Archives for the month of: October, 2006

Look directly, with your own eyes, at the victims, and you can hardly doubt that violence hurts others and is therefore wrong. But religious “leaders” promote that very doubt.

If you behave violently, and then look directly at what you have done, you will probably see it as wrong. But if you can visualize God looking down on all that suffering, you can probably imagine that He supports it. Maybe it was even His idea. After all, the priests say that His ways are perfectly mysterious to mere mortals.

Even if you can’t imagine yourself wanting to hurt other people, you might be able to imagine that God wants you to.

Ms Midgley,

Your review of Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion is mistaken and misleading in many ways, but today I will limit my comments to the passages where you condemn the author for writing things he did not write.

This book is one of many that celebrate an allegedly bitter war between Science and Religion …

Many books “celebrate” this “war”? Name two. And then show me where in The God Delusion it is done.

… the preface of this book cries out for the abolition of the enemy …

Have you read the words you quoted to support this charge? Let me remind you. They are: Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no Gunpowder Plot… Dawkins asks people to visualise a less violent world, and you say he “cries out for the abolition of the enemy”. What on Earth has provoked this reaction?

Religion is not really relevant … unless we carefully define ‘religion’ to link it … with atrocities. This … is the tendency of Dawkins’s book.

No, Dawkins has not done this. (Nor, of course, would one need such careful definition to establish such a link. A cursory reading of the Christian and Muslim “holy scriptures” is sufficient.)

Finally, Mr. Dawkins has never expressed a

crass refusal to admit the complexity of life.

What a bizarre accusation! He obviously loves the complexity of life; you can see it in every one of his books.

Really, if you don’t mind me saying so, Mary — you should stop reading Dawkins if he upsets you so.

How exciting to see a Wired cover about atheism! And how disappointing to read the article!

First, the title: “The Church of the Non-Believers.” Non-believers are of course precisely those who avoid the group-think, the play-acting, and the xenophobia of organized religion. Sadly, the title is a good fit for the article, which turns out to be a sophomoric caricature, wherein the author’s willful mischaracterization of his interviewees and their concerns amounts to contempt.

Only toward an evangelical priest does Mr. Wolf show respect. “Pastor Matthew offers a gift to his flock. They sow their seeds, and he blesses them. It is a direct exchange.” It’s a what? They hand the charismatic “pastor” money, and he “blesses” them. He is selling his “flock” a bill of goods. Educated folks more or less understand this; yet, only atheists dare to speculate that such transactions should perhaps not be considered harmless.

This evangelical anecdote, by itself, demonstrates the author’s ignorance of the topic at hand. Sadly, there’s more.

The New Atheists, Wolf charges, “condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God.” This inflammatory statement misleadingly concatenates two unrelated issues. “Belief in God” refers to an empirical question which atheists, by definition, judge to have been settled beyond any useful doubt. “Respect for belief,” on the other hand, refers to a thorny political issue: our right to resist religious organizations’ relentless efforts to control our bodies and minds.

“Gay politics is strictly civil rights: Live and let live. But the atheist movement, by [Dawkins's] lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news.” Again, this is misleading. Dawkins is obviously a secular humanist, as are Harris and Dennett. Theirs is a humanitarian philosophy of liberation and kindness. Sectarian apologists may claim the same noble attitudes, but sectarian behavior shows them to be liars. As everyone knows, evangelism shades inexorably into compulsion and then into atrocities. Secular humanists abjure torture, murder, and intolerance itself. We fucking invented ‘live and let live.’

“Here is the atheist prayer: that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.” Again the misleading image of atheism as religion; added to this, the traditional, religious notion of reason as a destructive force. This poisonous fiction, that secularism constitutes a vicious attack on righteousness, was of course devised by the keepers of the faith. And Mr. Wolf has bought it and is spreading it around as if he has understood something.

Then comes the central canard. “People see a contradiction in [New Atheism's] tone of certainty. Contemptuous of the faith of others, its proponents never doubt their own belief. They are fundamentalists. I hear this protest dozens of times.” This meme too comes straight from the religious establishment. It is not a legitimate “protest,” no matter how many dozens parrot it. It is a fucking lie.

Atheism is of course, by definition, the absence of faith in any deity. It is not a religion; nor a quasi-religious faith in something other than religion; but the simple absence of religion. Jesus fucking Christ, it is so simple. Mr. Wolf should not presume to speak about atheism, because he has literally not understood the first thing about it.

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist

Should we really blame George W. Bush for the staggering costs, in dollars and lives and so much else, of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course we should.

He claims to be “the decider,” and here, in the only instance of which I am aware, he is correct. After Enron stole billions of dollars and ruined thousands of lives, we rightly focused our blame on the Chief Executive Officer. The government of the United States has stolen trillions of dollars and ruined millions of lives, and we rightly turn our outrage toward the Commander in Chief.

He tries to hide behind lofty ideals like “democracy” and catchy slogans like “the war on terror” and cold threats like “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists” and fake piety like “there is a war between good and evil and God is not neutral between them.” These are all lies, and he knows it. The invasion of Iraq was not an accident; nor was it an inevitable consequence of forces beyond the Executive Office’s control. It was a deliberate decision, undertaken in the full knowledge that it could not possibly cost less than several thousand lives.

Think about that. He made the decision. In fact, he pushed it hard. He bullied it through. He and his cronies ruthlessly beat down anyone who didn’t want to go along. He wanted it badly. He wanted badly to go in there and kill thousands of people. He looked at the pros and cons and he decided that all those people being killed, and all their families bereft, and all their homes and businesses and cars and streets and neighborhoods and markets and parks and playgrounds ruined — he decided that all that was worth it, to accomplish… um, what exactly? We don’t even know, because he has never admitted it!

But his motivations and rationalizations, whatever they may be, don’t even matter (unless the judge takes them into account in his sentencing), because unprovoked war is pretty much evil by definition. Intentional, selfish, hubristic aggression is the canonical image of immorality.

Note that warmongers want us to think of “war” as a special case, somehow independent of personal, every-day ethics. Somehow when people maim or kill others “in a war” it’s not wrong the way, say, murdering someone in the course of jacking their car would be wrong. This is of course not true. This is of course a lie. This is of course a message designed to mislead us, designed to deliver us into the spider’s web, designed to buy our consent to murder and mayhem on a scale never, ever seen in even the worst neighborhoods in peacetime. The word “war” doesn’t make it OK. The word “war” makes the murders even more evil, because there is deceit operating there to legitimize and therefore to perpetuate the atrocities.

George W. Bush has lied to us every single day for his entire professional life. George W. Bush has unilaterally started at least two major international conflicts, destroyed two sovereign nations, stirred up hatred toward the United States all over the world, and murdered at least half a million people in Iraq alone. There is no one in the world who represents a more terrifying threat, a more “clear and present danger” to civilization. He must be stopped, and then he must be tried, and then if I am not greatly mistaken he should be put in jail for the rest of his life. Certainly this seems like the absolute minimum punishment he could possibly deserve, but my concern is not with punishment. Truly civilized people are not interested in revenge, merely in preventing further harm. I would not want him killed or tortured, merely confined.

However, I do recommend that he not be allowed to publish. We have heard far too many of his poisonous opinions. Let him be, forevermore, silent and impotent and alone.

Think of it as a queue: people waiting to see the President. Half a million people standing a meter apart would form a line five hundred kilometers long — from the White House to, say, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Half a million people waiting to see the President! He’s a busy man, but in the three and a half years since the invasion started four hundred people a day on the average have stepped into his office — another man, woman, or child every three or four minutes, day in and day out — and without looking at them he has picked up his Luger and blown their brains out.

The total floor space in the U.S. Capitol building is about seven hundred thousand square feet. If a body lying on the floor takes up eighteen square feet (three by six), we have room for about thirty-nine thousand bodies — a twelfth part of the estimated casualties. So the people killed in the war so far could fit into the available floor space of the Capitol building only if they were stacked twelve deep.

Update 28 November 2006. The arithmetic in my original posting was off by an order of magnitude. I have created a new image and rewritten the whole post. –Roy Sablosky

I didn’t want to go through all this but someone had to.

Here is a schematic representation of someone who has been killed.

Imagine this person lying at the very corner of an American football field. (Without the end zones it is 300 feet long by 160 feet wide.)

The next picture shows twenty-five such people laid head to toe across the field.

A hundred of these rows would cover the whole field: twenty-five hundred men, women and children…

… but that is only one half of one percent of the damage that has been done: about half a million have died (comparable to the population of Tucson, Arizona; Portland, Oregon; or Washington, D.C.). In the next image, the dead are stacked in columns of twenty…

… giving fifty thousand. Finally let us picture ten such fields. We have to pull far back to take it all in. This last drawing represents five hundred thousand murders.

And remember, the people responsible for this are nowhere near done. They are still doing what they have been doing for three and a half years. A hundred more Iraqis are being killed every day. Nor have we mentioned the wounded, who vastly outnumber the dead; the widows and orphans; the homes and schools and hospitals ruined… If Saddam Hussein deserves the death penalty for his crimes, what do Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld deserve?

16 October 2006. I suppose it goes without saying that Ashcroft’s response utterly fails to address Olbermann’s question… but check out the imagery he falls into.

KEITH OLBERMANN: In your new book, you have defended some of the more, uh, imposing efforts to fight terror and terrorism and this subject is particularly relevant right now because the President is set to sign the Military Commissions Act tomorrow, which is going to codify some of those efforts into law. I’d like to read one of the definitions in the Act and ask you a hypothetical about it, if I may.

“The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant.”

What is there in this new law, that would check the President, or any President — not in terms of tradition, nor in terms of common sense, nor even in terms of fear of bad publicity, but in that measure itself — if a President claims that you or I materially supported hostilities against America and declares us “unlawful enemy combatants,” and he wants to send you and I off to Guantanamo Bay, where in the law does it say the President can’t do that?

JOHN ASHCROFT: Well, let me first just indicate that I have not read this new statute in its completeness. I do believe that the President should have the authority to designate individuals who bear arms or take up hostility against the United States as enemy combatants. I think in doing so the President has a responsibility to have a process that is consistent with the Constitution. We have a President, we don’t have a king, and he has to make a determination based on facts. Holding anyone who is bearing arms against the United States, pending the outcome of the conflict, or against any country, is long recognized as something that’s part of having war. And when you have a war, you’ve gotta be able to take prisoners, if you don’t, the alternative is to kill all the people that you encounter, and certainly that’s not what we want done. So the ability of a President to apprehend those fighting against the country, and to take them out of the stream of conflict, so that they’re not fighting our own flesh and blood, representing the country in the defense of freedom, is a humanitarian thing. To move them out of the stream rather than to reinsert them with an ability to again assault our own people.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.