Faith

Great to the nTH power Uncle Tiktaalik

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In 2006, in the cold Arctic north, in an area on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, the fossilized remains of our great, great, great to the nth degree uncle Tiktaalik were discovered. The name, Tiktaalik, is a Inuktitut word meaning “large freshwater fish.” The fossil was estimated at 375 million years old.

What this fossil did was fill in one of the “missing links” in the fossil record between amphibians and the tetrapod (four-legged animals.) The skeleton of the fish bore the unmistakable evidence of early formation of shoulder and wrist structure.

One of the scientists involved in the discovery, Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, “It’s one of those things you can point to and say, ‘I told you this would exist,’ and there it is.”

Just as evolution described it would exist, it did. Uncle Tiktaalik is just one example. It filled a gap previously occupied by the intelligent designer fallacy, the god of the gaps.

The (inane) argument against evolution, the promotion of the teleological argument for the existence of god, aka intelligent design, is gaining ground in public education. It is the opening round of the dumbing down of America.

Proponents assume both are on equal footing and should be “taught” in school. Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

It is not teaching, it is indoctrination. Science admits it cannot explain everything, but continues to seek the answers. Religion claims you can’t explain it so it must be god and no further inquiry is necessary.

The contradiction arises in what one considers teaching. In teaching science, one details not just the result or most comprehensive theory (in the scientific sense) but the process and the emphasis on skepticism. Science is based on the ability of independent verification, or falsification, of the conclusions. Nothing more so than the unquestionable evidence for evolution.

Teaching Intelligent design, the teleological argument for the existence of god, is the educational equivalent of “Because I said so…” As are most religious instructions. No fundamental understanding of the process is necessary. Understanding is an anathema to faith. As a matter of fact, I would argue the teaching of Intelligent Design specifically prohibits and discourages any questioning of the logic (or lack thereof) behind the contention and demands it be accepted.

It is similar to the argument for the god of the gaps. where “god” fills the gaps in scientific knowledge. This argument fails, of course, with each new scientific advance. And, to demonstrate the inconsistency of these arguments for existence of a supreme being, whenever science fills in one of these gaps, a new interpretation of Biblical verse is proposed, i.e. the Bible knew this all along.

Here’s one example.

“The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.
However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously…
…In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.
…There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).” https://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-gaps.html

They apparently can’t even recognize the inconsistency in their own writing. “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.” Ah, if they are invisible how can they be seen? Or that the fine-tuning argument has long been overcome by evidence. Nor can they get past the “uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, or the who created god” issue.

Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

Joe Broadmeadow

This invasion of public secular education by the religious evangelicals was foretold by one of the most preeminent conservative Republicans, Barry Goldwater, and called out for what it was, a usurping and diminishing of public education, secular government, and the separation of church and state.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” Barry Goldwater.

If evangelicals get full control of public education, we are in serious trouble. There would be blind acceptance of this type of nonsense, the devil in the smoke of 9/11. Another mythological creature “seen” by the hysterical faithful to justify their faith.

https://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/satans-face/

Something that can easily be explained by the behavior of heat and gasses and a powerful example of how our evolution made pattern recognition a key to survival. Better to think what you see is a danger, i.e. a lion, a snake, etc. than to ignore it because of uncertainty.

Given the opportunity, evangelicals would replace the periodic table with the decalogue, a map of the solar system with an earth-centered universe, and replace teachers who encourage students to question everything with parrots of the irrational who teach blind acceptance.

Religion: An Atheist’s Perspective

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I write quite a bit about religion and the objections to it that I’ve developed over the years. My objections are not about religion itself, but the insistence on the dominance of one over any other.

When religion is defined “as an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to,” or, “to turn to or adopt an enlightened course of action or point of view,” I have no quarrel.

Under this definition, embracing science as an enlightened course of action is a form of religion. There are distinct differences: science revises its texts when new evidence is uncovered, whereas most religions insist their holy texts are not to be refined or updated.

My main issue with what most people would consider religion—Christianity  or Judaism in this country, Islam in others—is the insistence that theirs is the only true religion and that there is a being who is the eternal overseer, has us under constant surveillance, and can intercede on our behalf if one engages in an appropriate level of worship, recites prayers seeking this intercession, and accepts the results, no matter what happens, as a “mystery.”

And in particular, when they insist on defining this country as a “Judeo-Christian” nation as if that is somehow both necessary and beneficial.

Now, to engage in one of my favorite practices, the Devil’s Advocate (which, under the title of Advocatus Diaboli, was once a position within the Catholic Church), I’d like to talk about some of the known benefits of embracing religion and misconceptions as well.

Study of the Benefit of a Religious Upbringing

In 2018, Harvard University published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that demonstrated that being raised with religious practices had a positive effect on early adulthood. (“Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” Ying Chen and Tyler J. VanderWeele, American Journal of Epidemiology, online September 13, 2018, doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy142)

“Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.” https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/religious-upbringing-adult-health/

I would argue that these religious prohibitions on certain activities are a temporary measure, effective until one matures into a rational being. Religion then serves a diminished, or perhaps even an unnecessary, purpose.

Study of the Efficacy of Prayer

 1998. Herb Benson, a cardiologist at Harvard, led what became known as the “Great Prayer Experiment,” or technically the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/)

The study consisted of three control groups.  A control group (no prayer) and two groups that received intercessory prayer from various Christian denominations. The two groups receiving prayer differed: one knew they were being prayed for, while the other did not.

“Complications did not vary as a function of prayer. But 59% of those who knew they were being prayed for experienced at least one complication compared with 52% who received no prayer, a statistically significant result. This might reflect the creation of unrealistic expectations from knowing one is the recipient of prayer and experiencing stress when those expectations are not met.” (https://www.templeton.org/news/what-can-science-say-about-the-study-of-prayer)

What does this mean? I suppose that would depend on one’s perspective. At a minimum, it challenges the belief that inexplicable things must be the work of an interested or faithfully petitioned god.

Perhaps it is the pageantry of religious ceremony in our formative years that provides a benefit. As I am writing this, I am listening to a mix of Gregorian Chant and Handel’s Messiah, works inspired by faith. No one can resist being inspired by the sounds of Plain Chant or the Alleluia Chorus from the Messiah echoing in a magnificent cathedral.

And I can still recite the Mass in Latin and remember the cue to ring the bell.

I think believing in something beyond one’s understanding isn’t necessarily bad, unless one insists, by persuasion or force, that others adhere to the same concept.

I have a good friend I’ve known since the 8th grade. Kent Harrop is a retired minister who fully embraces his faith. He and I once collaborated on a blog called the Heretic and the Holy Man, where we discussed our different perspectives on faith in a civil manner. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of us is the heretic.

Kent now coordinates a group called Pray and Paddle (https://www.facebook.com/prayandpaddle) and writes inspiring and intriguing articles for the Pray and Paddle blog (https://www.prayandpaddle.org/news)

I would encourage you to read Kent’s writing. He often turns me back from the brink of total dismissal of organized religion through his well-crafted words. Now that I am back in New England, I plan on attending one of these events. I hope Ken won’t mind if I go with the Fish and Paddle version.

Embrace your religion however you see fit, be fervent in whatever faith you embrace. But remember, no one path, not religion or science, has all the answers, and we are all seeking them in our own way.

A Presumption without Merit

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

One of the most striking differences between the United States and Britain is the level of religiosity paraded in the public square.

In England, which has an official church and a monarchy in which the King is the titular head of the church, religion is almost a sidenote in public discourse.

In the United States, which, by our Constitution, is a secular nation ostensibly devoid of any official religion, the faithful seem determined to infect and infiltrate every aspect of our public and private lives.

We are a Christian nation, they shout, apparently never having actually read the writings of the men who crafted the Constitution or noticed that, not once, is the word god in this founding document.

One would think that, if we are a “Christian” nation, god would at least merit an honorable mention. This fallacy of our founding causes unrelenting difficulties in our lives.

Government functionaries demand the right to refuse to perform their duties based on a faith-based objection to other lifestyles.

Companies demand to refuse health care coverage for their employees that provides contraception.

A significant majority of Republicans insist on the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money to fund abortions, being included in any revision of the Affordable Care Act. An objection substantially based on religious grounds.

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

Joe Broadmeadow

School boards seek to post the Decalogue, a fundamentally Judeo/Christian set of proscriptions by their god, as a sound basis for improving the educational environment.

Those who support these actions see it as their moral duty and an exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech. When the Free Speech argument fails because their speech is tantamount to hate speech and bigotry (God Hates Fags is one example), they rely on the religious freedom argument.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

But what about morality, justice, fairness, the religious might argue? We need religion as a moral guide. I would argue the opposite.

Herein lies the problem.

Every act by the government in enacting laws, defining criminal acts, and ensuring the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be based on open and frank discussions, empirical evidence, and a sound consideration of the benefits and costs of such legislation.

Yet when it comes to religious practices, we defer to the faithful simply because it is a religion. We offer a presumption of respect for the practice absent any offering of a basis in fact.

Suppose someone believes, as part of their doctrine, that offering a prayer is necessary before engaging in a sports competition or beginning their school day, or that they cannot engage in some aspect of their job because their religion tells them they cannot. In that case, we just accept that without restriction.

Why?

Why is it that we cannot question the validity of a religious doctrine or practice simply because it is part of a religion?

Why is it that we must accept practices or behavior that impact secular existence simply because some religious doctrine demands it from its adherents?

Why is religion never subjected to the same rigorous analysis or dissection of its foundations or presumptions in the same manner as we would question a proposal for a change in the law, or medical treatment, or the tax code when it directly impacts the public?

Why is religion entitled to any respect simply because it is a religion?

Why is it that we cannot ask this question? Can you prove your religious doctrine is the inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent immortal being?

It may well be impossible to offer such proof, which in and of itself should be enough to discount it, but I think this is still a valid question.

By this point, I know the Christians are up in arms, screaming about this as another example of the discrimination heaped upon them. They are joined by the Jews and Muslims in this outrage, although each group believes the others are worshipping a false version of god.

If someone came to a school board meeting and said their son or daughter needed to sacrifice a lamb before they could take to the football field or basketball court, no one would consider denying such a request as prohibiting the practice of religion.

We would consider it a prevention of animal cruelty and curbing insanity.

Or, even more dramatically, if an individual were seen brandishing a knife over their bound child on an altar, preparing to slit their throat because they were instructed to by an unseen voice, would we stand idly by and just say, it is a command from god?

I think not.

Why is praying to an invisible being, variously defined by myriads of sects and faiths in distinct and conflicting ways, any different?

Having traveled quite a bit, I’ve been exposed to a variety of religious practices. In Morocco and Turkey, whenever I saw someone laying out their prayer rug in response to the call for prayer, it seemed strange to me.

When I encountered Buddhist Monks in Thailand and Vietnam, their incantations and manner of dress seemed exotic.

Yet, if I were to encounter a nun or priest wearing the habit or the Roman collar, it would hardly raise a notice. This is just a matter of familiarity and the fortunes of geography, which is more determinative of religious upbringing than any special validity of the particular faith.

Since the Enlightenment, we have made steady, if inconsistent, progress toward a more rational existence. Science has become the sound basis for almost all human progress.

Most religions recognize this, even if a bit reluctantly. They stopped burning heretics for stating the Earth revolves around the Sun, for example. They also update their interpretations of their “holy” texts to accommodate the new information.

The scientific method works because it is based on skepticism, the ability to recreate or refute the contentions of a hypothesis, and the constant verification and validation of any developed theory.

 The three primary religious texts in our world, the Torah (or Pentateuch), the Bible, and the Quran (interestingly enough, all essentially plagiarized from earlier texts), are often used as the basis for arguments about the free exercise of religion and its applicability to secular matters.

Yet these works are rarely, if ever, subjected to thoughtful, thorough analysis of their origins or basis before acceptance. Instead, they are offered, with various levels of interpretation, as proof of the religious tenets.

Why?

If a school board wants to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, shouldn’t we expect a demonstration that these were the word of god?

If a person wants to wear a T-shirt that says “There are Only Two Genders” because their faith demands it, shouldn’t they have to demonstrate the source of such commands?

The case above, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, is an excellent example of how religion is a form of child abuse. While I admire the stand taken by the fourteen-year-old boy who wore the t-shirt to school, his indoctrination into the Christian faith began long before he was able to make any rational judgment or choice. This practice, taking innocent children and subjecting them to religious indoctrination before they reach the age of reason, is, in my view, an act of abuse.

What would happen to most religions if we let children grow to the age where they can intellectually choose to accept or reject their parents’ religious faith? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

The call to prayer sounds strange yet I often listen to Gregorian Chants, an artifact from my own indoctrination.

I think much of the fervor for these religious positions is the result of this early involuntary indoctrination. We should demand more than fervent belief before we accept something as a valid position.

Suppose a company wants to refuse health care coverage to employees because their faith opposes contraception. Shouldn’t there be something offered as proof for the origin and validity of the contention?

Where is the line in the sand where religious beliefs and practices cross from embracing a harmless philosophy into a dangerous practice capable of causing significant harm?

While sacrificing goats and one’s own child because you believe your god compels you to may be extreme examples, they are all well-detailed, and accepted as fact, in the very texts the religious would have us use as the basis for morality and practices in the public square.

Embrace your religion in any way you see fit. Argue, based on that faith, for the morality or immorality of laws and practices in public life. But if you choose to submit that faith or religious texts as the very foundation of the argument, you should be prepared to offer evidence of their validity, origin, and rational basis.

You may sincerely believe your god is well pleased by the aroma of burnt offerings. I think we need more than your faith before we accept, unchallenged, these practices in our secular world.

Exploring Deep Space: The Dance of Light and Time

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Whenever the weather permits, which around here is quite infrequent, I try to take advantage and get some photos of Deep Space Objects (DSO) or the planets. One of the aspects I miss from Arizona was in the three years we were there, we might have had three nights where the weather prohibited being outside. But it is what it is.

As the weather now cools, one of the bonuses of our new location is a large gas fire pit. This offers two benefits. First, it keeps me warm while the cameras gather the light from millions of light-years away, and second, it offers a view of something humans have gazed at for eons, the plasma flame, to consider things.

Hidden within the flame is the essence of the universe.

Thus, I can be relatively comfortable while I wait to gather the images that produce these finished pictures.

It struck me that the fuel burning to produce the flame likely derived from the remains of dinosaurs that were alive when the light from some of these stars and objects first began their journey to end up captured by my camera.

I was literally enjoying both the beginning moment and end times of this light.

NGC 4631

This image of NGC 4631, taken over 50 minutes of 10-second exposures, shows the light from that galaxy that left around 50 million years ago during the Eocene epoch. This was when many of the predecessors of modern mammals thrived.

It was likely that I was converting the atoms of carbon and hydrogen, formed in the nuclear furnace of the first stars, that once were inside the cells of living creatures, alive when the light from this galaxy first left the system, and sending it back out into the universe as heat.

Or at least sending it out after it kept me warm.

Quite frankly, sitting under the stars renews my faith in the future. When one considers all the cataclysmic events that had to come together for the atoms within all of us to travel the immense distances they did and evolve into the beings we have all become, it would seem nature has better things in store for us than just some of the nonsense we seem to focus on daily.

We should all take a moment, on a dark, cloudless night, to look up at the stars and remember that is where we all came from and where we will all return.

Remember, man, that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return. Momento mori.

Let’s Just Kill ‘em All, God Will Sort Them Out

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The score so far is:

US Military 8 – Alleged Drug Boats 0

We’re off to an undefeated season.

Due process is such a woke thing. About time someone ignored it for a more expedient form of American Justice. Something those Central and South American countries apparently don’t remember, but we are reminding them.

Don’t make us come back there like we did before. Our CIA has a long memory and plenty of new tools. Nobody wants that again, do you?

But what do you expect by sending your poison to our country? And don’t give me that “we wouldn’t sell it if Americans weren’t buying it and making money” nonsense. You are doing this to yourselves.

I mean, if it looks like a drug-carrying boat, operates like a drug-carrying boat, and is located on the common course of drug-carrying boats, what else could it be? A fishing boat? Come on, be serious.

Three strikes and we have every right to turn you into a thoroughly disassembled with extreme prejudice former drug carrying boat.

Right?

Sure, the unintended consequences may drive up the cost of fish in some areas of South America, but who cares? We can send our American fishing boats there to sell fish to them and we won’t make them pay any tariffs on it for the service.

Why should we wait to have incontrovertible evidence of their purpose?

Why should we have to wait for them to enter our jurisdictional waters before we use one of our very effective weapon systems and obliterate them?

What did you say? “What if we tried the same logic?” Is that some kind of threat? It’s a foolish one.

I can’t imagine you’d be so naïve as to target one of our commercial fishing vessels and blow them up. You must realize that would be a Trump-Hesgeth wet dream come true. They’ve been itching for a war of their own to prove the effectiveness of their concept of lethality.

But we know what you’ll do, nothing. You’ll just wail and gnash your teeth over the unfairness in the balance of power.

And now that we’ve found an effective deterrent, why stop there?

I mean, if we know somebody is dealing drugs and we know where they are and we know when they’ll be there, let’s dispense with the formalities of due process and just kill ‘em.

Come to think of it, what better way to decrease the prison population? I mean, with a recidivism rate of 66% (the highest in the world, woo-hoo! we’re number 1) and the highest incarceration rates (woo-hoo, we’re also number 1), our current get-tough approach to lock ‘em up ain’t working. We keep making the mistake of letting them go.

But wait, there’s more.

What if we made every felony a death penalty case, especially if we do it at the time of the arrest? Think of all the money and time we could save. Sure, there’ll be a lot of unemployed judges and correctional officers. Still, there’ll be plenty of jobs open on American fishing vessels plying the waters off Central and South America, or at companies building new boats for the Central and South Americans who actually want to fish.

And on the odd chance that we kill an innocent person (something that probably has happened with the death penalty, but doesn’t diminish its deterrent effect, right?) our faith as a Christian nation will soothe our troubled souls with the comforting thought they are safely in the hands of a loving American flag wrapped God.

After all, we are the real chosen people, as the Bible says.

I do wonder about something though.

We do have incontrovertible evidence that the Chinese, and perhaps some American companies, provide many of the precursor chemicals producing these drugs.

Haven’t seen us sink one Chinese freighter yet. Or send DEA or the FBI after those American companies, perhaps due to their largesse in political contributions. Or I guess the agents are too busy deporting the entire McDonald’s and Walmart workforce and making us safer. I certainly feel safer knowing it wasn’t me who couldn’t understand what the drive-up at McDonald’s was saying when I wanted a cheeseburger. Damn foreigners, speak English!

Or could it be something else?

It’s easier to pick on the ones who can’t fight back. It’s the favorite tactics of schoolyard bullies. Just out of curiosity, I wonder where the masks ICE agents wear are produced? The irony would be too much to bear if it’s China, but bringing those jobs home could balance the budget and help pay for the Trump Ball Room.

I say we go for broke and use all those expensive weapon systems at home (but far enough away so the left-wing media doesn’t start posting images of bodies with some reassembly required floating in the water) instead of giving them to other countries.

P.S. Speaking of the Trump Taj Mahal Ballroom and Bankers Banquet Facility, will the first dance between Donald and Melania be accompanied by the theme from Beauty and the Beast?

But it Says it in the Bible

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Of all the terrifying trends under the umbrella of Mr. Trump, the rise of Christian Nationalism is the most sinister and dangerous. It is a descent into the vortex of anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-enlightenment leading to a society run by dominant males and subservient females.

In a country of 300 million people with access to modern medicine, terabytes of data, and instant worldwide communication, a significant number still believe in signs, astrology, magic, angels, and Biblical abiogenesis.

These fundamentalists, preying on these dark ages beliefs, would drag us back into the era of witchcraft and demons with their medieval philosophies.

Their authority for such a philosophy resides in a book translated from ancient languages to Greek, Latin, German, and English, with hundreds of versions and conflicting translations of the text. And keep in mind that for most of the period since the first written versions of the Bible were translated into Latin, the lingua franca of the church, it was a sin punishable by death to translate it into a language anyone outside the clergy could read.

And when these Christian Nationalists offer Mr. Trump as the one to battle the rise of this mythical Anti-Christ, it goes beyond the hysterical to tragic.

Trump is the least likely of any to be an example of Christian piety or defender of the faith. Even if he had the good fortune to be around during the time of Jesus Christ and heard him speak, his only chance at entering heaven would be to ride one of the crosses in the back row. Redemption by way of good timing rather than a shining paragon of the faith.

Which leads me to wonder why people fail to see the contradiction in that story. If we assume the circumstances of the crucifixion to be accurate, those two criminals on the crosses in the back row didn’t need to seek redemption, didn’t need to repent, didn’t need to do anything but have the good/bad fortune to be crucified at the same time as Jesus. Hmm.

But putting Mr. Trump and other contradictions aside for the moment—oh, that I wish that to be possible—let’s look at this authority.

The version of the Bible most people are familiar with, the King James Version (KJV), was a product of, wait for it, political intrigue. James, the son of Mary Queen of Scots, needed to shore up his power with the ardent Scots, who hated the English Catholics, and with the other various factions.

Meanwhile, the Protestants created their own version in the Geneva Bible. And in an interesting side note to the history of the Bible in America, it was the Geneva Bible that accompanied the Pilgrims to America.

Here’s the same passage in the KJV and Geneva Bible.

Isaiah 7:14 1599 Geneva Bible
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

KJV
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Not a lot of difference, but how can the inerrant word of God be different depending on who is doing the translation?

Just for fun, here’s a version from the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

Yeshayah 7:14
14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (God is with us)

Here’s the same verse in the New Revised Edition Anglicized Catholic Edition

Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The whole virgin thing has a glitch. In the original Hebrew, the word in the verse is “alma” which means young woman. Other words represent “virgin” such as “betulah.” Why is “alma” translated as ‘virgin’ in most versions, you might ask? And why do we call him Jesus instead of Immanuel or Shmo Immanu El?

Again, the politics of power and control.

The Catholic Church in 451 A.D. was the dominant force in the known world. There were factions and disagreements, so a meeting was called to resolve and consolidate the faith into one doctrine. The Council of Chalcedon.

You may have heard about an earlier meeting, the Council of Nicaea, which resolved the issue of the dual nature of Jesus. At the time, some believed God to be eternal and Jesus to be created by God, also eternal but only from the point of his creation. The Council at Nicaea said nope. Jesus and God are the same; thus, the beginning of the Holy Trinity, or at least leading to more creative interpretations to concoct that myth.

By 451 A.D., more heretics began teaching conflicting doctrines, an intolerable situation to Rome, thus a more refined explanation arose from this new council.

1. God the Father almighty and in
2. Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord,
3. who was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

“These three statements wreck the tricks of nearly every heretic. When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. ” The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

The reality of an eternal God and of Jesus —the key to everlasting life —was the source of the Church’s authority. John 14:6 (KJV) “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.

The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

But some thought of Jesus and God as separate. The council put an end to this heresy. “Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time.” More illogical contortions to prove the impossible.

But that wasn’t enough to satisfy the needs of religious abhorrence of earthly pleasures. Jesus could not be tainted by such things.

“By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin’s womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man. … Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him. The Council of Chalcedon – 451 A.D.

And the subsequent translations of the Bible were molded to fit the doctrine.

If one wants to submit a document as evidence in court, one must prove both its origin and authenticity. We have hundreds of court cases trying to interpret the language of the Constitution, and that is in the original English.

Why would any modern nation, or world for that matter, choose to ignore science and enlightenment and base a society on a book of questionable origin, with myriad interpretations, and modified over the millennia by organizations with a stake in the results?

Because it’s in the Bible?

P.S. Another interesting tidbit. The American Standard Edition of 1952 used the words “young woman” instead of “Virgin.” It took the fundamentalists until 1978 to get it changed. Biblical politics? Who knew?

Right Wingnuts or Right Wing Nuts?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Free Speech in this country is apparently about as solid a concept as an ice cube in the desert.

The President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of the FBI all said they will investigate groups based on the sole criteria of, in their determination, left-leaning organizations. They intend to scour websites, publications, social media, speeches, etc, looking for evidence that these groups encourage or support political violence.

Now to play Advocatus Diaboli, any organization that encourages or supports political violence should be investigated.

But this is the height of hypocrisy.

These are proud (dare I say Proud Boys?) supporters of the most recent organized and orchestrated attempt of a violent takeover of the government of the United States that happened on January 6, 2021.

But let’s use their logic in how they rationalize that event into something it was not.

On January 6, 2021, an assembly of American citizens joined together in solidarity to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by the exercise of their First Amendment-protected right to protest the government for a redress of grievances. A select portion of this group was exploited by a corrupt and weaponized government operation which entrapped, targeted, defamed, violently arrested, maliciously and falsely charged, fraudulently convicted, and unjustly punished and imprisoned them. (https://www.wearej6.com/the-story)

If that was an expression of their First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and to redress grievances, and does not rise to the level of encouraging political violence, let alone engaging in it, how does a monologue on late-night television foster something the federal government need investigate?

Or, more troubling, what argument does the government make that statements made by Jimmy Kimmel warrant government-imposed censorship?

Kimmel said “”We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trg to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”

When the government says it will investigate organizations based on the government’s determination of its political affiliation or policies, absent any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminality, i.e. probable cause, we should all be gravely concerned.

“…upon the death of a principal government figure or in the aftermath of a national tragedy.”

Let’s call this what it is. This involves using the power of the government to investigate and prosecute crimes and turning it into a means to suppress political opposition. If those who shouted from the mountaintops that prosecuting the J6 defendants was weaponizing the Justice system against “innocent” citizens, absent any actual proof of such, here it is in real time.

That any American sees this as a legitimate means to “Make America Great Again” is astounding. But if you need more evidence of this troubling government trend targeting those who do not support this president, here it is.

DOJ removed a study showing far-right extremists are responsible for higher levels of violence than far-left groups or Islamic Jihadists. (Deity of your choice) forbid we have information to base our opinions and actions on.

Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives,” the study said. “In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.

This is an image of the report from archive searches. Why conceal a report if one is interested in the truth? Because they’e not interested in the truth, they’re interested in suppressing dissent. And every American who doesn’t realize that dissent from government policy is the very foundation of our power over the government is suffering from delusions.

All this came about, or at least was brought into the light of day, with the murder of Mr. Kirk. The leadership of the FBI, the Justice Department, and political allies of the President have worked themselves into a frenzy trying to paint the suspect as a left-wing ideologue programmed by NPR, Sesame Street, and other “left-leaning organizations.

Which brings me to my final point. By what measure do we determine a situation requires the flag to be flown at half staff? From various organizations (none of them left-leaning if that gives you comfort) “The President of the United States can order the flag to be flown at half-staff. This happens upon the death of a principal government figure or in the aftermath of a national tragedy.”

Mr. Kirk was a controversial individual who made frequent and outrageous remarks that were homophobic, xenophobic, disparaging of individuals and groups, and promoted clearly false theories of election fraud and the great replacement concept.

And he had every right to do so under our principle of Free Speech.

However, to accord such an individual with the honor of flags being flown at half-staff, transportation on official government aircraft, and the trappings of an official state funeral is to sully the purpose of such honors.

Mr. Kirk’s death was a criminal act, tragic, unfortunate, and horrifying. But it was not a national tragedy any more than any other violent act. If the deaths on the same day of two young children in school who were also murdered aren’t even mentioned, how is that the appropriate use of this practice? Perhaps, if it were, the flag would never be flown at top staff again, and that might be too painful a reminder of our continued violent tendencies.

Having seen over the years how Mr. Trump treats those in his circle when they no longer suit his purpose, there is only one conclusion here. Mr. Kirk served the president well in his campaign, and now his death is a convenient way for Mr. Trump to foment more government control over those who would challenge him.

If that were not the case, none of this would be happening.

Mr. Kirk was not a saint or someone to be venerated any more than any other human being. Mr. Trump should not be empowered to target his enemies in such a manner. And those who are blind to this virus will come to regret it.

No One Should Die Because of Their Beliefs

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

No one should ever die over differences in belief. It is not the American way, or at least it never used to be the way we handled our disagreements.

Mr. Kirk was a lightning rod of right-wing rhetoric and often used inciting and bitter language about those he disagreed with and their policies.

But he did not deserve to be killed for it.

I can think of nothing I ever read or heard from Mr. Kirk that I agreed with him about. But this does not give someone the right to take a life. Whether I or anyone else agreed or disagreed is irrelevant; he had every right to speak and write about it.

Mr. Kirk is also not a martyr for any cause, to make him so clouds the bigger issue. His words have to be considered when one examines the man’s life. One cannot do such things in a vacuum. Words can and do have consequences.

“I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” Turning Point USA CEO and co-founder Charlie Kirk said of gun deaths on April 5, 2023,

And in the news avalanche after Mr. Kirk was shot, another school shooting happened, with young people killed. This was ignored. It’s not even a front-page story anymore. I wonder if Mr. Kirk visualized a shooting in a grammar school when he uttered that statement?

The shooting will be characterized as an “assassination” by the right instead of a “nut with a gun” as they characterize school shootings, and they will miss the point.

Perhaps Mr. Kirk’s untimely death will serve a greater purpose.

Perhaps it will open a dialog among Americans to confront our violence problem.

Perhaps it will serve as a catalyst for less antagonistic, winner-take-all political diatribes and foster open communications.

Mr. Kirk may have roused extreme responses from those with whom he disagreed, but he did not deserve to be killed for it. 

Mr. Kirk was a husband and father to two young children, and we should grieve that they live in a country where people resort to violence. Two young lives forever changed by the pull of a trigger, in this case and far too many others.

Sending thoughts and prayers, no matter how sincere, absent actual effort to change things, seems vacuous. Let’s hope we never find ourselves where we accept a few gun deaths as the price of our living in this country.

In Search of Hope

/ / 6 Comments

In what some would classify as my descent into agnosticism or atheism, I am troubled by the virulence and resentment by the hyper-religious into my questioning their beliefs. Some are fuming, some spiteful, some simply bewildered.

I find this confusing. What bearings do my beliefs, or lack thereof, have on anyone’s faith? Unless it is because I (and the Constitution) insist on your keeping your faith in your way and I in mine, then don’t bother reading on, nothing will change your perspective. If you’ve an open mind, carry on.

Why do some believe? Why embrace a practice I see as without a firm foundation in facts?

But then it occurred to me that the true progenitor of faith is hope. Hope that there is more than this brief life. Hope that there is something greater than what we experience here on this planet.

When Pandora opened the box, and all the evil, pestilence, diseases, and death infected the world, the last thing that arose was hope.

Some seem to believe that they have done something wrong (in Christianity they have a name for it, Original sin) and most spend their lifetime atoning for it. Would a loving God visit the sins of the father (or in Eve’s case, the mother) on their children?

I think when I argue against the existence of God (particularly in the Christian sense, since that is the dominate faith in this country) people who embrace the faith perceive it as someone trying to take away hope.

It would explain why people persist in praying absent one iota of evidence of its efficacy.

It would explain why people expound vociferously with passages from the Bible, as if they alone prove the point.

It would explain all the ceremony, pageantry, and emotional pleadings over Sunday services (and Saturday for those who cannot give up football on Sunday).

These all are reinforcing the power of Hope.

If I pray the right way.

If I live the right way.

If I express my faith for all to hear, I have hope of a better life after death.

Religion is not the only path to hope. At least not the concept of the Judeo-Christian tradition some believe dominant, and necessary, in this country.

There are other paths. Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Transcendental Meditation, Stoicism, and others all offer hope for peace and fulfillment in this life and something better later. Some recognize this may be all there is.

I would argue it is this insistence that America be a Christian based government that creates much of our problems. Our self-inflicted separation from those we don’t understand creates a sense of us vs. them. Of a need to purge the country of those who differ from us.

But if we really thought about it, we are all the same.

Just because I, and others, do not embrace any faith, does not mean we are stealing away hope. Think of it this way: if one person doubting the validity of faith can deny hope to the faithful, how certain is that faith?

I think wondering about what happens once we check out is natural. I think having hope there is some form of existence after we die is normal. No one wants it to end. But the flavor of one’s faith is irrelevant.

If there is a God, or Gods, capable of designing the universe, all the rules of physics, and all that it holds, of creating millions of species, of being the God who creates minds who can write things like,

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye.
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

would they worry about being adored?

If there is such a being, they would not be in the least bit concerned with being worshipped or venerated by one tiny element of creation. In fact, it is more likely they’d be amused, or perhaps a bit annoyed, by the arrogance of such practice.

Or not notice it at all.

Want to worship the creator? Want to express the ultimate level of devotion to creation? Treat everyone you meet as you would have them treat you. Respect the dignity of every human, no matter the differences.

Then, on the off chance you find yourself in front of a being who will ask you what you did with this gift of life, you can say I lived every moment with regard for my fellow humans.

That might be a faith worth embracing.

My Mom and Her Determination

/ / 3 Comments

I tried to go to an Italian bakery today and could not figure out why it was so crowded. This reminded why…

(Here’s a re-posting of a piece I wrote some time ago. It’s the time of the year…but with all the uncertainty, I missed the actual date of March 19th. My mom has now been gone for 11 years, but the sentiment remains. Nevertheless, here it is…)

It has been almost 8 years since my mother died. Thoughts, sights, and sounds remind me of her almost daily.

Words she often turned into her own askew versions. Her penchant for reading EVERY street sign whenever she was in the car. Twinkies she hid in the freezer in violation of her diet. The one constant reminder is my white hair, undeniable genetic evidence that part of her remains with me.

These are memories of a special woman.

Each year, on a particular date, there is a poignant reminder of something she did for me.

I suspect she had similar traditions with my brother and sisters; she was that kind of a mom.

She had a way to make you feel special.

Nevertheless, this one was between us.

As many of you know from my writings, I do not share the faith that my mother did. She had absolute confidence in her beliefs. Despite all the things she experienced, the joys and the sorrows, she never once doubted them.

She made a valiant effort to share her faith. If there is any blame to go around for her failed attempt to instill that in me, the fault is mine.

What is the annual event that triggers such a memory?

St. Joseph’s day.

Every year, I would get a card from my mother. It came in the mail. It was not a text, an email, or a phone call. It would arrive in the days just before the 19th, more evidence of her careful consideration and purpose.

She took the time to select, address, and mail a card. Through a simple gesture, she preserved the dying art of thoughtfulness.

The card celebrated the Saint’s day of my (sort of) namesake. Her thoughtful gesture had a dual purpose, serving as a subtle reminder of her faith. I used to chuckle whenever I opened the card. Amused by my mother’s determination, yet touched by such a simple, caring act.

She never gave up.

Since her passing, I miss the card every year and her every day.

Mom, while you may not have succeeded in making me a Saint there is a good chance you made me less of a sinner.

Happy Saint Joseph’s Day.