My Zen Arcade

From StreetProphets

I don’t know what I find the most tragic aspect of this case to be.  That a child suffered and died a needless death.  That the parents of the child had such a narrow and distorted faith that their actions led to that death.  That those same parents now face charges and jail time on top of the anguish they must be feeling.  That there are three children without a sister and possibly without their parents.

This is what I was talking about.  Because these people did it in the name of faith, somehow it is tragic that they may be sent to jail for bringing about the death of their daughter.  If the parents had said, instead, that fighting off the condition on her own would make her stronger (an equally crazy viewpoint), there wouldn’t be one drop of sympathy.  Or if they’d done it because they just hate doctors, or distrust medicine for some other reason. 

I do feel bad that the other children are going to be seperated from their parents, however that increases their chances of survival markedly.

Religion should not be an excuse, should not be a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

So, I was thinking.  Who should sing the next Bond song.  Maybe…maybe…maybe a doped up drunk who spends most of her time teetering on the line between rehab and jail who regularly gets into well-publicized fights, blows off concert dates, and wanders down the street barely coherant.

And I said to myself: Yes, thats who we need. 

Second Amazingly Horrible Comics Decision This Year

He’s so fast, he can even outrun death: Barry Allen, aka The Flash, is speeding back to life 23 years after being killed off.

…

Grant Morrison, who along with Geoff Johns is responsible for resurrecting The Flash in the last panel of “DC Universe #0,” said comic book characters don’t have to stay dead.

And thats obviously true.  I could write about how bringing back such a significant character really just destroys the story of his death and really detracts, again, from the drama that comics are capable of producing and so forth.

However, I think the best response to this is:

NONONONONONONONONO!!!!!
FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU!!!!!
NONONONONONONONONO!!!!!
FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU!!!!!
NONONONONONONONONO!!!!!
FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU!!!!!
NONONONONONONONONO!!!!!
FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU!!!!!

In 1964, the premier of the single greatest movie ever

(it is shockingly strange, really…I’ll have to try and find my review)

They’ll almost certainly get away with it too.  All the defense has to do is convince one person on the jury that if we require people to be responsible for their actions taken in the name of religion then religious freedom will vanish.

All that has to happen is for one person to realize that they too might be held accountable.

All that has to happen is for one person to understand that they will no longer have a free pass because of ‘faith’. 

Thats all.

How hard could that be?

Deep down inside, I know that Madeline’s death is our fault as a nation.  We let them get away with it.  We refuse to ever question anything about religious beliefs (unless you are a scientologist…).

And, because of that, people continue to act without rational justification and we continue to say its OK. 

We continue to act as if faith in magic is a good thing to be praised.  We continue to let people make policy based on this magic and never question them or force them to back up their beliefs.  Perhaps if we didn’t, then someone would have felt free to call an ambulance, or the police.  But they didn’t.  And it isn’t surprising.

We don’t just grant freedom of religion (which is a good thing) but we give it complete and utter immunity.  No other freedom comes close to this.  Not speach, not bearing arms, not press.

Only religion can’t be questioned.

We killed that little girl.

Its OK, we killed our daughter because of our religion.  Shouldn’t we get a free pass?

A day before Madeline died, according to the criminal complaint, the father wrote an e-mail with the headline, “Help our daughter needs emergency prayer!!!!.” It said his daughter was “very weak and pale at the moment with hardly any strength.”

Fuck you.

In a very cool move, Dean Heckler, designer of OneLessDesk that I posted about gave us a reply:

Thanks for the kind words. I am exploring producing a standard steel version of OneLessDesk (in addition to the original version) in order to have a lower priced product. The stainless steel of the current desk is what keeps it pricey. Stay tuned…

If he can get that thing down to 500 bucks, I’m there.

Hmmm…then again…those pointless Bush-Tax-Rebate-Checks are coming so…

I’m actually not writing this as an attack or even criticism of ID.

Its been bothering me for quite a while that supporters of ID can’t understand why it doesn’t belong in science classes. 

The core reason is that these people don’t understand what science is.  They think that science is a quest for truth, for fact.  Many scientists will agree, but it isn’t hard to find one who doesn’t, and who instead sees science as a tool that adequately describes the universe for our purposes (big difference there). 

The thing is, that’s only half the game.  Science is both goal AND method.  Even if ID were true, it STILL wouldn’t be science because it doesn’t follow the scientific method.

Look, lets suppose I wanted to let people know about the plight of starving countries around the globe.  I might make a big old presentation about covering the economics and policy decisions surrounding the situation it with PowerPoint charts and note cards, and hand outs, and so forth.  Or, I might write a fiction novel, or paint a picture, or make a documentary.  All of these things might get us to the truth, but we would not say they were the same.  In a policy context, we’d probably use the presentation, in an ethics class, maybe the novel and documentary.  And, sometimes there would be cross-over in context and genre, but it would always be notable as an exception.  My point is that we wouldn’t go before congress and read the novel, nor would we show the presentation in a literature class.  The PowerPoint slides aren’t literature, and the novel isn’t a congressional report.

The same applies with Intelligent Design.  It may be true, it is, in fact, impossible to say that it CAN’T be true (which is one of the reasons it isn’t a science).  But even if God (or an alien, or whatever) himself came down and spoke to every scientist in the world and told them that ID was true, it STILL wouldn’t be science.  And any definition of science that would allow for it would be virtually meaningless, or, at least, useless.

And that’s why ID doesn’t belong in a science class.

So Florida is considering a vanity plate with a christian message (’I believe’ and a cross).

Of course, many might not see this as crossing the church/state divide.  But those arguments collapse thanks to this telling line:

[Rep. Edward] Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, isn’t sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an “I Don’t Believe” plate, for example, he would probably oppose it