Who Ya Gonna Call?

Time for an audit .. - Pic courtesy of Wikipedia

by Trebor Snillor
FREAK SHOW WEATHER

It is May 24th – and I’m freezing. I’m wearing cargo shorts and a flimsy tee shirt. Normally in late May, these would be season appropriate. Whenever someone opens the coffee shop door, a frigid wind blows in. On top of this, North Texas has been experiencing rain, 60 mph winds and tornado alerts every other day. (Actually, rain every day). Did we do something to offend the weather Gods? My back yard looks like Bachman Lake. Even worse, the long term weather forecast says it will be like this all summer. I long for hot and dry days – guess I’ll just have to wait.

SQUIRREL BUSTERS ARE US

Yesterday I watched a documentary, Scientology at War. It chronicled the troubles of one man, 50-something Marty Rathbun, in quitting Scientology and starting his own church. Rathbun wasn’t just any old church member. He was a high ranking executive, running the Religion Technology Center. Among his many duties, was encouraging a code of silence among ex-members and patrolling the media for slanderous treatment of Scientology. He had several other duties but these were two where he became acquainted with a standard bag of dirty tricks.

I won’t go into details – whole books have been written. Rathbun alleges that the church used isolation, separation, detention, stalking, harassment, physical violence and various mind games against perceived saboteurs and loose cannons. Rathbun sheepishly admits that he engaged in some of these mind games himself and may have even added to the bag of dirty tricks. But during an intense audit session of a well-known celebrity, Rathbun had his fill – he concluded that the church was crossing a line into abuse and he no longer chose to participate.

THE WRATH OF XENU

Other senior church elders closed rank on Rathbun.. he was immediately demoted and placed into a recertification program. He was held in a closed compound where one needed executive approval to leave. He stayed in the program for a couple of weeks but saw its function as punishment and nothing else. He finally escaped by trailing closely behind a delivery truck on a motor scooter – the electronic gate stayed open long enough to allow him passage. Church officials were livid that such a previous high-ranking person had broken loose.

WEIRDER AND WEIRDER YET

One might think that Rathbun would disavow this nefarious religion and all it stood for. But he did not! He tried to set up an “Independent” Scientology sect. He had brought along some E-meters and was ready to do his own audits, primarily for other “escapees” who still held to some of the beliefs. XENU saw red – leaving the church was bad enough. Copying the business model was unthinkable. The church elders called such people “squirrels” and they had to be eradicated. So who did they call for this purpose? Squirrel Busters of course. The squirrel busters was a group of 5-10 people who would gather near his house and shout insults from megaphones. They would harass him as he walked to his car. The blog author is wondering if a court injunction couldn’t have stopped it but who knows what. The spin-off business didn’t happen as planned, and the squirrel busters probably also wore down Rathbun’s resolve. He quit the auditing business and now claims to be agnostic. He works on blogs and other personal projects in his semi-retired state.

IN SUM

Rathbun probably got a couple of scoops of what he dished out in prior years. It’s still a redemption of sorts to quit doing those things and admit the realities of the matter. Go forth and sin no more -- as the saying goes.

© 2015 Snillor Productions

Z as in Zealot

He doesn't look like a killer .. - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
April 15th is not a day that we love, normally because of income taxes being due. For 2013, the young Tsarnaev brothers, Chechen immigrants, made the day all the more frightening by detonating two pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line. It seems that 26 year old Tamerlan and 19 year old Dzokhar were carefree and careless in their methods. They strolled casually along the street planting bomb-laden backpacks, little realizing that watchful security cameras recorded every move. They later bragged to a car jack victim that they were the bombers.

What the brothers lacked in common sense, they made up for in religious devotion. In 2012, Tamerlan is thought to have visited a Salafi mosque in Dagestan where he was versed in radical Islam. He came back a “purist” with a beard, condemning American libertine behavior. Both boys posted various Islamic prayers and poems on their web sites. Because America is a free society, and many among us are religious devotees, none of these behaviors seemed out-of-bounds. In the aftermath of their horrific plot, the specter of Islamic zealotry did in fact rear its head.

In days that followed, the “liberal” media (Salon, Huffington Post, msnbc) contorted themselves mightily to deemphasize the radical religious angle. This crime was done “independently” by “loners” who acted without any guidance or participation in a terror cell. Never mind that the formula for the bomb came from the Al Quaeda magazine, Inspire. Never mind that Islam was given as a life view on FaceBook. My personal feeling is that participation in a terror cell doesn’t matter. Whether it was a large collective effort or individual madness, a jihadist religious philosophy drove this behavior, pure and simple. In my previous blogs about Heaven’s Gate and Jim Jones’ temple I suggested some cautionary remarks about any prophet, priest or minister who exhorts you to:
o Commit murder
o Commit suicide
o Destroy property
o Commit blind, random acts of destruction
o Violate secular, state laws regarding sex with minors, plural marriage
o Disown blood relations, give away property
o Castrate or otherwise harm yourself
o Perform disfiguring corporal punishment on “non believers”

If someone (a mortal human, like you) is claiming to have some cosmic connection and asking you to do these crazy things, your inner cynic should come to the fore. In the above case, the boys’ father was a secular lawyer who hated radical Islam. It’s odd that they could still be swayed away from his more reasoned approach.

Even “mainstream” organized religion can go places it shouldn’t – look at the Westboro Baptist Church who protests American soldiers’ funerals with placards that read “God hates fags”. Look at the Catholic Church which simultaneously condemns gays while sheltering pedophiles in its ranks. Speaking from my own singularly secular perch, all religions can give me the willies. Unitarians serve up some of the weirdest rituals of them all (what with its Wiccans and Pagans). While I will stay in my zone (and the reader, stay in your zone as you see fit), let’s not any of us throw away a life over “wackadoo” extremism that makes promises and threats to weakened minds. I believe there is in fact a God, and he (she or they) expects better from us.

© 2013 blogSpotter

Digging in the Zen Garden

Statue of Buddha in Laos - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

I recently splurged $8 on a bargain book at Barnes and Noble.,  “The Essentials of Philosophy” by James Mannion.  It gives the reader a whirlwind tour of world philosophy – across all of the ages and all parts of the world.  It gives a condensed version of everything from Plato’s Forms to Bertrand Russell’s mathematical Empiricism.  Turns out that various thinkers have been misunderstood or mistranslated through the ages – Epicurus was characterized posthumously as a Hedonistic bon vivante.   In fact, he was more about quality of life and savoring things at a slow, reasoned pace.  In some ways he was the very opposite of his “sensual man” image.

Virtually every person and philosophy has some merit or reasonableness when seen in a particular context, a singular glint in the prism of “deep thought”.   Some of these, when taken out of context can turn into Frankenstein monsters that need to be dispatched with a pitchfork, quickly. Friedrich Nietzsche proposed the idea of a “Super Human” who acted from confident knowledge, and not groupthink.  It’s ironic that his idea, which had academic merit per se, was twisted into a pretzel of death camp rationalizations by none other than Adolph Hitler.   Frequently such bastardizations happen long after a philosopher is dead and he can no longer set the record straight on what he actually thought or said.

Possibly more interesting in “Essentials” than anything were the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama, aka Buddha.  Buddha was a liberal, Hindu, Indian prince who disavowed some of the violence and illogic he saw in Hinduism.  The contrasting religious background reminds me of how Jesus was a Jewish rabbi – who also became the foundation of a whole new religion.   Buddha originated many aphorisms, principles and ideas (The Four Noble Truths) which I won’t detain you with here.   Many of these ideas overlap with similar wisdom that Westerners might glean from the 10 commandments, the beatitudes or the Book of Psalms.    But Buddha suggested something else altogether unsettling … Buddha says that we chose our parents, our current life situations and our gender in a past life.  

Thus, this life with all its problems and nastiness is something for which we voluntarily checked a box!   We asked for it, as if scanning a special Sears Catalog of perverse conditions.    Put me down for “lower middle class, speech impediment and lackluster career.   A big nose, high forehead should certainly round it all out”. Have to say, I'm pretty sure I never asked for my slings and arrows explicitly. Buddha sees these features as the work of a compensating God, not really a lesser God.  

I’m just not sure where to draw the lines.  Did I live before, and my previous life has some spirit-connection here in this life?   Or is that total nonsense …  Are rewards and punishments something that come in a promised afterlife and not realized already?   Even Exodus in the Bible speaks of the father’s sins visited upon his offspring.   I can’t imagine what sins were done by my forbears; I can only hope that bygones will be bygones.  There are so many ideas to mull over in “The Essentials of Philosophy”...    No one particular idea has an iron grip yet (on me anyhow).   I may need to delve deeper than an $8 bargain bin foray to see what actually exists over the rainbow of this spiritual quest.

© 2012 blogSpotter

The Ned Flanders Awakening

Okely-dokely-do - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
 I just watched an episode of The Simpsons, and feel compelled to talk about one of my favorite characters – Ned Flanders. Ned Flanders is one of the show’s most enduring and unambiguous characters. Nedward Flanders, Jr. is a 60 year old Evangelical Christian, a devout Republican, Oral Roberts University graduate, longtime neighbor to the Simpsons and constant thorn in the side to the spiritually challenged Homer. Flanders is the epitome of Goodness, having actually donated a kidney and a lung in one episode. He shows no anger – his aggressive feelings were dissipated by 8 months of “Spankalogical Protocol” in his strange hippie upbringing, according to another episode. Flanders attributes his serenity to “Vitamin Church”.

Flanders isn’t entirely without fault… Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Flanders has been known to shriek like a woman when confronted with something scary. While Harry Shearer usually does Flanders’ voice, Tress MacNeille was brought in to do the terrified scream. Flanders frets so much over life’s minor trials, he’s become a nuisance to Reverend Lovejoy, the local minister. His beliefs are more dogmatic and less flexible – very much on display with his strict parenting of his sons Rod and Todd.

In the irony department, Flanders has a room devoted to the Beatles because they were “bigger than Jesus”… Blasphemy! He has a well-sculpted body with six-pack abs underneath his green sweater – probably done as another way to gig Homer, who has by comparison a flabby 12-pack from doughnuts and beer. Flanders is an all-around goody-two shoe, but the widower (he lost wife Maude in Season 11) has been romantically involved with 4 women including the school marm Edna Krabappel.

Flanders is celebrated for his silly speech tics and Christian colloquialisms:

• Hi-didly-i
• Okely-dokely-do
• Gosh darn it!
• Am I that pre-diddly-ictable?
• Hustle your bustles!
• I don’t mean to be a nervous Pervis…

The Flanders character has evolved across 500+ Simpson episodes…He began as merely a goody-goody foil to Homer. Harry Shearer’s sweet voice made the writers decide he should be Christian. From there he became something of a Christian Right caricature… and from there he became one of the most beloved and celebrated Christians in pop culture. He is fourth in line after the Pope, Mother Teresa and Billy Graham as a recognized Christian … no kidding.

Entertainment Weekly once described The Simpsons’ humor as being “vaguely leftist”. After all, they lampoon nuclear power, the capitalistic Mr. Burns, the shifty lawyer Lionel Hutz… But the religious community probably likes the innocuous depiction of Flanders despite all the diddlies, screams and pointed silliness. He’s truly a nice guy in the final analysis. His presence in the heterogeneous mix of Springfield characters signifies the place and prominence of this pop cultural Christian archetype. Other shows might have “good” characters – another Fox character, Cleveland, comes to mind. But nothing quite compares to the Ned Flanders Awakening.

© 2012 blogSpotter

Incorrectulous

Maher on the Walk of Fame - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When I just searched for Bill Maher on the Internet, several other Bills and Billy’s popped up ahead of him – Cosby, Clinton and even Billy Joel. That is a total shame; our nation of web surfers should have more curiosity about this insightful, controversial actor, comedian and humorist. Maher’s views do fall askew of the mainstream TV viewers, and he would probably be another type of unwelcome “alien” in deeply red Texas.

Maher is a secular humanist, libertarian, pro-feminist, PETA following, “Apatheist” trouble maker who dares to play devil’s advocate in all too many places. Some people would say he is the devil – usually people of a strident, blinders-on mentality. The son of a lapsed Catholic father and Jewish mother, Maher has the clarity and objectivity that comes from such a varied background. He isn’t a slave to any school of thought so much as an objective, cultural critic to all of them.

To be sure, Maher has stepped in it a few times with his strident, opinionated enthusiasm. On his ABC show, Politically Incorrect, he incurred the wrath of many by suggesting that the Islamic jihadists of 9/11 were “brave”. This was in 2002, shortly after the attacks – so many sponsors pulled out that it cost him the show. In context, he was saying that someone flying a plane into a building is not acting timidly. But – and Maher was quick to admit – it was the wrong thing to say.

Maher then moved to HBO and started his still-running talk show, Real Time with Bill Maher. Real Time is similar in concept to Politically Incorrect but features more political figures rather than randomly assembled celebrities. Here he drew fire from Alabama's congressman Bachus for pointing out that the US Military hasn’t met 46% of its recruiting requirements. Maher rightly asked why Bachus didn’t use his energy to correct the recruiting problem instead of starting an “I Hate Maher” campaign. Lastly, Maher angered the AMA by suggesting that swine flu shots were risky and he would pass on it. He backed off of the position a bit after being lambasted from all directions.

Maher isn’t afraid to lock horns, and sometimes his rabble-rousing is very deliberate. His 2008 movie Religulous points up many of the fallacies in organized religion (pretty much all of them are lampooned). Devout people with thick skin should go see the movie – it raises some interesting points. Maher has also won a Richard Dawkins award for working to promote secular and scientific values in our society. He doesn’t claim to be an atheist like Dawkins so much as a questioning agnostic. Both secular and question are red flag words in the faith community so Maher’s noncommittal nature still makes him pretty much a nemesis to the church-going crowd.

Lastly, but not least, Maher is a confirmed bachelor playboy who indulges in non-medical weed. If you weren’t already shocked and appalled by his religious views, you might very well blanch at his libertine lifestyle. What I myself find odd about Bill Maher is not any of his maverick ways – he’s very much in the tradition of his brilliant stylistic forbear, Mark Twain. I applaud his weirdness – our mantra should be “Keep Maher weird”. What I find odd, is that so many people find Maher to be odd.

We live in a nation of cookie cutter homes, does it also have to be a nation of cookie cutter people? Bill Maher is a devilish exception – he’s from an entirely different cookie recipe. And his is a recipe that intellectually curious people should savor.

© 2012 blogSpotter

Vertical Evolution

DaVinci's Vitruvian Man - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Who was Gordon Rattray Taylor? He was a little known British journalist who wrote on niche topics such as biotechnology and evolution. As he was dying of cancer in 1981, he put the finishing touches on his magnum opus, The Great Evolution Mystery. The book was a commercial dud when it was published in 1983, but has since been reevaluated and much more appreciated. Taylor doesn’t answer any long-standing questions, but in the book he asks several very worthy questions about evolution.

We have now, as in 1983, two prevailing paradigms to explain the origin of life. In the ivied towers of academia there is the theory of Natural Selection – it basically asserts that life has evolved from an accumulation of beneficial mutations in organic matter. Those mutations are random in nature and have happened over eons. Gordon Rattray Taylor pointed up some problems – particularly with organs of extreme perfection such as the human eye. Such complexity would be unlikely to happen from “happy accidents” – the delicate structure would require special timing and tuning. Taylor’s objections were embraced by the religious community who likened Taylor’s eye concept to the pious William Paley’s watch.

The (Christian) religious community itself believes that a super human intelligence created life in one great instance, in the Garden of Eden. The time is “backed in” by religious scholars using the genealogy of the Old Testament – anywhere from 6,000 BC to 4,000 BC. Even supposing some forbears lived to be 100, this date would be in glaring contradiction to modern geological data. 6,000 BC is recent in geological time and fairly standard techniques have established the earth itself to be nearly 5 billion years old. Life itself probably surfaced over 3 billion years ago. Taylor wasn’t devoutly religious nor was he trying to promote a particular faith – he didn’t adhere to the Bible genealogy idea. Taylor was accepting of basic earth and fossil facts … he just wanted to have all the evolutionary elements fall in place and make sense.


Taylor's book - cover and contents - Pictures courtesy of Secker and Warburg

Taylor was likely on to something. In chapters like “Puzzles and Plans” he notices that evolution seems to follow a winnowing, narrowing process which would almost imply intelligent selectivity. I would join Taylor in posing these kinds of questions. If we go with Darwin’s theory, we must inquire:

- Why have we observed no new species?
- Why have we observed no seriously, naturally mutated species?
- Why is there not one other species of animal that offers competition to humans?

Biology texts of the last 50 years love to point out an English moth which switched from white to black so its wings would be well-camouflaged against factory soot. Another text talked about a species of fish in Africa which changed the color of its scales. In both cases, we’re looking at a minor variation – probably the activation of a preexisting gene. Nowhere have we seen anything sprout horns or wings unexpectedly – unless via deliberate lab tinkering. With due respect to beavers who make dams and ants who build nests, no other species is a master architect. Chimps and gorillas, our closest natural relatives, live in primitive clans. They can poke ant hills with sticks and make grass beds.

WATCHING THE WATCHERS

Taylor suggested, but didn’t say outright, that there might be some other kind of force at work. I myself think that organized religion is partly right – there is a super human intelligence. However it is fallible and it works through evolutionary process. There was no grand concoction in the Garden of Eden.

Here are some speculative answers to the questions above. Let me emphasize that these are my own ideas and not Taylor's…

- Humans are the last major new species. Evolution is intelligently driven and doesn’t reinvent the wheel.
- There are many amazing new mutations – but they are subtle and they happen almost entirely in humans. The greatest debates about physical design have already been won and lost – most mutations are to the soft brain tissue of humans. They are probably too minute for even the most advanced human geneticists or DNA experts to unravel.
- Evolution is efficient, selective and intelligently directed. Once a species has a major “design victory” the intelligence driving other species has some ability to realign itself with a “superior” animal. There is some type of dissociative and mobile property in the driving intelligence.

These ideas would probably be disturbing to conventional theists in several ways. Humans are still "superior" by way of evolutionary selection, but the process isn't as tidy as one would like. We actually are derived from animals and the distinction between adjacent species is murky, somewhat clouded. There is an uncomfortable nearness, even overlap with creatures we'd just as soon consign to a zoo.

This idea might also open other cans of worms – are some human subspecies “selected” over others and if so, which ones. What would be the criteria or the signs to see? We live in a world rife with clues – clues planted by a fallible super (but not supernatural) intelligence. There are biological signs all over the place – the truth is immutably there with much of it spelled out in our DNA and other parts spelled out in rich fossil deposits. If we can get past our own self-centered concerns and petty materialism, we can crack these biological riddles once and for all. In the meantime, we can give credit to Gordon Rattray Taylor for asking the right questions.

© 2011 blogSpotter

Sky Riders

Achieving the Next Level? - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
If you were around in 1997, you may recall the bizarre headlines in March of that year… 39 members of a “UFO cult” were found dead from asphyxiation, each one peaceably “evacuated” to a higher, Next Level of existence. They were all in restful repose on their beds -- wearing “Team Heaven’s Gate” tees and new, Nike tennis shoes. Their suicides were timed for the boarding of a spaceship they believed to be trailing the Hale-Bopp Comet.

The Heaven’s Gate group, formerly known as Total Overcomer’s Anonymous, was a known entity in Rancho Santa Fe, California. Their theology was a curious mix of Christian and science fiction themes. Local papers and magazines had profiled the group which was mostly seen as an innocuous cult that played into New Age trendiness. Heaven’s Gate subscribed to Arthur Clark’s idea of prehistoric visits by advanced aliens as well as channeling of extraterrestrial spirits. In fact its two charismatic leaders, Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles, believed themselves to be direct relations to Christ – channeling His spirit to the group.

To understand Heaven’s Gate, one must have at least a short history of its leader and founder, Marshall Applewhite. Up to age 40, Applewhite’s life was a slice of wholesome American pie. A native Texan, Applewhite was the son of a Presbyterian minister in the small town of Spur. He did a brief stint in the Army where he served as a sergeant in Korea. Returning to Texas, he married and had two children in the late 1950’s. He then pursued his chosen avocation – music. He starred in a Houston opera company and taught music at an Episcopal school. Somewhere around 1970, this idyllic life took a different turn. His marriage ended and he was terminated from his teaching job for “emotional issues”.

AND I WILL GIVE POWER UNTO MY TWO WITNESSES...

In 1972, Applewhite placed himself in a psychiatric facility because he was hearing voices. It was here that he met Bonnie Nettles – a nurse who exhibited considerable schizoid qualities herself. An avid astrologist, she convinced Applewhite that he had special stellar signs – both he and she were aliens sent to rescue the world from Armageddon. Tying in Christianity, she was sure that Marshall and she were the witnesses spoken of in Revelations 11:3. From here forward, Marshall and Bonnie embarked on a strange, evangelical mission that led them through all 50 states, across 25 years. Along the way, there were a few setbacks – Applewhite’s 1974 arrest for credit card theft in Harlingen, Texas. Never minding such misdemeanors, Marshall strived to bring people into his “Total Overcomers Anonymous” group and impress upon them that he was truly channeling Jesus. From early on, he embraced the idea that the world would be wiped clean as in the Noah’s Ark story. He wanted to make people know how they could achieve the “Next Level” and avoid drowning with all the sinners.

The group expanded and contracted over the years. People were understandably skeptical when dire events didn’t happen. Where is the flood? In its last incarnation, Total Overcomers’ Anonymous changed its name to Heaven’s Gate and settled into a mansion near San Diego, California. Here, in Rancho Santa Fe, the group paid its bills with internet web services while studying scriptures and preparing for the Next Level. Applewhite commanded his flock to forsake all property and separate from their spouses. Most disturbingly, he convinced his male followers to castrate themselves. As Comet Hale-Bopp approached, Applewhite convinced his group to “evacuate their vehicles” for the Next Level. They were adamantly opposed to suicide but evacuation was laudable. Over 3 days, Heaven’s Gate members took lethal doses of Phenobarbital and covered their heads with plastic bags – a one way ticket to Hale-Bopp.

How great is our gullibility that we follow any Music Man with an overture of happiness and eternal life? And who is that man telling you he's channeling God? He could be God incarnate… or he could be the likes of David Koresh, Charles Manson or Marshall Applewhite. There's a thin line that exists between lunacy and religious epiphany. When the door opens to the other side, what does anyone see? Did Mohammed Atta have access to his 72 virgins? Did Heaven’s Gate board a spaceship? A couple of cult members delayed their suicides several months beyond the mass “evacuation”. They were assigned to spread the Heaven's Gate message, alert the media, and publicize the web site. They accomplished these things and then joined their team for the celestial ride. We Earthlings saw no spaceship, and no flood of epic proportions. Mere facts normally serve as obstructions in such circumstances.

Is there a Next Level? Is there an appointed messenger who can reliably tell us how to get there? Maybe so. But whoever delivers that message should not be asking us to commit acts of self-destruction and violence – castration, self-immolation, poisoning, or terrorism. Our leaps of faith should not be leaps off of a cliff... If there is a victory of the spirit over death, and very possibly there is, we’ll all get there soon enough – comets are optional.

© 2011 blogSpotter

Cosmic Fairy Tales

The blue fairy as God figure? - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Author's note -- My wonderful mother passed away at age 78 on August 16th. She was a fun, special lady and seemed younger than her age, always. She was diagnosed with late-stage pancreatic cancer and lived just 3 weeks with home hospice care after diagnosis. I don't know where anyone goes in the afterlife, but she will add to the joy and laughter wherever it is.

Magic Air

I'll tell a tale
of maidens fair
and dragons fierce
and magic air

I'll tell it not with words precise
or thoughts profound
or terms concise

A child can let the tale unfold
with whimsey, rhymes and actions bold
He'll open wide the shuttered door
To something other, something more

Today's blog is one I've touched on before in other articles, it's a personal favorite and well worth revisiting. In high school English class you were probably served topics like symbolism, metaphor and personification. Most teens find these topics about as exciting as cold oatmeal and would much rather be Tweeting or texting the hour away. When the method of delivery is a Percy Shelley poem or Moby Dick, the dry dullness becomes overwhelming. The literary devices mentioned above are far better understood and enjoyed as personal discoveries. Every other song, poem and fictional work in pop culture has some type of message between the lines – the sensitive listener will pick up and enjoy these (certainly when the topic is something about sex).

One area that is rife with symbolism is children's literature. Aesop and Mother Goose have a lot up their sleeves that our parents never imagined. Even when the message is fairly obvious (Emperor's New Clothes, The Tortoise and the Hare), adults are quick to flush it out of their minds – minds far too busy with Important Stuff. That's too bad -- the morals are so much needed in today's world.

Two of my favorite children's stories are Mary Poppins and the Wizard of Oz. Both of these are full of symbolism not the least of which is their God imagery. College freshmen, properly tanked up on beer, can dissect the importance of the Wizard, the yellow brick road and how it all relates to an emerald city. What was Baum really saying? Yet another movie that serves up miraculous metaphors is Pinocchio. This movie was masterfully delivered by Walt Disney in his 1940 animation, but has fallen into a certain level of obscurity.

Let me set forth some of the things that make Pinocchio a truly relevant, nay cosmic fairy tale:

o It offers not just a “God” but a hierarchy of intelligences – a cricket with conscience, a kindly human puppet maker and a blue fairy.
o It shows a physical consequence to lying – a consequence that gives Pinocchio a lengthened nose and turns hoodlums into braying donkeys.
o It shows a transformational experience – a wood puppet transforming into a live boy after demonstrating fortitude and human love.

It's getting late in the evening – I won't delve into the theological and cosmological bee hives the Pinocchio story kicks open. Even if you're set like quick-dry cement in your religious viewpoint you might still see some points to ponder. What is ironic is that children the world over can be delighted by the concepts presented – and Mommy and Daddy are just glad the rug rats are occupied with a DVD in the back seat.

Unless you've walled your children off in a home school with Veggie Tales on permanent replay, they should get a liberal exposure to a variety of ideas just looking at the classics. You can hammer your kids back into compliance at a later date if need be. Or maybe, just maybe let them open up their imaginations and discover a few things on their own. It might help them to be better rounded people and they'll later get high school bonus points for correctly interpreting Ozymandias.

© 2011 blogSpotter

Sci Fi Messiah

Hubbard holding court in 1950 -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
What is it that we love so much about a master story teller? If the story is something like a Jackie Collins novel, we know it’s all a fiction but love it nonetheless. A good friend may thickly embellish a story to make it funny or poignant -- we fully appreciate and forgive (nay, encourage) such excesses. In other cases, a religious luminary may tell us a story as an article of faith. If it’s told in a compelling way, we want it to be true; don’t douse us with cold reality. In yet other situations -- a court of law, a science classroom, the truth must come unadorned. The story teller might be perjuring himself if he regales us from a witness stand.

LaFayette Ron Hubbard was a master story teller. Between 1933 and 1938, the prolific author wrote 138 sci-fi and adventure novels (e.g., Buckskin Brigade and Final Blackout). Hubbard who could write (not just type) at 70 words per minute, was just getting warmed up. If his career had been defined only by his writing, his manic achievements would put him in the publishing stratosphere. But Hubbard created a worldwide Dianetics empire and had a net worth of $600,000,000 at the time of his death. Given his excesses, his giddy heights and his (at one point in 1947) suicidal despair, Hubbard was probably an undiagnosed bipolar but that is just this blog author’s speculation.

Egotist, story teller, messiah -- these names attach themselves to Hubbard. But also liar, felon, con artist and letch, depending on the source. Born in 1911, the red-headed Hubbard was nicknamed “Brick”. As a Navy brat, he got to see exotic places such as the Far East. He was a bright, curious boy who achieved Eagle Scout rank in the Boy Scouts. He also had an early interest in psychiatry and spirituality although those didn’t translate into any great college career -- he was drummed out of Georgetown University after only two years with failing grades. Now you might think his career was stymied but you’d be wrong -- he was just winding up. Hubbard’s life covers such broad expanses I’ll just hit some highlights. An in-depth story would take days to tell.

Hubbard was a highly outgoing man with the gift of self-promotion. His biography is filled with proud assertions readily disputed by various witnesses, friends and scholars. There are also some dents and dings along the way, that aren’t part of the official story. Hubbard claims to have been made a lama priest in Beijing; Jon Atack (former Scientologist) says that Hubbard’s own diary from that time fails to make any such mention. In Naval Training School for WWII, Hubbard claimed to be a nuclear physicist though he’d actually flunked those courses at Georgetown. Hubbard touted his 1953 PhD from Sequoia University (in Dianetics), while soft-pedaling the fact that Sequoia was a discredited degree mill. He later claimed to be a Blackfoot Indian blood brother though tribal spokesmen said that their tribe didn’t do such inductions. He was implicated in a 1945 confidence scheme (“Allied Enterprises”) that resulted in a $2900 court settlement (payment by Hubbard to the other litigant). He was relieved of a naval command post after conducting unauthorized gunnery practice off the Mexican shoreline.

With all these scurrilous details one might think Hubbard was a washed up, braggart blowhard. But in fact he was able to recover credibility by attacking the very prominent Achilles Heel of the nascent psychiatry field. In the 1940’s, psychiatrists were routinely doing lobotomies and electroshock. Whatever folly one might see in Scientology audits, they never involved removal of frontal lobes. In 1950, Hubbard authored a pseudoscientific treatise about Dianeteics, “the scientific method of mental therapy”. Dianetics survived several early setbacks. Contemporary authors and science reviewers described Dianetics as “lunatic” and “cult-like”. His earliest public demo of a “Clear” (healthy mental state from Dianetics) fell on it’s face -- his subject failed to remember any relevant facts. But the bombastic Hubbard pressed forward and founded the Church of Scientology in 1953. He soon had followers throughout Europe and the English speaking world. He added the E-meter, a “biofeedback” auditing device in 1959.

Hubbard started to have IRS problems early on -- his acceptance of salary and emoluments from E-meter sales went beyond the accepted norms for non-profit groups. Scientology also had worldwide credibility issues going forward. They were exiled from Rhodesia for possible economic manipulation. They were expelled from Greece as undesirables. Hubbard was actually convicted of fraud in France, though the fine was never enforced. Hubbard decided to avoid national penalties by putting his headquarters outfit (dubbed Sea Org) on a ship at sea. Hubbard was said to engage in very un-Messiah like behavior -- he had Commodore’s Assistants. These were buxom teenage girls who fixed him drinks and laid out his clothes. The thrice-married Hubbard was also said to be given over to fits of pique and anger. He could swear like a sailor which probably befits his naval background (as well as his probable bipolarity).

Apologies for compressing so much into so little a space. Hubbard’s life sprawled big and far like one of his novels -- so much to cover. Hubbard entertained a fantasy, maybe a self-delusion that he was immortal. He had certainly taken much of the world by storm, he was starting to believe his own mythology. He was involved in a near-fatal motor cycle accident in the 1970’s and Hubbard began to rethink his time usage. He realized that he was a flesh-and-blood person living with the same hourglass that all we mere mortals have. He returned to sci-fi writing in 1977 and wrote Battlefield Earth in 1982 (4 years before his death in 1986 at age 74). He stayed in seclusion the last 6 years of his life, hoping to avoid indictment by a New York grand jury; They were investigating his possible “Fair Game” harassment of a Scientology critic.

Hubbard was certain that he would return to Earth as a reincarnated political leader within our own lifetime. When he actually died in 1986, the Church explained that Hubbard had deliberately discarded his physical body and was conducting spiritual research “one galaxy away”.

Whatever you may think about this man’s credibility, you have to be amazed by his prolific writing and imagination as well as his evangelistic zeal. I was impressed that Marshall Applewhite (of Heaven’s Gate fame) could convince his male followers to castrate themselves. Let’s think about it …A car salesman sells a car and a comedian sells a joke. That L. Ron Hubbard, a sci-fi “philosopher king” could sell a whole reality, a future and a lifetime orientation of audits and e-meters is probably several orders of magnitude more impressive than any salesman, anywhere. In an odd way of looking at it, Hubbard is still alive and well -- his vibrant organization (replete with celebrity “thought leaders”) is thriving today.

© 2010 blogSpotter

Reverend Jim's Traveling Salvation Show

The final rite in Guyana -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I must confess to a certain prejudice. When I think of cults or collective insanity, I usually think of right-wing ideologues or crazed Christians-- Nazis, KKK and Heaven’s Gate. I must pause to reflect and mention that sometimes the craziness has a leftward tilt as it did in November 1978. That’s when Reverend Jim Jones, of the Peoples’ Temple bade his 900 member commune to drink cyanide laced grape punch in an act of “revolutionary suicide”. What weird life trajectory would've brought Jones and his followers to this terrible point?

Looking back, the young Jim Warren Jones had an unremarkable middle class childhood in Indiana. He is said to have been an odd child, musing about death and holding funerals for animals. After his parents divorced, he moved with his mother to Richmond, Indiana. He attended Indiana and Butler Universities where he earned a degree in secondary education; his desire was to be a student pastor. Jones chose the Methodist ministry as his first career move, since they were accepting of people with socialist leanings (like Jones) in the McCarthy era. Alas, his dalliance with Methodism was short-lived because at the time they weren’t racially integrated and Jones was pro-integration.

In what was evidence of a dynamic presence, Jones founded his very own church, the People’s Temple Christian Church Full Gospel at the tender age of 22 in the early 1950‘s. Jones was also made director of the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission and presented a strong voice for the NAACP as well as the up-and-coming civil rights movement. His outspokenness brought harassment and vandalism to his Indiana church. In the mid 1960’s, Jones had a “vision” that nuclear holocaust was coming to America in 1967 and the only safe haven would be Redwood, California. He decided to move his church to California where, coincidentally, the liberal California culture would be more accepting of his socialist, mixed-race church.

Jones' church moved briefly to Redwood and then to San Francisco. Upon the move to San Francisco, Jones became a local political celebrity. He continued to raise funds for NAACP and was appointed the head of the San Francisco Housing Authority by Mayor Moscone. During the mid-70’s, Jones hobnobbed with the crème de la crème of liberal society -- Walter Mondale, Rosalynn Carter, Harvey Milk, Willie Brown and even Governor Jerry Brown. Dinners were hosted in Jones’ honor and he was a special guest speaker at a DNC Headquarters grand opening.

After several years of good California vibes, a cloud moved across Jones’ sunny sky -- a cloud that even his dynamic, jovial personality couldn’t disperse. Marshall Kilduff, an “alternative” journalist caught wind of bad things happening in Jones’ church -- physical, emotional and sexual abuse. He was about to publish a large exposé when Jones abruptly decided to move his church to Jonestown, Guyana. There, Jones believed he could at last establish his socialist, multiracial utopia away from the establishment’s prying eyes.

Unfortunately for Jones, the establishment couldn’t be shaken off so easily. A “Concerned Relatives” group wanted to resolve issues of kidnapping and abuse even if it was thousands of miles away in Guyana. A fact-finding mission was dispatched, led by Congressman Leo Ryan in November of 1978. Ryan’s entourage came down for a 3-day junket, which was cut short when they encountered overt hostility. They decided to return and @ 15 Temple refugees came with them. Jones’ “Red Brigade” opened fire on the group has they boarded their planes, killing 5 people including Congressman Ryan.

In quick succession following the air strip shootings, 909 people in the People’s Temple were bade to drink grape Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. Jones exhorted them to participate in family units, as an act of “revolution”. Jones himself was found with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. There was no film recording, but an audiotape of the proceedings (over loudspeaker). The mass suicide is the greatest loss of American civilian life outside of natural disasters or 9/11.

What compelled this paranoid, egomaniacal madman to destroy his whole world? The worst possible outcome of Ryan’s investigation would have paled next to the horrific poisonings that happened in his humid, isolated dystopia. What do you believe and why do you believe it? Are we so fragile of mind that we’ll follow any pied piper that promises a happier reality -- a reality based on thin strands of psychobabble and religious distortions? There are no ready answers -- and there are myriad religions and groups now that exist on the mere edge of sanity. All that recommends them is that as yet, they haven't asked you to drink the Kool-Aid.

© 2010 blogSpotter

Apostate Scientist

The man who said too much -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Who was Fred Hoyle? He was a noted English Astronomer (member of Royal Astronomy Society), known primarily for his theories of stellar nucleosynthesis. He passed away in 2001, at age 86, and his presence is still felt. His presence is felt not so much for his ideas on stellar processes as for the firestorm created by his "alternative" cosmology. Hoyle stirred the pot by suggesting that there was a fallible intelligence responsible for Evolution, thereby putting himself front and center as an "apostate" scientist. Before further elaborating about Hoyle’s ideas, let's mention the two religious philosophies that basically have dominated western society in the 20th and early 21st centuries:

1) “Abrahamic” religions -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity. These religions postulate an all-powerful, perfect God; they feature messianic figures (speculative or realized) and each claims to be a "one true" religion based on an embrace of faith. All three believe that God has some type of implied power-sharing arrangement with Satan.

2) Darwinism -- Darwin's theory basically asserts that random molecular mutations can recombine enough to yield an intelligent, fit animal. The combinatoric requirements for this to happen (even across 15 billion years) are staggering. It's a leap of faith to think even an amoeba could happen this way much less a cat or a bat. Thusly in my book, Darwinism gets cast as a great world quasi-religion. It's based on an article of faith as flimsy as any religious mythology.

In this breakdown, I'm omitting quite a few other things -- Hare Krishna, Scientology etc. In the Western scientific community, most university professors holding any sway fall into one of the two "majors" I've listed above. Fred Hoyle is noteworthy because he stepped very pointedly aside from either group -- he proposed that there is a God, in fact a tangible one. He suggested a fumble-bum, engineering God who can make mistakes. Rather than a Devil, per se, he speculated that this fallible intelligence might be periodically divided or at cross-purposes to itself.

He famously likened Darwin's theory to a wind blowing thru a scrap yard and accidentally assembling a Boeing 747, thereby incurring the wrath of devout Darwinians everywhere. By the same turn, Christian creationists loved that a Royal Astronomer was debunking Darwin's idea. They did (and still do) haul out Hoyle to explain their own fanciful idea of humans cavorting with dinosaurs. They promptly will place Hoyle back in the closet when it looks like they might be embarrassed by his "fallible God" stuff -- no need to go overboard on it. Where Christians see Hoyle as a boon to their debate, mainstream Darwinists have been very incensed -- science author Robert Shapiro even suggested that Hoyle was insane. It's interesting that people from opposite camps are so excited (one way or the other) by Mr. Hoyle.

I like Hoyle's approach -- it's fairly consistent with what we see around us. Am I in total agreement? Of course not. Hoyle basically advocates panspermia, where biotic material falls to the Earth's surface by some kind of intelligent direction. Would this be from solar wind, comets or something else? The panspermia theory doesn't answer the origin of intelligence, it just changes the setting from Earth to space. So where did space intelligence come from? I don't care for his panspermia "mechanism" but what I like about Hoyle is the idea that theism doesn't require belief in supernatural phenomena, miracles or any suspension of scientific method. Do I foresee anytime down the road that Hoyle will be embraced as a great sage? No, I don’t. Hoyle is an apostate to both the major religious movements mentioned above. He presents the idea of a God who might be traceable, knowable and even subject to study. It's blasphemy I tell you. And blasphemy that provokes dangerously tenable ideas.

© 2008 blogSpotter

A Roadmap for Primates?

An olive baboon contemplates the importance of being a primate -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Candidate Mike Huckabee was recently quoted saying "if you want to believe you came from a primate, that's your business". The irony here is that humans are primates. We are in the same lineage as lemurs, monkeys and apes. What features do we share with other primates? Here is a short list:

• five fingers on each hand
• generalized dental pattern
• primitive (unspecialized) body plan
• opposing thumbs
• forward-facing color binocular vision
• adaptive to many environments; not overly specialized, omnivorous
• nonaggressive physical build (no fangs, claws or hulking muscles)

The primate's "primitive" body type is what made him the master over other animals. The primate's hands were never transformed into flippers or hooves. Some mammals sacrificed their front limbs for use in locomotion. Carnivorous mammals developed dagger-like teeth and sharp talons for bringing down prey. Primates maintained their hands for multi-purpose tinkering, and their fore limbs were never sacrificed to a single-minded purpose. Oddly, two lowly non-primates, squirrels and opossums, have a survival advantage over more sophisticated creatures like horses and dolphins. Their advantage is from having digits that can grasp, like those of a primate.

What does any of this matter? It has philosophical and theological implications for the amateur naturalist such as me. Neo-Darwinists loathe believing that Evolution moves in any direction, much less in a progressive way towards an 'end game'. The pattern of Evolution suggests that there truly is a direction. Look at our taxonomical system: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Starting from species and working backward, each stratum's most recent entry is further and further into the remote past. Humans (a 'new' species) date back @ 2 million years and a new order probably hasn't occurred in tens of millions of years.

Many religions including Christianity detest believing that humans came from apes. The fossil evidence is overwhelming that we did come from apes and it doesn't particularly bother me to think we evolved that way. In your mother's womb, you progress from a zygote, to a fish-looking embryo, to a squalling newborn. That progression is more dramatic than ape evolution and it happens before our very eyes.

ON BECOMING A NON-PRIMATE

What bothers me is not the idea of 'evolution with purpose' or proximity to apes. What stokes my curiosity is how animals with which we share ancestry branched away from us at some point in time. Dogs and humans probably share an ancestor with a primitive "prosimian" mammal. Humans even share an ancestor with snakes if you travel as far back as the age of salamanders. But at critical junctures, some species forsook the very features that made them potential primates. A lizard mutant lost its legs to become a snake. A prosimian traded hands for paws. It's all neither here nor there you say -- water over the dam.

Let's move the clock forward to more recent evolution. Baboons are a large, successful breed of monkeys -- they rival apes in their intelligence, dexterity and social structure. But the baboon has a dog-like snout, canine teeth and even a bark of sorts. It's also comparatively aggressive. Gorillas are also a very recent evolution. The silverback male can tear a man from limb to limb if so inclined. What strikes me with these two examples is that they violate the "nonaggressive" criteria laid out above. It's as if the primate features serve as a sort of guideline, and straying far in any direction condemns a species to “animalhood”.

Could it be that the “lost souls” of religious stories are not figures burning in Hell, but instead they are the animals that we have as pets and livestock? If Evolution is continuing along this track, there are probably human subspecies that risk spinning away from the primate evolutionary roadmap. Humans have added verbal aggression and lying to the “fangs and claws” listed above as non-primate qualities. Lawyers and car salesmen come to mind. There are also humans who tend toward overspecialization in particular areas (avid swimmers?) or particular diets (vegans?) or particular trades. Could it be that the winnowing process continues its selection based on the primate roadmap?

THE AVATAR

My guess is that the winnowing process is still at work. In describing it, one has to be careful not to slip into the quicksand pit of racism or eugenics – I’m hoping to steer clear of that. My conjecture is that Evolution will continue to refine and define what is to become the “ultimate human”. This process might work in conjunction with man’s own technological achievements. Possibly at a time when man is nearly immortal and no longer even needs to reproduce, the ultimate human will arrive. It won’t be a race or subspecies but precisely one person. In Scott Adam’s “Dilbert Principle” he describes the concept of an Avatar – one wise, knowing man. I’m conjuring to mind a very similar thing.

Religions have this concept particularly in the idea of a Messiah. However the Avatar will most likely be a person with modest mannerisms – not any type of public, bombastic or bragging individual (primate principles, remember). This person will keep his special designation to himself, assuming that he has any outright awareness of it.

AND IN CONCLUSION…

We live in a strange world where religion and science are at irresolvable loggerheads with each other. It’s unlikely that any religion will be proven to be ‘the real’ one. Equally unlikely is that scientists will convince believers that Evolution really occurred. Theists will never convince agnostic scientists that any type of God exists. What is more likely is that each group will go confidently and serenely about its business, tuning out anyone who disagrees. And that one who possesses an ultimate Truth will go quietly about his or her business – making no waves for people who have already decided what the case must be.

© 2007 blogSpotter

In His Image

Hitchens talks about God -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I just read one atheist book, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I found some points of common ground, but on the most important of points (belief in God), I had to differ. I like the way some of these atheist writers get me to thinking. I'm now listening to Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great. Hitchens is a staff writer for Slate on-line magazine; in this world of strange bedfellows, Hitchens is politically conservative, pro-W Bush and in favor of the Iraq War. In fact, part of the motive for this book was his distaste for Islamo-fascists and the whole concept of religious jihad.

Hitchens makes some interesting points about how we color in the outline of God. We were made in his image, so it's said, but Hitchens believes we have it backwards. With our avid imaginations, we've created God in our own image. And what kind of God have we created? Apparently a very insecure God -- he wants us to bow, scrape and pray to him on a regular basis. He wants us to beseech him for favors, beg forgiveness and make monetary if not human and animal sacrifices. He's the God of tasteless practical jokes -- how else to explain his commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son and then calling it off at the last moment? The God described in the Bible is punishing and vengeful -- even in the New Testament he displays more of a wrathful than reasoned approach.

So what have we devised here? A person like this God would be: vain, insecure, intolerant, short-tempered, inappropriate, cruel, nasty and vindictive. A person with these traits would be on the "do not invite" list. And yet we have no qualms ascribing these exact traits to our Higher Power. I myself depart from organized religion on these points -- the God of my own understanding is not a blustering egomaniacal rage-a-holic.

Imagine if you will, the traits that make for an excellent human. These might include: humility, self-assurance, understanding, forgiveness, deep insight, kindness and love. Depending on how human you want to make him he might also have a sense of style, adventure or humor. My God would never ask me to kill my son, not even as a test. And he's not so insecure about my fealty or belief in him that I must ritualistically recite chants or face a certain direction. He made me and knows every nook and cranny of my mind.

I'm only a couple of chapters into the book, so more may be revealed. Hitchens speaks of a road checkpoint in Belfast where the armed soldier asks him his religion. "Well, I'm an atheist," he replies. The soldier is not satisfied in the least. "Are you a protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?" The nonsensical nature of this exchange will be obvious to a secular believer such as me -- and it will make perfect since to an Islamo-fascist. I'm sure Hitchens, like Dawkins will part ways with me in some fundamental topics further on, but so far he makes some good points.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Delusional About God?

Who do we blame for life? -- Picture courtesy Bantam Books

by blogSpotter
I'm listening to Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. Dawkins is a well-known British science professor best know for his strident atheism; two of his other best-sellers are The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Much of his book targets organized religion rather than God per se. He describes the God of the Old Testament as a "sadomasochistic, capricious malevolent bully". He lambastes the Gospels of the New Testament, saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were cherry-picked from eight other Gospels that had their facts provably wrong. Dawkins says that the four Gospels chosen are inconsistent about such things as the whereabouts of Joseph and Mary. (Were they in Nazareth, going to Nazareth, why did they have to go to Bethlehem?) He says the translations from Aramaic are fraught with serious translation problems. The word for "virgin" also means "young lady". The word "carpenter" can also mean "learned man". And so forth ... I myself am not a fan of organized religion, so much of the critique made sense although it might be a bit on the nasty side.

Now Dawkins seems to be upset with scientists such as Michael Faraday or Fred Hoyle who have some kind of God belief. Fred Hoyle is noted for saying that life evolving on Earth by Natural Selection is about as likely as a wind blowing though a scrap yard, assembling a Boeing 747. Dawkins says that Hoyle knows nothing about Natural Selection (NS) and that NS is anything but chance. He waves the term NS around describing it as "elegant" and "beautiful" but never says to anyone's satisfaction how the molecular mutations are anything but chance. There's no suggestion as to why a collection of molecules has a motivation to grow, mutate or do anything in particular. What I'd say of Darwin's Natural Selection is what I once heard said of New Jersey -- "There's no there there". Even if you tried to go with that theory, there is some type of implied intelligence in something that does the "selecting". Fred Hoyle was absolutely right and he doesn't have to be talking about anything as advanced as a cricket. A complex protein or virus would never happen purely by random molecular collisions. I submit that Neo-Darwinists are a delusional group unto themselves.

Dawkins' other main argument is that someone would have to design God. I have a reply of sorts. Can you imagine the intelligence it would take to create you, fallible though you are? It might not take someone infinitely intelligent to create your cerebral lobes, etc but it would take someone pretty damned smart. Let's set our own goal as being merely that smart -- not at all smart enough to create the Universe. Now -- once we have achieved that state of awareness I submit that you only have to be a tad smarter to understand what created the creator. We answer one question at a time, and then we come closer to answering the Ultimate Question whatever that may be.

A second delusional group are people who are willing to ignore a mountain of geophysical and fossil evidence to claim a literal embrace of the Bible. This same group claims an all-powerful, omniscient, supernatural God who is external to the Universe. They believe that God created us like play dough figures, all in a single, highly productive swoop. Now, there are some problems with that idea. If we were an original handicraft why did God give us vestigial organs? We have an appendix which is a remnant of a herbivorous ceccum. We have a coccyx (tailbone) which is a remnant of a monkey tail. We also have ear muscles no longer in use. Not only is there monkey business here, but God also made some big "fubars". The human anatomy is full of mistakes -- many of them related to our recent bipedal status. We have hip joints ill suited to bearing the weight of the trunk. It leads to hip degeneration and even femoral neck fractures. We have knees with inadequate tibial cartilage, leading to frequent knee problems. The female pelvis is too small for the human baby's head leading to frequent birth problems (probably due to rapid evolution of head size). If starting from scratch, wouldn't God have done it flawlessly? As a computer programmer, I'm well aware of putting Band-Aids on old systems to add on something new. Because of time and budget constraints, we programmers don't get to "start fresh". Humans look like the product of corporate evolution, not instant infallible creation. As H.L. Mencken said, it's obvious that life was designed by committee.

So, what kind of God are we left with? One that is finite, fallible and within the Universe. If that is so, why can't we see Him? It could be that this Intelligent Wumpus doesn't want to be found -- he could be victimized by his own clumsy creations. It could also be that he exists in a different scale or dimension that makes him invisible to us anyway (though nevertheless real). Is he a God of magic and supernatural abilities? No -- he is more likely a God of practical approaches, frugal with resources and gradual in his achievements -- very much like us, his creations. The "miracles" to behold are those that you already see -- highly complex, organized matter.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Sometimes Divisive

Heal!

by blogSpotter
When Jerry Falwell passed away recently, fond farewells were given across all the media. Because his tirades were given under the aegis of Religion, and the word "Reverend" preceded his name, the newspaper remembrances were softened with phrases like "sometimes divisive" or "oft controversial". As Slate writer Christopher Hitchens so aptly points out, Don Imus could've salvaged his whole career with the prefix "Reverend". Hitchens went even further, by referring to Falwell’s dead body as a “carcass”.

In his early career, Falwell was pro-segregation and referred to Civil Rights as “Civil Wrongs.” He wasn’t much more enlightened by the late 90's; he elicited laughs with his now-famous outing of Tinky Winky -- a children's Teletubby character. Not so laughable were his dark insinuations that the Antichrist will “of necessity” be a Jewish male. His anti-Semitism was barely kept below the surface. His stance in favor of Israeli settlers in Gaza was more of a goading toward what he saw as ultimate Biblical prophecy -- Armageddon. Falwell crossed a Rubicon of sorts when in 2001, he said that the 9/11 attacks were divine retribution for gays, lesbians, feminists and the ACLU. He actually was compelled to apologize for that statement. There is no rational justification, divine or otherwise for what happened on 9/11.

"Speak kindly of the dead," they say. There are so many dead people of differing viewpoints; it's hard to stay consistent with that dictum. And if the recently deceased is "oft controversial" it's harder still. I have a friend who once said, "I don't care about Heaven or Hell -- when I die, I just want to know why things happened as they did. Give me an explanation for why life sucked, and what it was all really about." If there is one ultimate, real truth, may we all be apprised of it at least in death. Maybe we die, and then we just get a good talking-to. Jerry, I can't help but think that someone would set you straight about children's television, the ACLU and a few other things.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Atheist Murders Revisited

The Grande Dame of Atheism -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Madalyn Murray O'Hair is well-known as the woman who took prayer out of American public schools in 1963. As a champion of Church-State separation myself, I feel that she was undeserving of the title "America's Most Hated Woman". O'Hair was the director of the American Atheist Society headquartered in Austin, Texas for many years. Her son Garth, and twenty-something granddaughter Robin also helped in the administration of the group. O'Hair was not known for diplomatic phrasing or delicate words. She could be pretty scathing in her broadsides to perceived enemies, or even to cohorts that she felt were incompetent. Her undoing came in the mid 90's when she hired a violent ex-convict 53 year old, David Waters, to be her office manager. No telling what the background check involved but it was clearly inadequate. Waters was caught embezzling money from American Atheists and was fired. Madalyn wrote a scathing retort about Waters in the Atheist newsletter afterward. Waters saw the newsletter and he was reportedly enraged by it.

The rest of the story is rather gruesome and I'll sum it up quickly. In 1995, Waters and two cohorts kidnapped the O'Hairs from their home in Northwest Austin, and took them to a hotel in San Antonio. They forced Garth to cash large sums of money from personal accounts, and then they summarily killed all three O'Hairs. The details of this ugly deed are not known, and probably better left that way. It’s not known if they had to endure torture, because their bodies were so dismembered and decomposed when they were later discovered. Waters was eventually apprehended and sentenced for his deed -- he died shortly into his prison term from lung cancer. My main point in writing this article is to discuss how surrounding people dealt with the horrific event.

William Murray O'Hair was O'Hair's eldest son. William was actually a protestant minister and very much estranged from his Mother and family. Even so, I find it very odd that he didn't report his Mother missing for one year. The O'Hairs had left behind food cooking in the kitchen, beloved pet dogs and diabetes medicine in their house -- there was ample evidence from the get go that foul play had occurred. The Austin police refused to research it as a crime for a year or so, until several newspapers including the Dallas Observer had done so much leg work, it was painfully obvious a murder had occurred. Likewise, the FBI was very distant from the case until overwhelming data was produced by other parties.

Worst of all, some fellow Atheists mused about whether the O'Hairs had simply run away, possibly with funds from the organization. The reaction by family, cronies and law enforcement is absolutely astounding to me. When Waters was finally apprehended, it was for charges way less than 1st degree murder -- he was given 20 years for reduced charges. The lethargic and even hostile reactions, especially by law enforcement, make me wonder. I passionately embrace the idea of a Higher Power, but the God of my understanding would never condone what Waters and his cohorts did. Neither would the God of my understanding condone the hostile indifference that so many reputedly Christian people showed toward this crime. They seem to believe that it’s “just desserts”. It is possible for a believer to start out as an atheist (has anyone heard of Amazing Grace?) and come around to believing. To God, an atheist might be like unsculpted clay -- that which can be shaped into a beautiful sculpture of enlightenment in very short order. Even if someone is a diehard atheist to his last deathbed ramblings, it is up to God and not to us to decide on the worthiness or fate of that person's soul.

There are a few people who were rightly concerned about what happened. Even William Murray O'Hair finally came around and realized that nobody should countenance what was done to his family members. To people who felt menaced by Madalyn's presence in the world, or weirdly vindicated by her horrible murder -- shame, shame, shame. My own theistic perspective says we are always being watched by a Higher Power. His heart is gladdened by people who do the right thing, and saddened when people do otherwise. Condoning a sadistic murder probably falls into that second 'otherwise' category.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Holocaust Revisited

Hungarian Jews at death camp -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When I think about the Holocaust of World War II, I'm amazed that it happened at all, and that it happened so recently. Something as savage as racial genocide seems archaic -- like something from the Dark Ages. Over 6 million Jews were murdered; a large number of gypsies, Jehovah's Witness, gays, communists and Russian POW's were also gassed. The scale and extent of this operation was enormous; there had to be tacit buy-in and cooperation from millions of German citizens. That any civilized European nation would allow this is absolutely mind-boggling.

This week's TIME magazine has a review of historian Saul Friedlander's new book, The Years of Extermination. In his book, Friedlander illuminates some of the truly sick rationalizations that Nazi officers and leaders employed. In public statements, Hitler suggested that he only wanted Jews to leave -- death would only come to those that didn't comply. Compliance was made impossible when escape routes were closed in 1942 and Jews were rounded up for death camps. SS Commander Himmler felt that the stress of war could be soothed with classical music and thoughts of German spirituality in the evening. Himmler said, with no irony intended, that Jews would create world war and death camps if they ever got their hands on sophisticated weapons. His greatest concern with the death camp operations was that they maintained poor statistics on the inmates' ages and names.

Friedlander's book points out that the death camp operation became a logistical monster all by itself, especially difficult to maintain during world war. Resources that could have served defense purposes (German railroads e.g.) became tied up in the purely evil purpose of genocide. Germany was undone to a very great extent by its anti-Semitic, racist blood-lust. Slightly more German citizens (7 million) lost their lives in the war than the number (6 million) killed in death camps. My own feeling, truth be known is that Germany should not have even been allowed to come back as an autonomous state. That they were torn asunder into 3 occupied territories is the misfortune of a citizenry who hands its country over to a madman and helps him in his mad devastations.

I shudder to say that it could happen again with ease -- Osama Bin Laden is a hero to many Arabs now. He is genocidal in the extreme. The extreme arrogance of various states and religions gives them the false notion that they can do anything to other people. The problem is, you can't and they can't. And as Germany found, the crushing weight of their folly was too much to bear for even a few years.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Can I Get a Witness?

HEAL! -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Why do you believe what you believe? Have always thought it was interesting. I generally divide my knowledge into 3 categories:

1. I believe what I see with my own eyes -- I believe there is a flat screen in front of me, all my sensory feedback tells me so.
2. I believe what appeals to a priori reason -- I believe that 1 + 1 = 2.
3. I believe what sounds reasonable and/or demonstrable. I will not question the weight of an electron, the distance to the moon, or the speed of light. I haven't availed myself of telescopes or other lab equipment to re-establish any of those facts or see it firsthand. I'll take somebody's word for it.

Items 1-3 are pretty easily verified and corroborated by other parties, throughout the world.

This last category is more troubling however
4. I believe what my parents and religious training told me about God.

The religious truths presented by your mother are not especially obvious or demonstrable and many other people throughout the world register disagreement. Since I live in a land of Christendom, I'll take that as the example. Why do you believe that Jesus Christ is 'Lord and Savior?' What is the basis of your original belief? Most people to whom I've posed the question shrug it off:

"It's what I was raised with". "My parents instructed me". "It's the culture we live in".

Have you ever had a dream, vision or supernatural event that made it clear to you? In all but one case of my asking the answer has been "No". My uncle is deeply religious and even studied to be a minister. He does say that Jesus came and spoke to him personally; have never followed up to ask him about the details. There are near death experiences and even religious manias where people can experience almost-real interactions of this sort. Would be interested to know his particular circumstances.

So what pivotal, monumental event caused you to Believe. "If I don't believe, I'll go to Hell". So you were brow-beaten to SAY you believe for conformist reasons? Are you saying it as some kind of insurance policy? What is the reason you accept any particular thing, yea or nay, as an article of faith? Is it because a parent or authority figure told you? I think most people fall under the spell of organized religion because they've been 'witnessed to' by parents and authority figures. It's disturbing because religion has been used as the justification for discrimination, war, slavery, concentration camps and torture. Some of man's most heinous actions are done for 'God' in the name of a 'Good war'. So while someone is drilling a hole in someone else's head (As Iraqis now do to each other) what is the basic logic at work? Someone in the USA might say, "My God is the real God. Jesus is the only way to Salvation". Based on what? Your sacred text, parent's words and religious history are no more persuasive than those of Muslims or Hindus. They have the same influences at work in their societies. What logical construct can possibly break the impasse of "My God's better than your God"?

If something is category 4 knowledge above, I would never use it as a basis for action, much less violent action. There are umpteen religions (and even sub-religions) that ask me to take something as an article of faith. Which do I choose? I believe in God and orderly society just based on knowledge categories 1, 2 and 3 above. No bribes, no threats or implicit exile are necessary. I will believe what I primarily know, and I will admit to not knowing things that are currently unfathomable.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Jesus in a Box

Stirring the pot -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

What do you make of the idea that Jesus might have been married to Mary Magdalene -- he may have even had a son named Judah? Whether you see this as historical conjecture or blasphemy of the highest order depends on your religion. Documentary producer Simcha Jacobovici has stirred the pot by claiming that Jesus' entire nuclear family was uncovered in the Talpiot Tomb outside of Jerusalem in 1980.

Movie director James Cameron (of Titanic fame) has joined with Jacobovici to produce a documentary on the Discovery channel, laying out all of the details and purported evidence. This pairing of Cameron and Jacobovici forces the Christian Community to face an evil nemesis triad once again: Hollywood, Science and Judaism. If you have something of a Mel Gibson thought process, there is serious overlap between the three branches of the triad. There is reason however, to reach a whole different conclusion, as discussed in TIME magazine. An editorial in this week's issue of TIME ("Hollywood vs. Jesus") argues pretty effectively that Hollywood actually benefits mightily from Christian faith -- look at the cornucopia of songs, books and movies with a Christmas theme. Irving Berlin, a Jew, is the man who composed White Christmas for heaven's sake. It would be crazy for Hollywood to make any deliberate, concentrated attempt at debunking Christianity.

In the same issue of TIME, another editorial ("Rewriting the Gospels") considers the speculative statistical analysis used by Jacobovici to be a terribly lax new standard for scientific conclusions. Jacobovici uses combinatorics to estimate the likelihood that a Jesus, Mary, Judah and Joseph would all be entombed as they were at that time in the same burial place. Detractors make a legitimate point that all four names were extremely common in that era. The conclusions are anything but final; my own doubt comes from the fact that engraved ossuaries were the burial vaults of the wealthy and the upper middle class. Jesus was an impoverished rabbi and part time carpenter. He was also a convicted felon according to Roman law; it seems doubtful that he and his would've had such an elaborate burial ceremony.

Much like The Da Vinci Code, The Lost Tomb has created a tempest of sorts. I'm not sold on any particular theory and am recording the Lost Tomb special as I write this. Am perfectly willing to be persuaded by a good argument, but doubt that I'll see it. The God of my own understanding detests organized religion in all of its arrogant supremacist manifestations. Imagine that Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna and Joseph Smith were ordinary men like you or me -- this is the greatest 'outrage' and yet to me, the greatest likelihood of them all. Even so, if you are comfortable in your faith and your faith is strong, you shouldn't be bothered by the flimsy artifacts given in Lost Tomb. It seems to add to, not subtract from the great body of mythologies that surround our collective past.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Feet of Clay

The moral high ground loses another -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In a story as old as Elmer Gantry (Sinclair Lewis, 1925), protestant evangelists are brought to ruin by a combination of ego, hubris and unbridled lust. Rather than looking like believers who have stumbled, they look like con artists who never believed in the first place. All of us have "feet of clay" but it comes as a shock when those we hold in high moral regard turn out to have less self-control than a randy sophomore at a pledge party. One might ask, "I can keep my pants on for the next 20 minutes, why can't so-and-so?" You would think that those in the public eye, with so much to lose, would be especially careful of avoiding the "appearance of evil".

But power is itself an aphrodisiac -- something which tells its possessor that he will live forever and be immune to the heat of scandal. Thus, we have Ted Haggard, a boyish-looking 50 year old and married father of five; until recently he headed the National Association of Evangelicals. He had 30 million followers in the national organization and 14,000 followers in his own Colorado Springs church. He had the ear of President Bush and was considered foremost in the national evangelical ministry. What possessed this man to respond to the internet ad of a male escort -- some overpowering urge to snort some methamphetamine and get a massage? As with Bill Clinton and so many before, we are astounded by the fool-hardiness of the behavior. How did he get away with it for 3 years? How did Bill Clinton diddle Monica right in the Oval Office for as long as he did? Mark Foley should have known that text messages can be saved and forwarded, but he did it for more than two years. The mind is boggled.

But now and again I think these people want to get caught. I can only think of the Euless preacher who gave a PowerPoint presentation on the same laptop that held his collection of kiddie porn. Why on Earth was this man flirting with such obvious disaster? With the case in point, his PowerPoint progressed along from religious tenets to pictures of children having sex. Underneath it all, the man wanted to be caught -- to cleanse his soul. If a Father cannot absolve you of your sins, there must be some other unconscious way to blurt them out, some way to purge the mind of its overwhelming guilt. "Fire me, defrock me!" says the subconscious mind.

The Haggard story broke almost on the eve of our midterm elections. I'm thinking it would have minimal influence; one man's malfeasance is not necessarily a reflection on everything around him. But Mr. Haggard, to thine own self be true. Lying to me is no big deal, I never put great credence in televangelists. Just be true to yourself -- you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

© 2006 blogSpotter.