends, exposure to other religions, and even education can influence our personal philosophy. Our personal philosphy influences how we view the soul of another person.

Most of all, morality is subjective. Each person or group of people has their own views of what a moral or immoral action is. You can base your personal philosophy on objective standards, but when moral and immoral between people are subjective it renders the idea of morality as being objective useless. I can say why I consider an action amoral (i.e. actions not pertaining to morality) but it's only by my standards of morality that it is immoral. As an example, I consider drinking coffee as an amoral action, but someone who has the LDS church as primary part of their philosphy would probably consider it immoral.

It's this difference that makes it almost impossible to debate the morality of an action. In order to have a debate you have to agree on the definitions of the terms involved, and if the definitions of right and wrong cannot be agreed upon then debating whether an action is right or wrong will never be resolved.

Atheist Analogies #1: The Soul and the Afterlife

2009-07-07T11:03:00.009-04:00

As I mentioned in the previous post BD has already done a wonderful post on What the Soul Means, but I wanted to add something to that.

When I speak of a soul I'm not talking about something supernatural. It's not an entity to itself that magically combines with our body after birth. To me the soul is a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs. It influences our lives, and part of it even continues on after our demise. The soul influences the thoughts, actions, and behavior that makes us who we are. The things and people we love and hate, what we're willing to stand up for or against, who we enjoy spending time with, and even the books and music that we prefer are all influenced by it. The term "soulmate" can even be taken to mean someone who shares beliefs and/or interests.

The "good" soul is one that tries to help make the world a better place than when they came into it. They support the rights of everyone, make an effort to improve the life of the current and future generations, and understand that their actions now will influence the future. Thanks to the information age, they even have a way of sending their message to a large audience without having to spend finances on travel and publication.

Then there's the "bad" or tarnished soul. They spend their days hating those different than (or in some cases the same as) themselves and/or work to make future generations retain the same bigotry, live for themselves and not for the rest of the world or future generations, and in general try to set the world back by endorsing ideals that are detrimental to society.

Both of those lead to the afterlife. Of course, I'm not refering to a Heaven, Valhalla, or Hell (or Hel) of religous nature, but to what happens after our demise. Our actions and beliefs have an effect on those around us. Our offspring in particular are affected by our beliefs and how we've lived our lives, but also anyone who's observed us. Anyone who's had any authority over another influences how those people think and act. Someone respecting you even gives you an amount of authority over them. Particularly, it influences how they remember you and "honor your memory".

After you die they'll follow your example. The influence your actions and beliefs had on them will affect their interactions with the world around them. Perhaps they will start a charity in your honor, make donations to an existing charity, start a scholarship for students who show promise in a field that you were passionate about. Conversely, they may spend the time after you die furthering all of the things that you got wrong but now have no way of correcting since you're pushing up daisies.

Some of you reading may recognize my concept of an afterlife as a legacy. How we influence future generations is at least as important as how we influence the world around us while we're still walking on it. Once we're dead there's no way to change what we've said and done while we were alive, so don't waste the time you have.

Atheist Analogies Index

2009-07-07T10:33:00.008-04:00

The first time I heard the term culturally Christian was from Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The term applies to those who grew up in a Christian environment and understand the biblical references, but who do not follow the Christian faith.

The more I thought about it, the more things that I find analogous in everyday conversation. Heaven, Hell, spirit, soul, and even God still means something to me. However, now it's as a shorthand way of speaking of something that has nothing to do with Christianity, or even anything supernatural.

Bronze Dog just did a terrific post on What the Soul Means and explained how he views it. It's very eloquently written and does a very good job of explaining how something normally viewed in a supernatural way can be used in a naturalistic definition.

So I've decided to go with my idea and start a list of atheist analogies to terms that Christians relate to. As always, my definitions and explanations only apply to myself and other atheists are welcome to give their views.

Listings:
Atheist Analogies #1: The Soul and the Afterlife
Atheist Analogies #2: Morality
Atheist Analogies #3: Religious Experience
Atheist Analogies #4: Signs and Omens

Fiasco Finale

2009-07-07T08:52:00.006-04:00

Someone going by Anne of GG left a comment on an old post concerning the P-Momma fiasco/boondoggle/clusterfuck/etc.

Hi Berlie,

Congrats on the twins!

Thank you. That's why I haven't responded to you sooner. Things are a bit hectic with the approaching births.

P-momma just posted some pics that lead to some albums with pics of her frolicking in the sun and water.

Which definition of "frolicking" are you using? It appears she's amusing and enjoying herself, but I don't see any where she's playing and running about happily.

Is she cured?

Lupus is treatable but not curable, at least for the time being. The primary symptoms also come and go. Like rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases there are good days and bad days.

I don't see any protective clothing and she looks happy and very healthy. Go Here. Hope the link works.

As far as the protective clothing, I don't cover my arms and legs when the temperatures get warmer. If I'm concerned about sun damage I wear sunscreen of SPF 30 or higher.

Of course she's happy. She's spending time with her four children in a beautiful setting. I would expect that makes most parents happy.

Now, I want to ask how does a person look "very healthy"? She's standing, moving about, and smiling. If she's having a good day, as I mentioned above, she probably would look healthy to a person who's only seeing a snapshot of a split second in time. Thanks to modern medicine people with chronic diseases can function in a day to day setting, but that in no way makes them healthy.

I responded to this assuming that Anne of GG (I wonder if she has red hair?) is not a griefer or a troll. As far as I'm concerned, any further commenting on the fiasco/boondoggle/clusterfuck/etc. is beating a dead horse. I've got much larger issues to deal with, and this has become a waste of my time.

Argument from Ultimate Authority

2009-06-18T11:17:00.009-04:00

In November of '07, I wrote a post about Understanding Atheists. In it I touched on the difference between believing in the existance of God and following the same God.

Before and since that I've heard several times that God is necessary for an "ultimate standard" of morality, whatever that means. The arguments against this attempt at reasoning usually involve the one contending that morality depends on God is assuming God exists (and that it is their specific god providing the morals), that they know what God intends, and even asking where God obtained his own morals. Of course, those are just a few.

I can understand the arguments against the believer conclusion, but what strikes me is the release from responsibility that the believer's view provides. Instead of examining the evidence and circumstances they are only for and against what the voice in their head or what their interpretation of the book supposedly based on God tells them to be. Each time I hear them say that morals come from God as an excuse for their point of view, I picture a child in front of their parents defending their actions by saying "He told me to do it".

Prop. 8 in California, and other instances across the U.S., are prime examples. The argument's I've heard mostly consist of "marriage has always been between a man and a woman", or "if we let man marry man or woman marry woman people will be marrying their pets, vegetables, and children". However, when you point out the history of polygamy and confront them on their fallacious use of the slippery slope argument they try to bullshit their way through it.

We're all fully capable of thinking for ourselves. The problem is that so many don't have the desire to do so. Instead of coming to their own conclusions they either interpret their book in the way they can keep their bias, just accept what an authority figure says, or just listen to the voice in their head.

While I don't agree with everything Anne Lamott believes, there's one quote by her that I think sums it all up nicely.

That's how you can tell you've created God in your own image is if he or she hates all the same people you do.