Syria

The United States might blow things up and kill people from a distance in Syria because Assad bin Assad, a cruel wretched son of a cruel wretch, added sarin to the misery of Syrian's civil war.  The only correct thing to do, is indict Assad for war crimes and haul him off to The Hague for trial.  Removing him, though, gives too much advantage to the Islamic fundamentalist component of the rebellion.  What we want, is a true, democratic revolt that will overthrow the current regime and install a non-sectarian representative government with participation by all ethnicities and sects, and includes equal rights for women.  Zero chance for that.  Americans think they are looking through a window, but are really squinting at a mirror.  We think that rebellion against a dictator means replacing cruelty with fairness.  In Syria, as anyone who knows the area would have predicted, the battle segments to Shia, Sunni, Alawite, plus a few other groups.  Nothing Assad could do -- either good or bad -- is sufficient incentive for people to change allegiance.  We did not learn from Iraq where expected anti-Saddam fervor became Shia vs Sunni vs Kurds because it always was.

Kate Smurthwaite

Kate Smurthwaite spoke truth to insanity on the beeb, and I just love the collective gasp.  She actually implied that people who believe in heaven are idiots.  Can you imagine?  And, she did the math on the Muslim's Jan and Dean heaven that promises two girls for every boy.  Where do all those extra women come from? 

The clip is great; see for yourself:



 As always, the arguments in favor of god are just piss weak.  There's the guy claiming that money doesn't really exist.  Where's a 16-ton sack of coins when you really need one?  His thinking is so polluted by religion that he can't distinguish different meanings of the word "faith."  Face it, bro.  Would you rather own Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, or just by the full faith in god? 

I also love the pompous boring old fart who pronounced Ms. Smurthwaite's comment rude.  OK?  Is that supposed to prove the existence of heaven?  If so, how?  Please explain in 250 polite words, or less. 

Where are the Clergy?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Cogito Ergo Sum, My Ass

Atheists rejoice! The Pythons were right. Rene Descartes was a drunken fart. Trying prove the existence of god, Descartes came up with pathetic weak 2+2=22 nonsense. Start, he said, by trying to imagine the most perfect being. An existing perfect being is more perfect than a non-existing perfect being. Hence, god must exist. WTF? I see Descartes his perfect imaginings and raise a god who reveals himself to all humans, eliminates poverty, and stops war. My imagined god is more perfect than Descartes imagined god. But, mine most obviously does not exist on three of three uberperfections. Three strikes; yer out! Quare patet propositum. NOT!


The perfection-must-exist argument is the best pro-god reasoning that philosophy has produced, and it is flawed, irrational, and -- OK, say it -- just plain stupid.

Justice Scalia Has No Robe

Earlier this week, "conservative intellectual" joined its half-brother, "compassionate conservatism," on the official list of oxymorons. The two terms are working hard to displace "military intelligence" from the top of the list.

Fat Tony Scalia is often cited as a great example of conservative intellect. He is articulate, witty, and crowned with a mind like a steel trap. On Wednesday, however, the Justice played buffoon during oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono. No excuses. He wasn't being flamboyantly provocative during a lecture or at a dinner party. Scalia was on the job; one of nine appointed as the final line of protection for our Constitution.

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.


An "outrageous conclusion?" One of conservatisms leading lights lacks the imagination to see any part of the world, any other people, as existing differently from his experience. No wonder the Republicans went bonkers over Sonia Sotomayor's wise Latina comments and Obama adding empathy to the SCOTUS job description. Conservatives have locked themselves inside their gated communities of a white Christian nation. Everyone different is a threatening enemy including, as Scalia sees it, vocal decedents of dead Jewish war veterans.

One by one, the great conservative thinkers parade naked through the streets, thrilled by the cheers of the few, but naked all the same.

Blog Against Theocracy

America's religious leaders are the best reason for separation of church and state. Listen to them. Robertson, Warren, Dobson, Roberts, Donohue and the rest are cruel, hateful louts. They despise American freedoms and envy the Taliban's theocratic madness. They condemn abortion, but won't help promote birth control. They are apoplectic when in vitro blastula are used for science but indifferent when other fertilized human eggs are washed down the drain. They will spew hours of television and radio rage about the fate of one brain-dead woman, but ignore hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in America's unnecessary war. Life is sacred, except when it isn't.

Should we give power to clergy who are indifferent to torture? Rick Warren has waffled on the issue. He signed a letter condemning torture, said, "I'm totally against torture," yet ignored the issue when meeting with President Bush. Gay marriage and abortion are Warren's higher priorities.

James Dobson, founder and head of Focus on the Family, participated in weekly telephone conferences with George Bush's White House staff. Dobson had the clout to make torture into a mainstream political and moral issue. He chose not to. Take a look at the Focus on the Family web site. A drop down menu on social issues includes links to abstinence, bioethics and the sanctity of life, education, gambling, pornography and others. Torture is not included. The web site's search utility brings up links comparing abortion to torture and commentary on tortured Christians. Torture of Muslim prisoners by the US military and CIA has been Winston Smithed.

The Family Research Council's web site is also torture free. Ditto William Donohue's Catholic League. Abortion and perceived bigotry against Catholics dominate the League's press releases. Comedians Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are the real threats to America.


Identifying America's theocrats was easy. I just turned on my television. There they were broadcasting hatred, misogyny, fear, and lies. One of the biggest lies is the claim to any part of the Constitution. No. The men who carefully wrote that sacred text omitted all reference to God. The word "religious" appears only once: no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "Religion" is confined to the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...