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.

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.

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

Thank you, Case Wagenvoord

Living the Beatitudes is a pain in the ass, so it is easier for organized religion to get its knickers in a knot over evolution and same-sex marriage.

 

So we can pummel each other

OK, well, jeez…
1. there is no debate about Intelligent Design in academia BECAUSE Intelligent Design has yet to say anything useable. Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of modern evolutionary theory, but when all you bring to the table is “Here’s a problem that hasn’t been resolved, therefor there’s something magic happening”, you aren’t invited much.
When ID can say ANYTHING in a scientific context, I’m sure talk will start.

2. Why do people shy away from God as the source of life on Earth, and choose to go with theories that seem unlikely in many ways? Because Occams Razor guides them. Look, we know physical life exists (that would be us). So the idea of another physical life-form ’seeding’ earth is MUCH more likely than a supernatural being which we have no proof of (except via bootstrap).

3. Finally, regarding the horrible PC Liberalism and it’s stranglehold over the media: Did you watch the Presidential debates? Have you noticed how religion keeps coming up time and time again? Have you noticed that the only group more disliked than atheists are Scientologists? If the PC Media Overlords are pro-atheist, then they are doing a LOUSY job at it.

(btw, if you really feel like bringing up Hitler, you’d better welcome comments about the Inquisition and Crusades and Jihadis and so forth. And you just might want to remember the internet law that states that any discussion pretty much ends the moment you compare the other side to Hitler/Nazis. Stein, as a jew, should be ashamed of himself.)

Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists - Yahoo! News

Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.
…
It’s understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on
Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these
experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes
that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states
electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of
nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens.
Anything but God.

please feel free to read his response…however, I think you’ll realize that it hangs by fingernails.

Again, he puts words in my mouth and ignores the context I put things into.

But, then again, while he’s right, no one has conclusively (his word, not mine) proven that religion is a mental illness, if you hear voices in your head, believe the world is run by powers unseen, and that we are all manipulated by an invisible man, then exactly whats the difference?

He’s right, in that context I don’t see a difference.

Were we having a theological debate, that would be relevant.

He’s mistake if he thinks we are.