Palin, Her 'Brand' of Christianity, and Why It's a Grave Threat To America....

(This is an article by Christopher Hitchens, the pundit from the UK who people either love or hate, depending.)

(I have several friends who are Christians.

The ones to whom I tend to gravitate are of the 'thinking' variety -- they're the polar-opposite of the woman in the photo, who, if you'll read Hitchens' article, below, is a throwback to a time when my Grandma attended a church where people Climbed the Stovepipes.

I don't much care what religion a person follows -- but I hope the last couple of paragraphs in this Red Letter Edition will give you some pause as you're considering for whom you'll vote. I don't have to tell any of you with half a brain that this woman is the vanguard of a particularly dangerous group of religious nutbags who'd finish what the Bush Administration has started - the dismantling of the Constitution).

________________________________________________________

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."

It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully "cultured" in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature "issue" of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It's especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.

In this case, it could be argued, Palin was not just being a fool in her own right but was following a demagogic lead set by the man who appointed her as his running mate. Sen. John McCain has made repeated use of an anti-waste and anti-pork ad (several times repeated and elaborated in his increasingly witless speeches) in which the expenditure of $3 million to study the DNA of grizzly bears in Montana was derided as "unbelievable." As an excellent article in the Feb. 8, 2008, Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a "paternity" or "criminal" issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)

With Palin, however, the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister than the bluff, empty-headed plain-man's philistinism of McCain. We never get a chance to ask her in detail about these things, but she is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools (smuggling this crazy idea through customs in the innocent disguise of "teaching the argument," as if there was an argument), and so it is at least probable that she believes all creatures from humans to fruit flies were created just as they are now. This would make DNA or any other kind of research pointless, whether conducted in Paris or not. Projects such as sequencing the DNA of the flu virus, the better to inoculate against it, would not need to be funded. We could all expire happily in the name of God. Gov. Palin also says that she doesn't think humans are responsible for global warming; again, one would like to ask her whether, like some of her co-religionists, she is a "premillenial dispensationalist"—in other words, someone who believes that there is no point in protecting and preserving the natural world, since the end of days will soon be upon us.

Videos taken in the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska, which she used to attend, show her nodding as a preacher says that Alaska will be "one of the refuge states in the Last Days." For the uninitiated, this is a reference to a crackpot belief, widely held among those who brood on the "End Times," that some parts of the world will end at different times from others, and Alaska will be a big draw as the heavens darken on account of its wide open spaces. An article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times gives further gruesome details of the extreme Pentecostalism with which Palin has been associated in the past (perhaps moderating herself, at least in public, as a political career became more attractive). High points, also available on YouTube, show her being "anointed" by an African bishop who claims to cast out witches. The term used in the trade for this hysterical superstitious nonsense is "spiritual warfare," in which true Christian soldiers are trained to fight demons. Palin has spoken at "spiritual warfare" events as recently as June. And only last week the chiller from Wasilla spoke of "prayer warriors" in a radio interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said that he and his lovely wife, Shirley, had convened a prayer meeting to beseech that "God's perfect will be done on Nov. 4."

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

"First; They Came For the Jews" -- Fascism, the Constitution, and Why It Matters Now....

(Wehrmacht Enlisted-Ranks Belt Buckle -- National Socialist Germany; 1933-1945)

("The flags are high; the ranks are tightly closed"- from the 'Horst Wessel Lied'; 1930)

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross."--Sinclair Lewis; American Author

I was recently taken to task by someone I've respected.

He's done a great job in the life of another online friend - and she's very happy now as a result. I believe he's a good man. He's got a quick wit, a winning smile, and is by-and-large a pretty upbeat fellow.

The other day, he called me a coward.

The reason?
 
I believe in the Constitution - and I've made it clear that I support the Constitution of the U.S. above any religious book, or interpretation-thereof - but before I get into all of that, I'd like you to take a good look at the photo above.
I've collected WWII memorabilia for some years. A couple of friends think it's rather spooky; my affinity for Some Things National-Socialist, but I'm a trained historian, and view artifacts as just-that.

I'm supposing it helps that I didn't lose anyone to Hitler's vision of a New World Order.

Back about thirty-odd years ago, I did a fairly exhaustive study of National Socialism (that's the proper name for what most people call "Naziism"). I still have most of my research materials, and a few that have been updated over the years as new things have come to light.

I remember being all of 19, and realizing that National Socialism, while being a governmental system, was also a religion.

I told one of my professors, "The Nazis actually viewed themselves as carrying on God's work. They were Christians!"

He laughed, and said something to the effect of, "Took you that long to figure it out?"

I was stunned, for weeks.

National Socialism - with its blood-cults and flags and oaths and trappings - was a religion. More to the point, it was a perverted form of Christianity.

For twelve years, Germany descended into a national madness -- thus proving, in the twentieth century what people learned first-hand in the tenth: That religion was the only power strong enough to force people to change an entire nation's underlying philosophy, and hence, its direction - and when that power was threatened, they really did close ranks - because preservation of the status quo was all that mattered.

At the end of the day, whether it's good or bad all depends upon one's point of view.

____________________________________

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." (First Amendment; U.S. Constitution)

I'd think that was pretty clear -- the U.S. Government is out of the religion business.

We were founded as a secular republic -- the difference between a republic and a democracy being that while a democracy is, when all the niceties have been said, merely mob-rule of the majority over the minority, while a republic is a Constitutionally-derived government, where rule of law is established by a freely-elected legislative body. - and that nagging bit of text I just quoted above is our guarantee that religion would never figure in the equation.

My online-friend here is a virulent anti-abortionist. Now, the way I see it, you can be 'anti' anything you choose - you can be against nail-biting; long-hair on men; poorly-kept hotel-rooms - it really doesn't matter to me.

However, when a person starts making comments like "We're going to pass a law against that!", then I sit up and pay attention.

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
--Pastor Martin Niemuller; 1946

Folks, there are people who would actually throw out Roe vs. Wade, and take us back to a time when back-alley abortions were a staple of life for women in America.

They would turn the clock back in the name of their 'god'.

And, they'd do it by amending large parts of the Constitution.
 
My question: Where does it stop?

Go back to that photo.
 
Those people believed in 'god', too. They revered Jesus. They also killed over 10 million people, not counting military casualties.

I'm trusting I've made my point here. When you mix religion and government, you get some very bad things. You get things like National Socialism.

You get people turned out of their homes and deported for being 'different'. You get concentration-camps. You get Joan-of-Arc; extra-crispy. You get Buchenwald.

Don't say I didn't warn you.
 

(Horst Wessel Lied - National Socialist Anthem)

Cletus, DaisyMae, and My Choice For President....

We are a little over two weeks from the most important election in nearly 150 years.

I've often been called names for what I'm about to say - and I'll reply in the same manner -- "It's not about money. It's about personal standards."

Thing is, I had plenty of friends of modest-means when I was growing up. Some lived not much better than the folks in the photo. Some grew up on estates.
However, regardless of the means, the standards were set - and set high. We'd just completed a war - a very expensive war, which guaranteed freedom for most of the planet. Our parents, regardless of their financial capacity, were nearly all of one voice - go to school; learn something useful, and make this count.

By and large we did - but somewhere along the way, we lost the most important lesson -- that you can't ignore the past, or you will (in the words of the old historian) 'remain forever a child'.

There are a lot of mental-children in America nowadays.
They cheered when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 cut taxes for nearly everyone - and left the poorest people still paying a disproportionate share.
They cheered when the banking deregulations, started by Carter and further loosened by Reagan, allowed for anyone to get a loan for nearly anything at all.

They thought it was a great idea to continue supporting a racist regime in Israel.
They blamed everyone but themselves when we got our first wake up call in '73, and our second in '79, telling us in no uncertain terms that the oil-supply was running out.

Meantime, they kept watching NASCAR and drinking beer - and what their kids were doing, their 'god' alone knew - because if they ever cared about Jefferson's ideal of an educated (and therefore egalitarian) populace, they'd long since abandoned that ideal.

They make comments like this -- which sicken me, and make me ashamed to call myself an American:

They were aghast when Islamic fundamentalists, recruited and trained by idealists sick of American intervention in their affairs, found a way to hurt us.

They cheered when the man they elected President went to war, first in Afghanistan under the cloak of righteousness, in order to 'fight terrorism'; and later when he lied to us and sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight a country which was not at war with us.
They've continued to cheer, with the cost over a trillion dollars and counting.

They've cheered his systematic destruction of the Constitution - to the point where there are now 'detention ships' out at sea (in international waters, where no law applies), and camps for the arrest and detention-without-trial of 'enemy combatants' (the definition of which is created only by those in power).

Those of us who braved the tear gas and truncheons to put an end to Vietnam are a bit old for this sort of thing - but those few of us who still see the danger, and who understand that we're just a step away from the truncheon being used in lieu of discourse, are now saddened - because we see that there is no generation willing to pick up the torch and stand against this new Caesar and his followers who would cross a metaphorical and modern-day Rubicon.
There are few things about which I'm passionate any more - but the Constitution is one of them. When we face the threats of a religious-right attempting to turn Jefferson's Grand Experiment into a Christian theocracy, and when I see those same people, some in power, dismantling the creation of the founders of this nation, I get pretty passionate.

Where we once had a nation which was open to all - regardless of race, religion, or creed -- we now have a nation where "Welcome to America - Now Learn English" is the response to people who want to live here.

We have people like those in the video, above - who spout racism and hate, and believe it's "American" to do so.

We have a nation of people to whom that most-American-of-authors, Sinclair Lewis, referred when he said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross."
I believe in Liberty. And Justice. For All.

Not just the Religious-Right. Not just the Neocons. Not just those who would be cavalier with the basic civil (and even human) rights of Those Who Do Not Look And Think As They Do.
I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America.

All of it.

Because of this fundamental belief, I've wrestled with the choices we have for President this year -- and they really do boil down to this:

I can vote my conscience, and write in the name of Ron Paul.

Or, I can be practical about the situation, and vote for one of the people who actually has a chance of winning.

Please understand - I hate this choice, because I believe Paul would make the best President. He would put an end, and soon, to the nonsense which has passed for domestic and foreign policy for the past sixty years, and bring America back to a track which would build real wealth and security for everyone who lived here - not just a few.

However, that said, I also have to accept two other facts: Ron Paul, regardless of how right he may be for this job, cannot win. Therefore, my vote would be symbolic.
The second fact is this: We cannot afford any symbolic votes.

We are in a position where the choice is between at least four more years of Constitutional depredation; four more years of the trampling of human and civil rights; four more years of economic failure -- or an amorphous 'change', which to this point has been rather poorly-defined, but which would at least be a departure from the rape and pillage of our rights, freedoms and wallets by the Neocons.

Folks, we're going to wind up paying higher taxes -- one choice says 'no'; the other says 'yes, you will - it's the truth; and I won't candy-coat it.'

One choice says 'Four more years of the same thing is good for you', while the other says 'Four more years of the same thing is something we simply can no longer afford.'
I believe America stands at the brink of depression and civil-war.
For the reasons I've stated above, my choice for President is Barack Obama.


I'm hoping those of you reading this who are American citizens will join me in that choice.

Our Own Country....

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis

Well, the stock-market has lost 1/3 of its value in the last week and a half; the voices of the right and the left have become ever-more-shrill, and it looks like the banking system is teetering on the edge of complete collapse.

We could easily see our 7% unemployment rate go to 25% or 30% -- with nothing to save us from ourselves, because we've allowed all of the banking regulation which kept things in check go straight out the window.

It's times like these that bring about changes in governments. Dictatorships, and the like. Because of this, I'm thinking that living here might be a Bad Idea.

______________________________________

Right about now, I'm for starting our own country.

Here's my start on a Constitution:

Rights:
Everyone has rights - until those rights begin to infringe on the rights of another. By definition, you don't have the 'right' to force someone else to mow their damn lawn; shave; or do anything else. Don't want to shave? Don't. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Want to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Go ahead on -- just don't force it on anyone else. You'll be deported otherwise.

Want to pray? Do it at home. Are there four or five of you who want to do the same thing? Fine. Meet anywhere you want. It'll be against the law to stop you (again; just don't go trying to push it on anyone else. If you're That Good, they'll come voluntarily).


Military:
We don't need one, because we're not at war. Unless it's with mosquitoes. Or yellow-jackets. We'll save a lot of money on this one; trust me. Want to own a gun? Several? Fine. Use 'em on another person, and you'll find yourself looking for another island to live on.

Sexual Preference:
Personally, I've always preferred sex to celibacy. I think it's a good idea. If you want a girlfriend and you're female, go ahead. Just take pictures. We like pictures. You a guy, and want a boyfriend? Go ahead on. But no pictures.

Health Care:
Soon's we can, we'll encourage a doctor to move to the island. I'm just hoping this person values the lifestyle, because there won't be any Medicaid; no overpayments; no HMO's - none of that. I'll allow that surviving things like cancer will be pretty dicey, due to some pretty rudimentary supplies -- but I promise I'll go to your funeral, and I'll keep my mouth shut if your relatives want to pray - because of the first statement (see 'Rights').

Education:
If you have kids, we'll all see that they get educated. I've a masters' in history, and I think I could do a good job there; that, and anthropology, if they're so inclined. We'll have to find someone who wants to teach math, science, and maybe English/Spanish/whatever other languages are spoken amongst our inhabitants. Oh, and I can teach 'em how to write. We'll probably do better than most of the schools your kids are in right now, so don't worry. There won't be any damn GameBoy's to get in the way of homework.
No P.E., though. They can play football, soccer, or whateverthehell after school -- and because life will be a bit rustic, they'll have plenty of chores to keep 'em busy.

Infrastructure:
I'm thinking that basic roads'll be enough.

Law:
Apart from this one, I'm not thinking we'll need much. Personally, too much law usually means too little order.

Money:
Cowrie shells. They work for others; why not us?

Trade:
Yes. I like trade. Especially if we can trade fish and coconuts for other things we need.

Labor:
We all meet in the town square and divide up the chores. End story.

Politics:
None. Ever.
____________________________________
So - -what do you think?

Atheism, Freethought, and Why They're Important to America....

Recently, I've been told that I'm 'attacking Christians', especially with my last post.

I can see where someone who was very unsettled in what they might believe would feel this way. However, my last post was based entirely on a fairly snarky film done by Bill Maher, called "Religulous".

In it, Bill pokes holes in a light-hearted manner in nearly every religion. He has fun with it, and in so doing, should make some folks do some thinking.

In the end, it's personal -- and since several of you are new to my Blogspot blog (and probably to my Multiply feed, as well), I'm going to restate a few things I wrote about back on 360.

See, unless you've not been paying any attention at all over the past eight years, we've got a fellow in the White House who has all but dismantled the only document we have to govern us (it's called the "Constitution") -- and he's made it very, very clear that (1) it's just a 'goddamned piece of paper', and that (2) he honestly believes 'god' has chosen him to do all this.

To that end, I'm going to restate some things.

_____________________________________

I owe a lot to Twain. He wasn’t a good businessman, but he was a great writer. Alternately broke and rich as the world counted such things, he didn’t seem to mind.

In the end, there’s a parallel.

See, I don’t mind, either. My neighbor across the road, John, is the walking/talking/breathing epitome of Ned Flanders, the goofy Christian and neighbor of Homer Simpson. In about a month, you'll be able to see his house from space - because he puts up Christmas lights, and has a Christmas tree in his living room which will easily heat the whole house.

While I think both are a waste of electricity, I’ve also taken to loaning him my ladder, and helping with the lights. Y'see, they're cheery - and I'm not threatened in the least by his Christmas lights, or his tree.

My attorney is another case.

He’s Jewish.

He wishes me Merry Christmas, and never gets the irony of it all, as he's Jewish, I'm an atheist, and I still say Happy Haunakkah.

I have another neighbor who's Muslim. He's got a wondeful sense of humor; his wife runs a wonderful Lebanese restaurant nearby, and I'm a regular and enthusiastic customer. (She joked with me recently about making dinners for 'unbelievers' during Ramadan -when she has to fast - cooking is torture during that holiday, but it pays the bills -- we've both laughed about the irony of it all.)

I'm not threatened by their religion, either.

See, the way I look at it is thus: The world’s religions have, given their inherent negativity (war, mind-control, and all those other things that their practitioners would just as soon we thinking-folks forget) never solved a blasted thing.

They’ve come no closer to explaining things in an empirical sense than before they existed.

However, just as long as they're practiced personally, they're not a threat to me at all.

The reason they're not a threat is -- well -- because of that 'goddamned piece of paper' called the Constitution.

Y'see, we were founded as a secular, Constitutional republic. That's different than a democracy -- as Jefferson said, he envisioned a republic so that 'the mob would not enslave the minority with a vote.'

I'm more than comfortable with that. In fact, I'd like to see us undo the stuff the Neocon's have done to the Constitution, because we're a pretty big country - with Christians, Jews, Muslims - and us Atheists, too.

I'm comfortable with Ned - er; John - putting up his Christmas lights.

I'm comfortable with my friend Amir's wife Miriam fasting over Ramadan.

I'm comfortable with my attorney being Jewish.

The problem in America of late is that there's an element that's not comfortable with my being an Atheist, and insisting that the country remain free for everyone to worship as they damn please, and leave their religion out of the halls of Congress and out of the damn courthouses.

You see, there are 40 million of us Atheists. There are many others who practice 'alternate belief systems' which fall into the Freethought 'orbit', but which can't be readily quantified. Taken together, we're a balance against the more-militant and negative aspects of religion.

Believe it or not, you're all glad we're here, whether you'd admit it or not.

In the end, I don’t know what’s out there. Thing is, I cheerfully admit it. Thing about the Other Side is that they won’t admit it – they’ll just go on telling me I’m going to a place called Hell, because they ‘know it’s there’, and one book or another says so.

Me? I’m excited about life. The fact that I don’t know what it’s about doesn’t make me obsess over classifying, ordering, and ‘understanding’ it all. Some things can’t be understood, and Life is at the top of that list.

On balance, I’m happier than most religious types – I mean, can you imagine the stress of seeing your friends and knowing with all certainty that they were going to a place like Hell?

I mean – with all that 'certain knowledge', if I were they, I’d be wasting no time raising a veritable army of ‘believers’ – and marching through – wait; that’s been done. Sorry.

Y’see, I've said similar things to my Believing friends; they all look at me strangely. Peeing in someone’s ethereal Cheerios is an unsettling thing; no one's done that before, and they're all of a sudden having to say, "My Cheerios are wet! Especially the one I was going to sell on Ebay that looks like Jesus! And you peed in them! That's pee! Dammit! Oops! I'm not supposed to say that! Hey! Is any of this real? See what you've done? You've actually made me doubt!"

Now, peeing in Cheerios is only one of the services I provide for free to my friends -- right along with helping with garden-work, loaning ladders and fixing the occasional flat-tire - - but it's probably the most-disquieting and least-appreciated.

____________________________


I’m a Freethinker; a Skeptic, and a political Libertarian. I’ll explain each as clearly as I can, and offer some reference sites at the end if you’d like to do a little more reading.


Freethought is a philosophy which holds that nothing should be believed or rejected without hard evidence. The philosophy traces its roots to the teachings of Epictetus (a Greek philosopher who lived between the first and second centuries CE); Epictetus was a stoic, who lived most of his life in Rome and was a major influence on the life and writings of Marcus Aurelius, who served as Rome’s emperor from 161 CE until his death in 180 CE. The “Meditations” of Marcus Aurelius, along with the “Discourses” of Epictetus form the basis of Stoic philosophy as it is understood and practiced today.

Stoicism, from which Freethought derives much of its basis, is a set of core-beliefs which teaches that a simple life, lived as simply as possible – devoid of many of the trappings of life and emphasizing the simplicity of nature/environment over conspicuous consumption and extravagance, plus valuing reason and logic over emotion, is the best form and method for living a full life.

“There are two rules to living a full life. First, keep an untroubled spirit. Second, develop the ability to look things in the face and see them for what they really are.”

-- Marcus Aurelius

Historically, there have always been Freethinkers, although the persecution of Freethought by the early Christian church, as well as by Islamic religious leaders kept the concept underground past the classical era and into the Middle Ages. Bhuddist religious teachers have embraced Freethought more readily.

It wasn’t until the 1600’s that the concept of Freethought became more acceptable. Philosophers such as John Locke (England), and Voltaire (France) held with the Freethinkers that man’s natural state was that of liberty and equality, and that a person was free to act as he or she pleased, up to the point where that freedom imposed upon another.

The writings of Locke and Voltaire influenced their age, and were a significant part of defining the sociopolitical-construct as we know it today – that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed; not from any arbitrary definition and not by the sanction of a form of deity.

In the 1840’s the revolutions in Germany pushed many freethinkers to emigrate to America. Several Freethought colonies were established in Texas by German immigrants, which led to the spread of Freethought as a concept throughout the U.S. and Canada. The spread of Freethought as a concept led in its turn to the rise of Humanism, a similar philosophy which upholds logic and reason, and which specifically rejects the concepts of divinity.

By now, you’ve guessed right. I don’t believe in any form of ‘god’.

Summing up the personal, my beliefs are as follows:

-- Absent empirical evidence, I do not accept or reject anything out of hand.

-- Logic and reason are the only things which make sense.

-- Unbridled emotion is a very destructive force – whether we call that emotion ‘hate’, or ‘love’ – they come from the same place.

-- A child is born wired to behave – they learn evil. (Note: This is where I don’t square with Locke or the other classicists).

-- Freedom and liberty are the natural states of man.

-- There is not one shred of evidence supporting the existence of a ‘god’. (While there are plenty of hyperboles and superlatives – ‘a baby’s cry’; ‘a rainbow’; ‘the forest in daylight’ – these are not in and of themselves evidence of anything save for what they are).

Skepticism
Skepticism is the specific practice of the scientific method in daily life. Put another way, a skeptic verifies a claim based on objective evidence, not on ‘faith’, anecdote, or other unverifiable pseudoevidence. Skeptics practice the scientific method to the exclusion of all else when faced with a decision – evidence and fact rule the day; everything else is ‘voodoo’.


Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which draws its core beliefs both from stoicism and freethought. At its basis, Libertarians believe that people should be free to live their lives as they choose, up to the point where their practices infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

Technically, I’m a ‘consequential’ Libertarian – I believe that actions have consequences, which must in turn be dealt with by a governing body (crime; attacks on the nation; provision of basic services – all require some form of compulsion) - which puts me at odds with the classic Libertarian, who believes that any application of coercion or force is wrong – to the classicist, the collection of taxes; keeping a standing army; compulsory education – all are wrong. My own view is that these beliefs are unworkable (after all, someone needs to keep the streets paved and the traffic-lights working; those are tasks best left to a central authority).

“In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence -- legal or illegal -- to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.”

-- Dean Russell; Libertarian philosopher and apologist; 1955

Politically, I’m more in line with Milton Friedman, the Libertarian economist and philosopher.

The tenet of ‘self-ownership’ and ‘self-responsibility’ is key to me. As such, I’m not fond of the concept of welfare in any form – I’m very much in favor of reeducation and retraining so an individual may, in turn, become productive.
>It should follow that while I’m in favor of society providing universal health care and supporting the incapacitated, I’m not in favor of a free ride for anyone who is capable of supporting themselves.


Religion and the god-concept

There’s a scientific principle called Occam’s Razor.

Briefly, it states that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

I pose a question in two parts:

We are considering the existence of a ‘god’. To accept that a ‘god’ exists, we would have to assume that (1) ‘god’ created everything, then (2) left; leaving us with not one bit of evidence of his/her/its passing, and not one bit of proof that he/she/it exists.

So, the question – do we (1) accept blindly that a ‘god’ exists, and put our ‘faith’ in that entity (as conveniently described by one or more ‘religions’); or (2) reject the existence of a ‘god’, based on the fact that there is no evidence of his/her/its existence?

I think you know my answer.

The concept of ‘god’ simply makes no sense. Forget that we want to ‘believe’ in something greater than ourselves – forget that we want to ‘believe’ that when we’re done with the daily struggle, something as a ‘greater reward’ awaits us – and forget that we agonize over what happens to Uncle Fred and Aunt Jewell and the family cat when they die.

Those are problems which affect all of us – and I’m no exception. My Mom and Dad are dead. I miss them. When I was ten, I had a cat that was run over by a truck. Dad scraped him out of the gravel with a shovel, and we buried him. I cried for a week.


None of that changes the fact that there’s not one shred of evidence which adequately supports the existence of a 'god'.

________________________

Religion, to me, falls into two categories. One is the personal belief system of the individual. The other is an organization based on the support of many individuals who wish to ‘convert’ or change others to their beliefs.

Personal beliefs are usually harmless, unless they involve activities which would harm other creatures (it’s safe to say I view as a form of evil any belief or practice which inflicts pain on another creature.)

Organized religion, on the other hand, is universally evil.
Let’s clear something up here.

The corner-chapel isn’t a problem. If a group of people want to get together, rent a building, get together on Wednesday afternoon and worship ‘god’, that’s not a problem. So far, they’re not coercing others to do the same; attempting to ‘convert’ everyone else, or causing harm.

However, churches follow human nature. It’s human nature to say, “Hey! I’ve found ‘god’! You should find ‘god’, too!” The next chapter has been played out for centuries – and it involves everything from peer-pressure to war.

Religions are, in the end, self-serving. In their elemental state, they do nothing for humanity, save for recruiting new members to keep themselves going. The inevitable conflict arising from this sort of thing is the stuff of history itself – you can draw a timeline from around 50BCE to present-day; examine the wars which were motivated by religion or sanctioned in some fashion by them, and you’ll have catalogued nearly the entire history of human conflict.

“Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence, then, is evil?”

-- David Hume; 18^th century philosopher and Freethinker

Religion, it would follow, IS the problem - -not the solution. This is why I detest religion. It sends people to Hell. It also uses whatever force is necessary to survive -- making religions at once unaccountable to the rest of humanity, and also the most potent political forces on the planet.

My conclusion?

While some who are reading this might take issue with my conclusion, you will be self-compelled to agree with me here:

There’s not one shred of empirical evidence – not one – to support the existence of a ‘god’.

I’ll leave it open here – there might, indeed, be some form of ‘universal force’ – but it didn’t exist in the form of people named Buddha, Mohammed, or Jesus. ‘God’ did not get himself executed by the local authorities and rise from the dead three days later – there’s not one shred of empirical evidence supporting this.
Mohammed did not rise to heaven from the Mount. Sorry.

Jehovah isn’t going to cause me grief because I didn’t sacrifice a sheep every year and put its blood on the doorpost. Sorry, again.


That’s because everyone I’ve named was either just a person – nothing more – or they just don’t exist.


These are fine fables – if you choose to believe them – but they’re no more or less powerful than my shortwave radio.
History proves me right here.


Summation:

Freedom and liberty are the closest things to ‘sacred’ which I hold dear.

Everyone is free and equal from birth. Personal choice determines the rest.

Absent empirical evidence, there is no ‘god’.

Surrendering to emotion is destructive.

I was ‘born right the first time’.

Shaking off the chains of religion is the first step to true freedom.

Along with freedom comes responsibility.

Above all else – do no harm to others.