The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
This is from James (The Amazing Randi) Randi. It's long, but it's a good read.
www.randi.org
ON THE SOAPBOX
The recent terrorist attacks in the UK reminded me of how often I'd entered and left Underground "tube" stations in London, and sat atop double-decker buses, never dreaming that religious fanatics would someday be bombing those locations. That reminiscing gave rise to what follows.
I recall with delight the period in the 50's when I lived in the UK, and every Sunday morning I would arise early to visit Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. I would see the speakers assembling and vying for advantageous positions from which they could address the crowds on subjects from how Guy Fawkes got such a bad deal from the government, to the latest refutation of the Theory of Relativity, perched atop foldable chairs or more substantial platforms. I've been back to London many times since then, but I've somehow allowed my schedule to interfere with another visit to that wonderful site, where all and sundry — under the casual and benign observation and protection of strolling bobbies — could and would expound on a wide and wonderful range of topics.
To begin my page this week I reflect on what I might say if I were inspired to step up and be heard at Speakers Corner. I don't know where an equivalent venue is to be found outside of London, but it just might be the Internet. So here goes.
I note with interest that more and more commentators and columnists are getting around to asking questions about the basic rights that Americans are supposed to have about worshipping — or not worshipping — any of the hundreds of different varieties of deities that our species has invented to make the human condition more bearable and less confounding; having a "God did it" explanation to fall back on, allows us not to think about heavy matters. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but that's getting increasingly difficult to achieve.
It appears that the general attitude in faith-based America as we presently find it guided, is that those who believe in a deity should have greater rights than those who choose — for whatever reason — not to do so. This becomes all the more important to us when we face the fact that the war in which we're presently involved, is a religious war; it is not political, not financial, not territorial. Its precedent can be found nine centuries ago in the Crusades fought from 1095 P.E. to 1270 P.E., when those who went off to foreign lands in that devastating, futile, beggaring attempt to recover the "Holy Land" from infidels, were given honors and rewards — if they ever returned from the quest. Part of the zeal the crusaders suffered from, was a belief that the end of the world was imminent. That delusion is reflected in the present enchantment concerning The Rapture, in which the faithful will be instantly levitated into the celestial sphere, leaving sinners and sycophants behind. There are other examples; the Holy Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials were also also religion-driven futilities, as is the ongoing tragedy involving Irish Protestants vs. Catholics. Parallels are not difficult to find.
The strength of America has always been that we have freedom of belief, among other privileges, designed for us by those who founded this nation. The Constitution of the United States of America was designed to protect the minority from any tyranny put forth by the majority, and to guarantee to all citizens such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that catchy phrase? If we obey the laws of the land, and do no harm to others, we should — by that Constitution — have the right to make those decisions which are personal, and to make them without intrusion from the government. That's a really great way to look at life, in my opinion.
In fact, that's the reason that in 1987, a Canadian citizen living in the USA, I applied to take US citizenship. That was brought about by an earlier unpleasant event. In 1973, I'd been touring with the Alice Cooper "Billion Dollar Babies" show, and while in Niagara Falls, Canada, I discovered something about my country that both disappointed me and brought about my decision to become an American. In mid-show, going backstage to change my costume at the locker-room where we'd been placed at the venue, I found a group of thugs prying open lockers and throwing personal belongings — including my own — in every direction. The destruction was heavy, and I of course objected strongly. I was backed up against a wall — at gunpoint — and told that I had no right to be there. I was escorted out of the building.
No, I couldn't object to the law. That was the law. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — the equivalent in Canada to the FBI in the USA — were searching the artists' property for evidence of drugs while those artists were supposed to be onstage, and though they found nothing, they destroyed that property and simply left all the trash where they'd thrown it. I was able to get back into the building, unseen by the police, through a side entrance, and I hastened onstage on cue, though not garbed as I should have been.
The following day I arose early and went to the local newspaper office. After much shuffling back and forth, I got to see a feature writer and explained what had happened the previous night. The reaction was a surprise: I was clearly informed that the newspaper wanted no trouble with the RCMP, that the story was already written, that the police action was not part of that story, and that I had better treat the situation as a learning experience. I'm a quick learner.
I chose to be an American.
There was nothing automatic about my being an American, as there is with any individual who just happens to emerge into the world while located on American soil. I earned my citizenship over a decade by working hard, observing the laws, and establishing that I could be a useful member of society. That is why I think I have a valid reason to object to the fact that, while there was a time when our politicians understood that they were not empowered to be our spiritual leaders, presently they seem to believe that they can dictate what we think, do, and believe, rather than leaving those decisions up to us.
Our President never addresses the public without appealing to a god or to prayer, or asking a god to bestow blessings on us. He supports and encourages the most far-fetched applications from any person or agency adopting the label "faith-based," such as the disciples of wealthy cult leader Sun Myung Moon. He vetoes attempts to improve our lives and the lives of unborn generations through fundamental research into basic biology — via embryonic stem-cell research, for example — and he defines those who disagree with his religious philosophy as, "evil." Despite our oft-referred-to separation of church and state, we have the federal funds to pay for the promotion of religion; last month, we laid out $300,000 of our tax money to assemble hundreds of United States Air Force chaplains in Colorado Springs for a "Spiritual Fitness Conference," an evangelical effort designed to "look for answers in the Scriptures."
One group that expresses serious alarm about the growing power of religion over our basic freedoms is the Brights’ Network, who recently launched their revised website at www.the-brights.net. This hub serves people in 115 nations, linking to “Brights sites” in five languages. Who are the “Brights”? These are people who have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. The USA alone has millions of such individuals — skeptics, humanists, agnostics, atheists, Christians (who follow Christ’s moral dicta free of supernatural belief), rationalists, secularists, and many others. As the Brights say,
People who have naturalistic worldviews bring thoughtful and principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance. They advocate “a level playing field” for citizens having a religious or a naturalistic worldview, thus connecting to the Enlightenment, an era when people had confidence that, with reason and science, we could create a truly just society. Society has progressively become more civically inclusive regarding ethnicity and sexual orientation. Still, deep prejudice exists at all levels of society regarding those who do not claim to be religious.
Science-bashing is more popular than ever. Rednecks chant, "Science doesn't know everything!" and those who are not much better informed must agree. But science — as a reader points out in the next item on this weeks web page, "What Science Does," has never claimed that it really knows anything; it only offers observations and probable explanations. Science is being demonized. A citizen's right to choose concerning abortion is being fought on quite precarious definitions of scientific/technical words and phrases, all reflecting religious fears and fallacies. Concerning that veto of human embryonic stem cell research — another religion-driven move — and the false objections that have been made to justify stifling it, what will future observers of our culture say? I think they will question our sanity. Inevitably, that research will be done — though perhaps in another part of the world less blinded by fear of supernatural retribution — and our species will be very much better for it; I resent the fact that I'll not be able to witness that victory.
The Board of Education of the State of Kansas, later this summer, will probably change its state science standards by casting doubt on the fact of evolution, and emphasizing still-unresolved questions such as the gaps in the fossil record, the favorite whipping-boys of advocates of "intelligent design," the poorly-disguised creationists. They preach that DNA and certain other biological mechanisms are too complex to have ever evolved, and thus dictate the existence of a "designer." They say that evolution and the origin of species are unproven matters and that students should understand and debate different points of view — even though their point of view has zero evidence to support it, and is based on religious dogma.
In the scientific community, however, there is no such question; in 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) passed a resolution declaring "intelligent design" to be a "philosophical or theological concept," not a statement obtained through the examination of hard evidence, and that it should not be taught in science classes. That's 120,000 men and women of science, honored and respected internationally, who have the experience, the knowledge, and the training to be able to understand and authoritatively declare on such matters.
Rationality and logic are being demoted to the status of notions, science is devalued, reason is ridiculed. I fear for our species' future, when only the Yahoos may remain.
This soap-box is now available.
www.randi.org
ON THE SOAPBOX
The recent terrorist attacks in the UK reminded me of how often I'd entered and left Underground "tube" stations in London, and sat atop double-decker buses, never dreaming that religious fanatics would someday be bombing those locations. That reminiscing gave rise to what follows.
I recall with delight the period in the 50's when I lived in the UK, and every Sunday morning I would arise early to visit Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. I would see the speakers assembling and vying for advantageous positions from which they could address the crowds on subjects from how Guy Fawkes got such a bad deal from the government, to the latest refutation of the Theory of Relativity, perched atop foldable chairs or more substantial platforms. I've been back to London many times since then, but I've somehow allowed my schedule to interfere with another visit to that wonderful site, where all and sundry — under the casual and benign observation and protection of strolling bobbies — could and would expound on a wide and wonderful range of topics.
To begin my page this week I reflect on what I might say if I were inspired to step up and be heard at Speakers Corner. I don't know where an equivalent venue is to be found outside of London, but it just might be the Internet. So here goes.
I note with interest that more and more commentators and columnists are getting around to asking questions about the basic rights that Americans are supposed to have about worshipping — or not worshipping — any of the hundreds of different varieties of deities that our species has invented to make the human condition more bearable and less confounding; having a "God did it" explanation to fall back on, allows us not to think about heavy matters. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but that's getting increasingly difficult to achieve.
It appears that the general attitude in faith-based America as we presently find it guided, is that those who believe in a deity should have greater rights than those who choose — for whatever reason — not to do so. This becomes all the more important to us when we face the fact that the war in which we're presently involved, is a religious war; it is not political, not financial, not territorial. Its precedent can be found nine centuries ago in the Crusades fought from 1095 P.E. to 1270 P.E., when those who went off to foreign lands in that devastating, futile, beggaring attempt to recover the "Holy Land" from infidels, were given honors and rewards — if they ever returned from the quest. Part of the zeal the crusaders suffered from, was a belief that the end of the world was imminent. That delusion is reflected in the present enchantment concerning The Rapture, in which the faithful will be instantly levitated into the celestial sphere, leaving sinners and sycophants behind. There are other examples; the Holy Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials were also also religion-driven futilities, as is the ongoing tragedy involving Irish Protestants vs. Catholics. Parallels are not difficult to find.
The strength of America has always been that we have freedom of belief, among other privileges, designed for us by those who founded this nation. The Constitution of the United States of America was designed to protect the minority from any tyranny put forth by the majority, and to guarantee to all citizens such things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that catchy phrase? If we obey the laws of the land, and do no harm to others, we should — by that Constitution — have the right to make those decisions which are personal, and to make them without intrusion from the government. That's a really great way to look at life, in my opinion.
In fact, that's the reason that in 1987, a Canadian citizen living in the USA, I applied to take US citizenship. That was brought about by an earlier unpleasant event. In 1973, I'd been touring with the Alice Cooper "Billion Dollar Babies" show, and while in Niagara Falls, Canada, I discovered something about my country that both disappointed me and brought about my decision to become an American. In mid-show, going backstage to change my costume at the locker-room where we'd been placed at the venue, I found a group of thugs prying open lockers and throwing personal belongings — including my own — in every direction. The destruction was heavy, and I of course objected strongly. I was backed up against a wall — at gunpoint — and told that I had no right to be there. I was escorted out of the building.
No, I couldn't object to the law. That was the law. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — the equivalent in Canada to the FBI in the USA — were searching the artists' property for evidence of drugs while those artists were supposed to be onstage, and though they found nothing, they destroyed that property and simply left all the trash where they'd thrown it. I was able to get back into the building, unseen by the police, through a side entrance, and I hastened onstage on cue, though not garbed as I should have been.
The following day I arose early and went to the local newspaper office. After much shuffling back and forth, I got to see a feature writer and explained what had happened the previous night. The reaction was a surprise: I was clearly informed that the newspaper wanted no trouble with the RCMP, that the story was already written, that the police action was not part of that story, and that I had better treat the situation as a learning experience. I'm a quick learner.
I chose to be an American.
There was nothing automatic about my being an American, as there is with any individual who just happens to emerge into the world while located on American soil. I earned my citizenship over a decade by working hard, observing the laws, and establishing that I could be a useful member of society. That is why I think I have a valid reason to object to the fact that, while there was a time when our politicians understood that they were not empowered to be our spiritual leaders, presently they seem to believe that they can dictate what we think, do, and believe, rather than leaving those decisions up to us.
Our President never addresses the public without appealing to a god or to prayer, or asking a god to bestow blessings on us. He supports and encourages the most far-fetched applications from any person or agency adopting the label "faith-based," such as the disciples of wealthy cult leader Sun Myung Moon. He vetoes attempts to improve our lives and the lives of unborn generations through fundamental research into basic biology — via embryonic stem-cell research, for example — and he defines those who disagree with his religious philosophy as, "evil." Despite our oft-referred-to separation of church and state, we have the federal funds to pay for the promotion of religion; last month, we laid out $300,000 of our tax money to assemble hundreds of United States Air Force chaplains in Colorado Springs for a "Spiritual Fitness Conference," an evangelical effort designed to "look for answers in the Scriptures."
One group that expresses serious alarm about the growing power of religion over our basic freedoms is the Brights’ Network, who recently launched their revised website at www.the-brights.net. This hub serves people in 115 nations, linking to “Brights sites” in five languages. Who are the “Brights”? These are people who have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. The USA alone has millions of such individuals — skeptics, humanists, agnostics, atheists, Christians (who follow Christ’s moral dicta free of supernatural belief), rationalists, secularists, and many others. As the Brights say,
People who have naturalistic worldviews bring thoughtful and principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance. They advocate “a level playing field” for citizens having a religious or a naturalistic worldview, thus connecting to the Enlightenment, an era when people had confidence that, with reason and science, we could create a truly just society. Society has progressively become more civically inclusive regarding ethnicity and sexual orientation. Still, deep prejudice exists at all levels of society regarding those who do not claim to be religious.
Science-bashing is more popular than ever. Rednecks chant, "Science doesn't know everything!" and those who are not much better informed must agree. But science — as a reader points out in the next item on this weeks web page, "What Science Does," has never claimed that it really knows anything; it only offers observations and probable explanations. Science is being demonized. A citizen's right to choose concerning abortion is being fought on quite precarious definitions of scientific/technical words and phrases, all reflecting religious fears and fallacies. Concerning that veto of human embryonic stem cell research — another religion-driven move — and the false objections that have been made to justify stifling it, what will future observers of our culture say? I think they will question our sanity. Inevitably, that research will be done — though perhaps in another part of the world less blinded by fear of supernatural retribution — and our species will be very much better for it; I resent the fact that I'll not be able to witness that victory.
The Board of Education of the State of Kansas, later this summer, will probably change its state science standards by casting doubt on the fact of evolution, and emphasizing still-unresolved questions such as the gaps in the fossil record, the favorite whipping-boys of advocates of "intelligent design," the poorly-disguised creationists. They preach that DNA and certain other biological mechanisms are too complex to have ever evolved, and thus dictate the existence of a "designer." They say that evolution and the origin of species are unproven matters and that students should understand and debate different points of view — even though their point of view has zero evidence to support it, and is based on religious dogma.
In the scientific community, however, there is no such question; in 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) passed a resolution declaring "intelligent design" to be a "philosophical or theological concept," not a statement obtained through the examination of hard evidence, and that it should not be taught in science classes. That's 120,000 men and women of science, honored and respected internationally, who have the experience, the knowledge, and the training to be able to understand and authoritatively declare on such matters.
Rationality and logic are being demoted to the status of notions, science is devalued, reason is ridiculed. I fear for our species' future, when only the Yahoos may remain.
This soap-box is now available.
