"It's Just My Scientist Against Your Scientist"

In a recent discussion on the topic of abortion, I linked to a webpage from Princeton illustrating that, scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. The response to this was, "Well, I can pull up scientists who say just the opposite, so you're really just playing 'It's My Scientist Against Your Scientist."

My response: Go ahead--I triple-dog dare you.

No post has been forthcoming.

The majority of the online pro-abortion opinion against me is that I am somehow seeking to subvert a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body (and I have been told in no uncertain terms that this means I cannot call myself a libertarian!). However, it should be noted that it is not the woman's body which is being aborted; an abortion is the killing of the unborn child, with the woman's body simply an obstacle which must be bypassed.

For those abortion proponents who wish to, there is a related argument you can make to defend a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes: you should oppose research and public service announcements regarding Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. After all, if you already believe that a fetus has no right to life, then it certainly has no claim at all to good health, and ingesting alcohol is (unlike an abortion surgery) something which the expectant mother really does do to her own body--the fetus is only indirectly affected.

Damned Selfish Conservatives!

Recently on Facebook, I came across the question: "Do conservatives ever care about anything except their own money?" Here is my response:

If American conservatives were ever primarily concerned with money, that period ended with the ascent of the New Right in 1980. The concern of conservatives today is FREEDOM--specifically, those freedoms won by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. To say that American conservatives are unconcerned with other peoples' welfare is the height of absurdity; American conservatives are hands down the most generous people in the world, giving dozens of times the amount in donations to charity that liberals do (as a percentage of individual income, and not just in toto).

The difference is that, being concerned primarily with keeping people FREE to live their own lives, conservatives do not use the government to FORCE everyone else to pay for what they think is good for them (under threat of prison). That is the province of today's so-called "liberal." Conservatives take care of their own house, so as not to burden others, and help others from their own pocket... rather than helping themselves TO everyone ELSE'S pocket.

My Thoughts on Proposition 8

A certain segment of society would have you believe that Proposition 8 discriminates against homosexuals by denying them the right of marriage, and that it was created and forced onto the public by gay-hating Christians. I have some thoughts on this matter:

1. Proposition 8 does not prevent homosexual people from getting married. It bans same-sex couples from getting married. Anyone who truly wants to get married is free to find a partner of the opposite gender and do so. Personally, I’m interested in becoming a member of the Roman Catholic communion. I can’t, since they don’t allow Freemasons. If I wanted it badly enough, I’d give up being a Freemason to become a Catholic--but I don’t want it that badly.

2. Of course, I could just say that I’m not a Freemason--but anyone who respects the Church enough to really want to join would know that that lie would render invalid any sacrament--including marriage--in which I participated. Similarly, a marriage decree issued by by a Christian church to a same-sex couple--being against Church doctrine--would be invalid. These people aren’t interested in marriage rights for homosexuals. They are interested in offending Christians. These are the same protesters who go to Communion and spit the Host on the floor.

3. While sexual-orientation discrimination is not being practiced (see above), gender discrimination is. Only couples of mixed genders may obtain marriage licenses. If it can be proven that gender discrimination is not accepted under California law--that is, that all public restrooms and high school locker rooms are unisex--then I will consider that Proposition 8 may be invalid.

4. Even without same-sex marriage, there are no rights available to married people that are not available to same-sex couples. Marriage is a sacrament of the Church; it provides no legal standing that is not also provided by a civil union. Further, there are many organizations--especially in California--which are happy to provide beautiful, moving wedding ceremonies for such civil unions.

5. As mentioned above, marriage is a sacrament of the Church. It is therefore protected by the First Amendment. Using the government to violate the sanctity of a religion by re-defining marriage sets a dangerous precedent against the First Amendment.

My solution? All secular weddings should be referred to as "civil unions," and such unions should be available to anyone. The "license" which provides privileges such as tax breaks and hospital visitation rights, should be secular, and not use the word "marriage." "Marriage" should refer specifically to a religious ceremony involving a husband and a wife, with no language tying it to legal standings.

On Piety and Patriotism

Professor Emeritus Charles W. Hendrick of Missouri State University has posted an opinion piece at the Springfield News-Leader in which he describes his views on the relationship of religion and government. Mr. Hendrick makes several errors in his opinion, the primary of which--the idea that U. S. Constitution explicitly provides for a policy of "separation of Church and State," has been discussed at some length in the comments.
Of course, the First Amendment actually prohibits the Congress from favoring any specific religion, but the perennially-liberal Supreme Court has consistently legislated in favor of a policy which prohibits all contact between religion and government--particularly if that religion is Christianity. Mr. Hendrick cites the case of a circuit clerk in Springfield, MO who displayed a religious poster in his office. Mr. Hendrick takes great exception to this--despite the fact that the text of the First Amendment not only does not forbid the executive branch from engaging in religion, but that by calling the display of personal religious belief illegal, we would, in fact, have affected a law (the function of Congress) regarding the establishment of a specific religion.

Mr. Hendrick further goes on to state that posing religious emblems in a government office--or patriotic emblems in a religious setting--"confuses the loyalties" of religion and patriotism, leading to idea that "religious people are patriotic and patriotic people are religious," and further, that "nothing is further from the truth." In fact, most (although not all) people who are strongly religious are patriotic, and most people who are strongly patriotic are religious. In the case of state-established religions--which Mr. Hendrick himself references--patriotism and piety are completely identical. Attempting to buttress his argument for the difference between patriotism and piety, Mr. Hendrick further states, "There are times when the institutional church must protest particular governmental policies, like certain of the Hebrew prophets who pronounced destruction on their nation in God's name." You will note first the distinction between "protesting policy" and "calling for the destruction of (a) nation." You will notice also that religious bodies protesting government policy is NOT unpatriotic, as provided by the actual text and intent of the First Amendment, without legislating anti-religious policy.

Next, Mr. Hendrick states that the Ten Commandments have been made into a "religious icon" by "some Christians," but that it does not fit well with our "constitutionally (sic) pluralistic society." Note that there is a difference between a religious icon and a legal code--the Crucifix is the accepted religious icon of all of Christianity, but nowhere are Christians lobbying for a return of crucifixion as a punishment for criminal behavior. Note also that we are a Constitutionally free society, not a Constitutionally plural society. If anything, reference to other symbols of the Founders indicate an opposition to pluralism--"E Pluribus Unum," not "E Pluribus Plurum."

Finally, Mr. Hendrick goes on to state that "The Christian dedication is clearly a sectarian sentiment, one that is not even shared by all Christians, either in the present or the past." This sentence itself is nonsense. If it refers to a general sense of dedication to Christianity, then obviously anyone self-identifying as Christian shares it. If it refers to a specific dedication, then it would have to refer not to the Jewish Decalogue to which Mr. Hendrick's previous paragraph was dedicated, but to the Nicene Creed, which is the official statement of faith of the Church. Note also that this more specific definition limits the population of Christianity--one may self-identify as Christian but in fact be a heretic.

In the final analysis, Mr. Hendrick displays not only an ignorance of religion deplorable for a man described as a "distinguished professor emeritus of religious studies," he also displays the typical liberal disdain for the founding principles of our nation. His objection to religious reference in the U. S. government is both fallacious and completely foolish, given the existence of religious reference in various Oaths of Office , in the National Anthem, in the custom of opening Congressional sessions with prayer and in Federal icons down to the very currency of the state.

The Problem of Post-Modernism

While logic, mathematics and rhetoric were all in use thousands of years ago, in pre-Classical Greece, they would not bear their sweetest fruit until the Enlightenment in the 18th century C.E. Inspired by the writings of Bacon, Locke, and others, reason came to be seen as the source of authority. This movement was called "modernism."
The innate human capacity for reason meant that every human being had the capacity to self-govern, and to deny that right, as in traditionally statist European systems, was to deny the fulfillment of the human race. Under the guidance of reason, modernism established free markets and scientific method; abolished slavery and affirmed tolerance.

Post-modernism is a reaction to that.

The most essential argument of post-modernism is that, because human beings are not perfect and infinite, our perceptions of the world around us are imperfect. It then postulates that, because our perceptions are imperfect, our logical inferences based upon those perceptions are also imperfect. Thus far, these assumptions are true, and the modernist would agree.
The divergence occurs here: the post-modern asserts that, because our logic is incapable of addressing an absolute truth, of being without flaw, that it is valueless. Any attempt at reason or argumentation is no more true or valuable than any other blank assertion, and exists only to be "deconstructed" into a chiaroscurio of the author's various biases and ignorances.
Further: since no position can have any inherently superior value to another (such as by virtue of being logical) all human interaction is viewed as nothing more than the oppression of one group by another. The freedom-affirmation of the modernist Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movements became, under post-modern influence, vindictive race activism and feminism. The Enlightenment was viewed, not as the promotion of discovery and liberty throughout the world, but as rich white men forcing their culture on everybody else.
Post-modernism is worse than a useless philosophy; it is an inherently destructive philosophy--which, after all, is exactly what "deconstruction" is just a spineless way to say.

Update

I have removed the link I posted yesterday defining fascism as a type of socialism. I was in a hurry when I posted it, and only read the first paragraph--I later read further and found out that it degenerated into conspiracy theories quite rapidly.

I have, therefore, been doing more reading into the relationship between fascism and socialism. All of the resources I can find on the internet continue to label fascism as "ultra right-wing", "conservative" and "opposed to socialism." However, they also list "government control of the economy" as one of the tenets of fascism, which sounds awfully socialist to me. Of course, they also list "individual freedom" as a liberal, left-wing value--which certainly don't apply in the United States, where liberals espouse racial demogoguery, wealth re-distribution, political indoctrination through government schooling, and massive government control in all possible areas (I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but should be forced to purchase government owned health insurance).

I should also point out that sustainment of the class structure is often cited as an element of fascism. This may be unbelievable to some of you, but there is no class system in the United States. One may certainly be born to wealth, but there is a difference between being born to privilege (that is, upper class). Just as there is a difference between being born to poverty and being born to servitude (lower class). The United States is an entirely middle-class nation--anyone, through a combination of intelligence, work ethic, and luck, can rise or fall in economic and social status. There ARE NO CLASSES.

Something in Common...

I was reading a website about the beliefs of Baptists this morning. It turns out that I do have one thing in common with them--the belief in adult baptism. Baptism (actually 'baptism by water', or 'psychic initiation' in Gnosticism) is not meant to be the sprinkling of magic water on babies so that they go to Heaven. It is a rite of passage for someone who has made a serious commitment to live a spiritual life.
Of course, the rest of what is on the above site confirms that Baptists are not Christians, but heretics (specifically, no mention of the Nicene Creed, or other conventions established to identify Christianity).

SF Gate

The city council of Berkeley recently passed a resolution naming the United States Marine Corps "unwanted invaders" (which, I believe, constitutes an act of secession), and granting a weekly parking spot and exemption from noise permits for anti-military protesters. Yesterday, three persons (alleged in the article to be "Code Pink," but not wearing normal Code Pink attire) handcuffed themselves to the front door of the Marine Corps recruiting station in Berkeley and prevented people from entering. It was seven and one-half hours before the police arrested the protesters.
I was reading the comments on an article at sfgate.com regarding the incident, and I have some rebuttals to the liberal talking points there. I'm not interested in registering with the website to post my comments there, but perhaps they will be generally enlightening:


1. "You right-wing Fascist"- While Fascism is defined as "ultra-right wing" in most dictionaries, it should be noted that this refers to the European right wing (as in Italy and Germany)--thoroughly socialist. The right wing in the United States, however, refers to free-market economy and minimized government influence on the private citizen.


2. "This is a free-speech issue"- The First Amendment to Constitution of the United States of America does not "give you the right" to say or do anything you want; it prohibits Congress from passing laws abridging free speech. Assaulting people attempting to enter a building is a crime, period. Protest all you want; don't interfere with someone else's freedom.
http://www.krusch.com/real/under.html

3. "There is no more Communist or Socialist party in the U. S."-
sp-usa.org/
www.cpusa.org/

4. "We are at war because the 'military-industrial complex' has learned that war is profitable" "The war in Iraq has bankrupted the coffers of the United States"- Usually uttered by the same person. 'Nuff said.

5. "All of my conspiracy theories aren't reported in the media because of their right-wing bias"-
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

6. "Jim DeMint is trying to defund public programs in Berkely in retaliation"- actually, Senator DeMint is asking that congressional earmarksfor Berkely be removed from the omnibus spending bill, and the money given to the U. S. Marine Corps. Actual public programs would not be affected.
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=JimsJournal.Detail&Blog_ID=f3dbe45e-2252-4940-8614-2d80cca0834d
Of course, I personally support withdrawal of all federal and state funding from Berkely until they recognize federal authority.

7. "The opposite of funding war is funding education. There is reason that so many universities lean to the left"-
Yes, there is: http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/

8. "The rich don't pay taxes; they have to poor to do that for them"-
Actually, the top 1% of incomes provide more tax revenue than the bottom 90%:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

9. "America was founded by secular-progressives"- The founding fathers were definitely not secular; many of them (notably George Washington and Benjamin Franklin) were Freemasons, which requires a religious affiliation. Several were even ordained ministers. As for "progressive," the definition of that word has changed. They certainly wanted to change from the status quo of their day, but they were very modern in outlook, and were quite vocal in their dissent from many of the post-modern positions which comprise today's "progressive" movement.

I have answered the allegations of "illegal war" and "unwinnable, Viet Nam-esque quagmires" in other fora; I would be happy to do so again in reponse to a comment here, but this is enough for the present post.

Are we really all connected?

So, I've been playing around on MySpace lately, and I've come across a group of Gnostics. I've been enjoying some good conversation with them, and I've had several opportunities to impart my wisdom.
In one particular exchange, the question was asked, "Are we really all connected?"
The immediate answer, of course, was, "Yes, we are all connected. See how wise we are!" (Okay, I'm paraphrasing. But I was having a serious flashback to the scene in The Life of Brian when the gigantic crowd is chanting "YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!")
I posted that we are NOT connected ("I'm not!" cries the lone voice from the crowd). Connection demands separation--for you to be connected to me, you and I have to be different things. We are, in fact, all part of a single, undivided whole.
"NO!" came the soon-to-be-paraphrased war cry. "Supraconsciousness! Quarks! The balance of light and darkness! We are WISE, dammit!"
And so, after ruminating for a time, I presented the following analogy:
-----
"Let us imagine that we are both apples, on the same branch of an apple tree. You see that I am an apple HERE, and you are an apple THERE. Then, one day, you look around and discover the tree.

'AHA!' you say,'we are all CONNECTED. See there, you and I are both attached to the limb of this tree. We both draw our nourishment from the same roots; our energy from the same leaves. A blight on that limb way over there will surely affect us as well. I am wise; I have achieved the true Gnosis.'

Well, you haven't.

The tree, in this analogy, represents the physical universe. Humans are connected to each other in the universe in many ways: by quanta, by gravity, by society, by genetics. For the Gnostic, however, the physical universe is kenoma: it is illusion, a falsity. The true reality is the Pleroma: the truth over which the veil of kenoma has been drawn. The Pleroma is the realm of God, where all exists as undifferentiated spirit.

'So where then,' you might well ask, 'IS the Pleroma in your story, if it is not the tree which connects us?'

The Pleroma is the seed from which the apple tree sprouted. To achieve Gnosis, you must return to the original seed. Now, ponder: when we were POTENTIAL apples, before the seed ever sprouted--were we connected, or were we part of an undifferentiated unity?

Neolibertarian

I've been referring to myself as a "conservative libertarian" for some time, but I found an article on Wikipedia which has a better term for my exact political stance: Neolibertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism

I recently attended a briefing on sexual assault prevention through my military unit. Predictably, the attendant video depicted a caucasian male officer fraternizing with an ethnic female junior enlisted. No actual sex took place; the assualt consisted of the male groping the female behind a bar AFTER she had flirted with him. And also, apparently, several months after they had already consummated a consensual physical relationship. Never mind all of that; the female is emotionally devasted and the male's career needs to be destroyed.
Questions of actual sexual mores aside, I ask the following of the producers of the aforementioned video: If one lacks the physical ability and courage to defend one's self from sexual assault, the mental ability to avoid situations which might lead to sexual assault, or the ethical ability to refrain from the commission of sexual assault, then by what virtue is one in the profession of defending the United States of America?
This is not an attempt to "blame the (imaginary) victim" or excuse the (imaginary) attacker. I simply wonder why the Armed Forces so often continue to cater the lowest common denominator, rather than inspiring--and demanding--greatness.

As I am preparing to attend Missouri OCS class 47, I recently had the opportunity to question the local RTI about what I might expect. She told me to be prepared to deliver limmericks and perform skits for the Christmas party. Then, she looked offended when I made the statement that "That explains VOLUMES to me about the United States Army."
Here are two limmericks I came up with off the top of my head:
-----
A member of my fine cadre
Ordered me a limmerick to say
While feeling quite grim
I stared straight at him
And said "Celtic folk-poetry's gay."

I can extemporize in quatraine
Without really racking my brain
And sonnets are nice
I'd do haiku twice
But from limmericks I'd rather refrain.
-----
She apparently preferred the second to the first.

The Golden Compass

Apparently, a group called "The Catholic League" is leading a protest against a movie due out in December, called The Golden Compass. This movie is based on the first book in a trilogy called His Dark Materials by British author Philip Pullman.
The protest is due to the League's idea that the movie will encourage children to leave the Christian Church and become atheists. My question is, rather than attempting to deny everyone the chance to see the movie (not that I'm a big of Hollywood of late), why not see it with their children, and use it to spark a dialogue on relgion? How insecure is the Catholic League in their own belief system?

Changing Insurgent Hearts

USMC Major General Doug Stone, who is in charge of detainees in Iraq, is trying something new. Through a combination of education, religious classes, vocational training and even sports, the General is gradually reforming the moderate Muslim population of Iraq.
Not only has the rate of re-capture (the percent of detainees released that make it back to the battlefield) dropped from 7% to 2%, but current detainees are even turning in extremists who try to infiltrate the re-education classes.

I applaud the General for his innovative and proactive use of the detainee facilities in Iraq.

21 Sep 07

Tonight I will be in Moberly attending the opening of the mobile Vietnam Memorial display at the VFW. I may also be staying in Moberly Saturday night, after I've moved in the furniture that Kevin and Rachelle have brought down for me from Kansas City.

I have enjoyed the various projects of Seth Green for some time; I thought he had the coolest character on Buffy, he's been in several enjoyable movies, and his recent animated adventures on TCN have been absolutely hilarious. Unfortunately, the non-stop liberal politics displayed in Robot Chicken Season 2 and The Family Guy Season 5, I will no longer be watching these shows.
--
Update, 0735: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, will be visiting the United States on Sunday. This has been well-publicized because of his request to lay a wreathe at ground zero, and because of his college speaking engagment. What is news to me, however, is that the New York Times will apparently be taking him out for lunch at the Four Seasons...
--
Update, 1301: A panel on Fox News decided that, if Columbia College is going to host Ahmadinejad on the premise that it does not constitute an endorsement of his ideas and that we should be willing to engage other ideas, then they should still be allowing ROTC on their campus. In fact, they should invite the British hostages taken by Iran several months ago to show up and engage Ahmadinejad's ideas personally.

What I'm up to

Well, the ATA may be the single worst investment I've ever made. Not only is it not providing me any opportunity to actually train in martial arts skills, but it is so horrible that I'm finding it difficult to get motivated to actually show up. It is, essentially, an over-priced aerobic dance class.

I attended my first Church service in about ten years on Sunday. It was at Unity Christian Chuch, here in Jefferson City. Unity is a "New Thought" movement founded by Missouri metaphysician Charles Fillmore in the early 20th century. I find it enjoyable to be able attend service with people who might be interested in Rosicrucianism and such, although for the most part I feel like an Orthodox Christian who must choose between a Baptist congregation or no service at all.

One of the most jarring elements for me, as a Gnostic, is the lack of ritual. I can understand why things like baptism and communion were let go, given the background that New Thought emerged from: baptism had degenerated into sprinkling "magic water" on babies to keep them safe from "the devil," and communion was just grape juice and saltines that interrupted the service. For me, though, having a deeper understanding of where these ritual elements originated, I would have liked to seem them continued (and perhaps improved).

Redacted

I am officially boycotting Brian de Palma--not that I was a big fan of his before. Other people might consider doing the same thing. Mr. de Palma is in the process of releasing his new movie, "Redacted," crafted specifically to hurt the U. S. war on terror. It consists of several stories of military members serving in Iraq raping Iraqi women and indiscriminately killing civilians.
I really am getting tired of this Hollywood crap. Thank God for Frank Miller! Whatever happened to the days when all the actors and directors were military veterans?

Lodge

I attended Lodge last night, for the first time since I started my new job in March. If you aren't aware, this would be Acacia Lodge #602, Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons. I served as an officer in two first-degree initiations; it is really impressive to take part in the ceremonies as an officiant, remembering the sense of disorientation and wonder experienced as a participant.

Of course, I'd just gone on a four mile run that afternoon, and my legs were shaking like I was about to fall the whole time...

Post on Scientific Article

Posted at: http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/06/04/it-does-matter-what-people-think-about-how-the-world-works/
-----
On the subject of virgin birth:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm

On the idea that scientific propositions are never provably true or false: this is absolutely incorrect. Hypotheses *must* be provably false; that is the primary mechanism of scientific inquiry. It is the very fact that Mr. Brownback's statement is *not* provably false that makes it unscientific.

On policy:
1. cutting taxes not only *can* increase federal revenues, it quite provably has. Additionally, our economy is stronger than ever, and our deficit tiny in comparison to our GNP (as opposed to, say, Japan, which runs at 100% of its GNP as deficit.)
2. The author demonstrates an interesting lapse in memory regarding how U. S. troops were, in fact, greeted by the Iraqis. That is, *by invitation*.
3. I won't even begin on the topic of liberals and wishful thinking.

On the earlier post re: the Inquisition: The Christian Church was actually quite open to scientific and philosophical investigation, *until it ran into an idea that could not be processed from its world-view*. The Inquisition was a result of science-by-consensus, much like a 13th-century equivalent of the global-warming fearmongers.