The Great American Dummy, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #281 | @MDWorld
July 2, 2012 Mike Gold 14 Comments
There are two types of dummies. One is the wooden kind most famously represented by Charlie McCarthy, although my personal favorite is Señor Wences’ disembodied pal Pedro. The second is of the vernacular kind: a person of significant stupidity.
According to a Gallup Poll released early last week, only 34% of Americans identify President Barack Obama as a Christian. 44% of Americans polled can’t name Obama’s religion at all. Although I don’t consider that necessarily bad – his religious views shouldn’t matter in a society that gives lip service to religious freedom – I doubt this is because the public doesn’t care. We have been consistently assaulted by the “issue” of Obama’s faith.
I know you’ve been waiting for this for the entire previous paragraph, so here it is. It’s 11%. One out of every nine Americans.
Yes, 11% of those polled by the Gallop organization believe Barack Obama is Muslim. Even my mother knows he’s Christian, and she’s: a) Jewish, b) 96-years old, c) deaf, and d) suffering from dementia. In a genuine Captain Renault moment, this poll noted most of those who say Obama is Muslim are Republicans. One in five Republicans are idiots – with respect to this topic.
I do not believe Gallop asked these people if they believe Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Pastor Emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ, is a Muslim. You might recall that Reverend Wright was taken to the carpet for views that many found to be un-American, particularly when shown out of context. Obama is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which is the largest church affiliated with the predominantly white United Church of Christ. Trinity has 10,000 congregants of all races, and it actually positioned itself as a counterweight to the growing influence of the black Muslims in the Midwest.
I’m not sure what Obama could do to convince that 44% of his Christianity, short of undergoing medical procedures that have been commonly associated with Michael Jackson. I suspect a majority of Americans would prefer a president with a real nose.
Maybe Barack should shoot a commercial. Kevin Smith could direct it. “Hi, this is Barack Obama for Jesus Christ. If you’re walking alone, perhaps you might want to accept Jesus as your friend. If you’re driving alone, you certainly should accept Jesus as your friend. And if you act today, we’ll send you this great Jesus dashboard figure – his eyes continuously follow the oncoming traffic!”
At the close of his act, Señor Wences asked Pedro “S’awright?” Pedro would answer “S’awriiight!”
Ahh, Pedro. He was only a dummy for a living. 44% of Americans might as well have disembodied heads.
—
Mike Gold takes great comfort in the fact that the southwest corner of 52nd and Broadway, near The Ed Sullivan Theater, is named “Señor Wences Way.” Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place, so listen to it already! He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Rick Oliver
July 2, 2012 - 11:01 am
10% of voters think Obama is the anti-christ, and 11% think the Rapture will happen in their lifetimes…no doubt due to the emergence of the anti-christ in the form of President Obama, a necessary precursor to the Rapture. Having watched season 5 of Supernatural, I know better.
R. Maheras
July 2, 2012 - 2:41 pm
The fact that Obama has a Muslim name probably has a lot to do with the confusion. After all, even three percent of Democrats think he’s a Muslim. And if you do the math, the gulf between the two sets of idiots is closer than one may expect.
First of all, the poll states that three percent of Democrats think Obama is a Muslim, while 18 percent of Republicans think he’s a Muslim.
But, there are 72 million registered Democrats and compared to 55 million registered Republicans. Three percent of 72 million Democrats is about 2.2 million people. Eighteen percent of 55 million Republicans is about 9.9 million. So the apparent 6-to-1 ratio, on closer inspection, is actually only about 4.5-to-1.
Still, regardless of what the numbers are, what’s the big deal? Obama got elected president despite the fact a significant percentage of the populace thought he was a Muslim, didn’t he? And besides, the number of people who think he’s a Muslim has been steadily dropping with each succeeding poll anyway.
Mike Gold
July 2, 2012 - 4:10 pm
Rick: So, umm,, according to the Rapturists this Obama thing is good and, therefore, they’ll vote for his reelection in order to bring on the Rapture so they can all go to heaven and, by definition, leave us the fuck alone?
Cool!
Neil C.
July 2, 2012 - 4:29 pm
That’s why the Repubs need to get their stories straight: is he a Muslim or does he take his marching orders from Rev. Wright. With “The Morman Issue,” this might not be the best election to make religious beliefs part of it.
Mike Gold
July 2, 2012 - 7:49 pm
Russ, per capita Republicans are nine times more stupid than Democrats on this issue. The big deal is, saying Obama is Muslim (or Kenyan) after all this shit, after all this exposure, after the whole Rev. Wright thing, is an indication of mammoth stupidity.
Who will get elected first? A Muslim or a homosexual?
Assuming we haven’t done the latter already.
Reg
July 2, 2012 - 9:37 pm
Offered without commentary…
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/30/why-a-presidents-faith-may-not-matter/?hpt=hp_c2
MOTU
July 2, 2012 - 11:27 pm
100% of the’ Birthers’ are stupid motherfuckers.
You don’t even need a poll for that.
Mike Gold
July 3, 2012 - 6:35 am
MOTU — Racist motherfuckers. Pure and simple. The idea that such charges could be seriously placed against a white president in the face of such overwhelming evidence is laughable.
Rick Oliver
July 3, 2012 - 7:55 am
Mike: If Obama pledges to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, he’ll have a lock on the apocalyptic vote. But first he may have to have a cage match with the pope for the official title of anti-christ.
Mike Gold
July 3, 2012 - 8:18 am
Damn, Rick. I’m not even in the running, am I? I’ve wasted my life…
R. Maheras
July 3, 2012 - 8:23 am
Mike wrote — “Russ, per capita Republicans are nine times more stupid than Democrats on this issue.”
I’m sure glad you added the qualifier, “on this issue,” otherwise we’d have had heady debate going.”
😉
Rick Oliver
July 3, 2012 - 8:42 am
Russ, I’m afraid that’s not the only issue:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/40-of-americans-majority-of-republicans-reject-evolution/
R. Maheras
July 3, 2012 - 11:11 am
Rick — The theory of evolution has a number of problems — which is why it’s still just a theory.
That’s why I won’t condemn anyone who believes one way or the other.
I find it humorous when liberals vigorous defend evolution, since one of the major drivers of the theory is natural selection — a cold and amoral process that mirrors a stereotypical uncaring attitude liberals routinely accuse conservatives of possessing, and just as routinely lambast them for.
Another troubling aspect of the theory liberals tend to forget is that it’s been the core philosophy behind some of the greatest purges in humanity in the past 150 years. Fascists embraced the theory, as did racists and communists — and tens of millions of people died as a result.
Martha Thomases
July 3, 2012 - 12:08 pm
Russ, recent research suggests that cooperation insures the survival of the group, and thus may be an evolutionary advantage.
Evolution is just a theory, like mathematics is just a theory, or gravity. It’s science. It’s never finished, never final. Questions and skepticism are part of the process, and to be encouraged. Which is why it’s so attractive to those of us from a Talmudic tradition, and why fundamentalists of all stripes hate it so much.
Rick Oliver
July 3, 2012 - 12:26 pm
Russ:
Do you also find it humorous that organized Christianity has been responsible for countless horrific purges for over 2,000 years? Did you ever consider what the Catholic Church (or its surrogates) could have accomplished 500 years ago with the technology available to the Nazis?
Do you find the extensively documented human fossil record humorous? Or just “theoretical”? How much more evidence do you require before you accept the idea that the “theory” is the best explanation that fits the facts?
Did you ever consider the possibility that the outcome of that “cold and amoral” process could have attributes that reflect something other than the attributes of the process?
As Mike is fond of pointing out, gravity is also just a theory. What distinguishes a good theory from idle speculation is the ability to make reliable predictions based on the theory. The “theory” of evolution has repeatedly yielded reliable predictions. It has also proven far less rigid than religious dogma. The “theory” is constantly being fine-tuned as more evidence is discovered — and there is zero evidence that contradicts the basic theory.
You can choose to believe, as apparently 52% of Republicans believe — that God created humans in their current form around 10,000 years ago without any connection to evolution. But that’s a choice based on ignoring all the available evidence, which IMO is a form of stupidity.
Personally, I would find it far easier to believe that Obama is a secret Muslim than to believe that we are not the product of evolution.
Mike Gold
July 3, 2012 - 1:37 pm
The word “theory” has been much maligned and even more misunderstood by Religionists. There’s no such thing as 100% proven fact forever and ever. That does not give any proof to faith which, by definition, cannot be proven. Religionists dismiss that which is convenient for them to dismiss as a means of supporting their belief structure. It’s a theory? Then fuck it. The good book says god created us, so screw Darwin. Well, the good book also says the sun revolves around the Earth, so screw the space program.
Rick articulated the standard brilliantly: the standard is reliability. Air travel is based upon theory upon theory, and there have been Religionists of their time who believed their god did not intend for us to fly. But despite all that theory, most contemporary Religionists get into airplanes all the time.
Gravity is just a theory, but it’s a damn reliable one. Remember that the next time you jump out of an airplane.
R. Maheras
July 3, 2012 - 1:44 pm
Rick — You have no idea WHAT I believe. But I’ll wager I’ve forgotten more about science and technology than most people will ever know.
All I’m saying is I don’t think it’s a good idea to judge too harshly people with different philosophical beliefs — especially since there are plenty of damn fine scientists out there who have no trouble reconciling their religious and scientific beliefs.
By the way, if you tally up the numbers, I’ll wager aethists in the past century or so have probably been directly responsible for more purge/wartime deaths then all religious wars in the past 2,000 years COMBINED. But even if the pious edge out the secular, it’s probably darn close, so I’d say it’s pretty safe to say the non-religious have nothing to be smug about when it comes philosophy-based murder.
Mike Gold
July 3, 2012 - 3:03 pm
Bullshit. If you’re going to define every death caused by a Communist nation as atheist, sure. But that would be a fabrication. As we have clearly seen in Russia, the fall of Communism revealed a very active community of Religionism that has always been there. It’s even more clearly visible in Cuba, which remains Communist to this day, and not as but still quite evident in China where anti-religious activities were comparatively minimal and never really made it out to the boondocks.
Stalin attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary; in later years his belief structure revolved more around himself than around any given philosophy. Marx was an atheist, no question about it (well, there’s some question about it in the minds of the idiots who say he was Jewish), but the Right could never tell the difference between Marxism and Soviet Communism. They always conflate the two. Soviet Communism wasn’t anti-religion as much as non-religious in practice and even — to a much lesser extent — in philosophy. They felt religion was a barrier to collective government, and in this specific aspect they were certainly correct. Look at the whole “Obama is a Muslim” thing.
When it comes to organized mass murder, there’s nothing like Christianity and its Hitlers, its Torquemadas, its Popes Alexander Ii /Urban II/et al. Christians all.
Yeah, I know. Christians in general and Catholics in particular get bent all out of shape when somebody reveals the truth about Hitler’s Christianity. These people are what we who have actually read Mein Kampf and Hitler’s various speeches called “motherfucking liars.”
Rene
July 3, 2012 - 4:04 pm
These nutsos – Khmer Rouge, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Soviet Russians – have often been anti-science, as much as they’ve been anti-religion. Like all totalitarian regimes, they have tried to discredit any science that contradicted their dogmas. Doesn’t that remind you of something?
The Khmer Rouge specifically targetted intellectuals and doctors, and preached a back-to-the-basics, return to a rural, simpler life as farmers. Nowadays in the US, it’s the right-wing that have adopted a pro-rural, anti-intellectual stance.
In short, hardline communist regimes have been simply another form of Fundamentalism. It’s not the idea of religion that I oppose, it’s the notion that you must completely subjugate all aspects of life to a few dogmas that you can find in some little rulebook. It doesn’t make it any better if the rulebook is Mao’s red book or the Bible. I don’t want any little rulebook ruling my life.
Mike Gold
July 3, 2012 - 6:46 pm
Well said, Rene. And thanks for bringing an important perspective to this discussion.
Science interferes with dogma of all stripes. It also serves as an important model: unlike faith, science is not truth. Science is the quest for truth.
I’ll combine this with what Rick said earlier. Science is the quest for reliable truth.
Happy 4th of July, folks!
Vinnie Bartilucci
July 3, 2012 - 9:41 pm
“But I’ll wager I’ve forgotten more about science and technology than most people will ever know.”
That cliche always fails for me. It sounds good, but simply means that you’ve forgotten a great deal of information. If you’ve forgotten so much, it’s possible that the amount known and still remembered by others if greater than you’ve been able to hag on to.
I’ll lay odds that the 44 percent of people who “couldn’t name” Obama’s really “did know”, but knew it wasn’t popular to say, so claimed they didn’t know.
I’ve gone on about the word “theory” many times – its colloquial use is very different from its scientific use. In science, you have to go through a lot of hoops, do a lot of testing before you get to call your idea a theory. In the public sector, it means “Any idea that pops into your head, regardless of evidence or basis in fact”.
R. Maheras
July 3, 2012 - 10:31 pm
Mike — Rationalizing that Stalin went to seminary and that somehow influenced his mass-murdering ways is like someone arguing that because John Wayne Gacy was a Democratic precinct captain, or because was raised a catholic, somehow influenced his murdering ways.
Hitler, by the way, may have had Christian roots, but by the time he was running the show in Germany, he started making plans to phase out the Christian church because (a.) his National Socialism philosophy outgrew it, and (b.) he saw the church as a possible threat to his power — and we all know what Hitler did to anyone or anything that threatened his power.
One of his right-hand men, Martin Bormann, put it thusly in 1942: “National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible. The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations.”
Hmmm. “Based on scientific foundations.” Where have I heard that before?
No, Hitler’s party was his “religion,” and its “science-based” dogma, like Stalin’s, had nothing to do with the Christian church.
Doug Abramson
July 4, 2012 - 12:48 am
Mike,
Calling these idiots dummies is an insult to that great American Mortimer Snerd. As for evolution, what gets me is the people that belong to religious groups that teach Genesis as allegory (such as the Catholic Church and many Mainline Protestant churches) getting bent out of shape about it. If you don’t take the dubious 10,000 years b.s. at face value, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that precludes a Creator. There is room to believe in science and have religious faith; unless you’re a moron. As for who has killed more people: atheists or the faithful; it doesn’t matter. Purges and genocides are started by asshole megalomaniacs. The ones that use religion, just don’t have to work quite as hard to get the drones to follow their sick agendas. They can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned.
Rene
July 4, 2012 - 7:03 am
Russ, Hitler wasn’t the first to use spurious claptrap with the trappings of science to justify insanity. He wasn’t that different from people in the 19th century that believed in the correlation between the shapes of someone’s skull and their personalities, and called it “science.” And he certainly wasn’t the first to misrepresent evolutionary theory, to use it as a semi-religious fundation to a cult to one “Race” as ideal.
I can call whatever garbage I want “scientific foundations”, but it doesn’t make it science.
But I’m outta this discussion. I’ve realized a long time ago that you feel a need to defend anything that modern-day Republicans identify with. If they believe in the Rapture, you’ll apologize for them, and make excuses for them, even if you’d never do the same if the Rapture was more commonly believed in by Liberals.
Why? I don’t know. I don’t feel a need to justify or apologize for any bullshit Liberals believe in. Like those Liberals that make excuses for Muslims that threat their women horribly, just because they’re so committed to “respecting other cultures” (when they’re non-white). You’ll never count me among their number. Bullshit is bullshit, painted red or painted blue.
Please, stop defending their stupidity.
Mike Gold
July 4, 2012 - 8:45 am
Russ, I didn’t blame Stalin’s murderous ways on his religious training. I just stated he had that. Most people I’ve encountered have been quite surprised to learn this. However, it’s possible it exacerbated his insanity.
And of course John Wayne Gacy’s ways were not influenced by his work as a Democratic precinct captain. They were influenced by his being a children’s party clown. Different party. Didn’t know he was raised Catholic, but in Chicago odds are he was. If every Catholic in Chicago was a pederast, the church wouldn’t be closing down so many parochial schools.
A study of Hitler’s speeches during the 1930s clearly indicates he continued his relationship with the church — although we don’t know if that was because he was a believer or because it was a good organizing tool. Just like a lot of church officials. But certainly his vision of Nazism had a higher and growing priority.
And going to Bormann is simply changing the subject. He was a whole different ball of scumbag. Hitler seemed to attract them.
Mike Gold
July 4, 2012 - 9:08 am
Rene — “Spurious claptrap”
That’s either redundant, or the best kind!
R. Maheras
July 4, 2012 - 10:44 am
Rene — I was merely defending people’s right to be religious without branding them stupid and/or ignorant. Can I help it if it’s primarily liberals who attack those who have strong religious beliefs? In reality, it’s not a partisan defense. For example, of those religious people who vote, most Catholic, Jewish and black Protestant voters overwhelmingly vote Democratic — by a factor of two- or three-to-one.
Call me stupid, but I think it’s extremely counterproductive how, during the past 30 years or so, uber-left Democrats have sought to marginalize a huge part of their constituency — all because the beliefs of the pious are apparently incompatible with those on the secular left.
That’s why, when a Democrat calls a Republican “intolerant,” I can’t help laughing. That falls under the category of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Rene
July 4, 2012 - 11:15 am
Being religious (even strongly) is one thing. I have a lot of family members who are religious and admirable and very well-adjusted people. However, if any of them started to say they would physically disappear overnight, leaving all the sinners behind, I’m sorry, my reaction would be roughly the same as hearing they say Peter Pan is going to come and carry them to never-never land. I would be concerned for their mental health.
Am I supposed to be tolerant of madness? Perhaps because I come from a society where the most strict of Evangelicals would still be considered moderate by American standards. I mean, my Evangelical aunt is so nice and normal, and never would entertain the idea that a Presidential candidate is the Antichrist.
I’m not against religion, but the extremes that pop up in the US are scary, SHOULD be scary to any sane human being. Do you feel you need to be tolerant of that?
Though I would say that I’m okay with madness, as long as you keep your madness to yourself. Madness used for political purposes is a hundred times scarier.
Rene
July 5, 2012 - 7:47 am
I have just finished a re-read of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and it strikes me as very appropriate to this discussion. Superficially, BNW is a world of science triumphant, the government praises the virtues of science, the society is hyper-organized, etc. Just like Hitler, Stalin and many other tyrants who claimed to have science on their side.
But by the end, when Mond has his debate with the Savage, it becomes releaved that for the Brave New World to exist, real science had to be sacrificed, along with art and religion. Because, as explained by Mond, real science is about the neverending quest for truth, it’s about questioning everything, it’s about change and instability.
And totalitarian governments like the one in BNW, or Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, they don’t like changes that are not under their control. They are inevitably anti-science, at the same time that they make of science a fetish.
In other words, it’s like Mike said. Science is the natural enemy of dogmas of all stripes.
R. Maheras
July 5, 2012 - 10:06 am
Well, not to pick on my aethiest friends, but in my opinion, aethism has its own dogma.
Aethiests often cite science as being on their side, saying something to the effect that if something cannot be measured and proven, it doesn’t exist.
The problem is, the human race is still in its infancy, and not to sound like Donald Rumsfeld here, we truly don’t know what we don’t know.
Do you think ours is the first generation to question the mysteries of the universe? To question whether or not there are other worlds, worlds within worlds, other dimensions, a supreme being, etc.? Imagine Sir Isaac Newton sitting around with his fellow scholars at the Royal Society about 1710 or so discussing science and philosophy. These folks were the most brilliant people of their time, yet, if you or I walked in from the furture and just mentioned a few things that are reality today, they’d have labeled US “mad.” In truth, madness may simply be in the eye of the beholder.
I guarantee that 300 years from now (provided a wayward asteroid or supervolcano eruption doesn’t do-in civilization first), people will look back at our views as ignorant, and in some ways, appallingly stupid and barbaric — regardless of whether or not we were atheists or religious.
Rick Oliver
July 5, 2012 - 10:27 am
FWIW, the Catholic Church officially recognizes that we got here through evolution. They just point out that the fossil record does not preclude the possibility that God guided the evolutionary process. I actually don’t have a problem with that, which is not to say I necessarily agree with them. I just agree that God’s hand in the process is a matter of faith, not subject to scientific confirmation or refutation.
I don’t know what you believe, Russ — but I do know that at least one poll indicates that 52% of Republicans do not believe that humans evolved from other species. The 52% excludes those who might believe in God-guided evolution. To me, this represents a dangerous denial of the overwhelming weight of evidence. Such people are certainly entitled to their opinions but should not, IMO, be placed in positions where critical thinking skills are important.
As for whether Christians or atheists are responsible for the highest body count, the point I attempted (and apparently failed) to make is that I think it’s largely a matter of technology. But my implicit point is that it’s irrelevant. Belief or non-belief in evolution did not cause the Holocaust any more than it caused the systematic persecution of Jews in Europe for over 1,000 years before Darwin was born. Our ability to inflict great suffering on those we identify as not like us, regardless of what gods we choose to worship or not worship, is responsible for that.
Rene
July 5, 2012 - 11:28 am
Atheism has no dogmas, simply because “atheism” doesn’t exist as an organized movement. But if you’re saying some atheists are dogmatic people, yes, some are.
Madness is relative? Perhaps. A good definition of sanity is that of a mental map that allows you to navigate the territory that is reality in a somewhat efficient way. Sir Isaac Newton, you, and I all share this.
The belief that the Rapture is coming next month? It’s not something that will help you function in any way. It’s a textbook example of dangerous delusion. If you really believe and donate Earthly goods and put your affairs in order, you’ll be screwed when the Rapture doesn’t come.
Mike Gold
July 5, 2012 - 11:33 am
Atheism and science are two completely separate concepts, and one has nothing to do with another. Are atheists more likely to embrace evolution than religionists? Probably, but that’s an educated guess. Are there atheists who do not believe in evolution? Logic tells us almost certainly, but I’ve never seen a survey on this issue. Do a higher percentage of atheists believe in gravity than religionists? Again, I’ve never seen a survey but I’ll bet the percentages are pretty damn close, and both pretty high. BUT… gravity is only a theory.
A reliable theory.
Rick Oliver
July 5, 2012 - 12:33 pm
The conflict between religion and evolution lies primarily in the conflict between observable evidence and a literal interpretation of religious texts. If you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you are forced to choose between your faith and all the available evidence to the contrary. The two cannot be simultaneously true. Since Genesis is silent on the subject of gravity, there’s no conflict there.
“On the first day, God created the universe. On the second day, he said ‘Oh crap! I forgot to give particles mass!’ But by then, it was too late.”
Mike Gold
July 5, 2012 - 1:57 pm
Ah, but gravity is a principle of science! Ergo, not god-given. Mathematics is also a principle of science; its another theory. For some reason, the religionist leaders keep asking for money, which is TOTALLY math-based. From time to time I’d been known to cross out the second word on the “in god we trust” legend, but I’ve never ever had anybody reject my altered cash.
By the way, did you know atheists are banned from Yankee Stadium? Well, effectively: if you do not stand up for “God Bless America” they throw you out.
That’s actually worse than the designated hitter rule.
Rick Oliver
July 5, 2012 - 2:05 pm
I sing the Firesign Theater version: “God bless Vespucciland…”
R. Maheras
July 5, 2012 - 2:38 pm
Interesting that you bring up gravity, Mike, as Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man. So much so, in fact, that today he would probably fit Rene’s definition of madness.
Rick — Two of my relatives are very, very religious — one is an electrical engineer, and the other has a PhD in biology.
Do you think the latter is in denial just because she may not agree with your philosophy of the universe? I don’t know if she believes in Genesis in a literal sense of not, and I don’t know her political leanings, but she seems pretty good at what she does, she seems well-rounded, and her kids are extremely smart.
Regarding the Bible, to a science-savvy person today, it was obviously never meant to be a science book, as things involving science are glossed over when they are mentioned at all. But people much smarter than me — Pious, secular and those on the fence — have been arguing about the literalness of the Bible for hundreds of years, and have written countless books about the subject. To call either side ignorant or mad is a bit unfair, don’t you think?
Doug Abramson
July 5, 2012 - 2:56 pm
Mike,
NOTHING is worse than the DH.
Mike Gold
July 5, 2012 - 3:51 pm
Russ, Newton didn’t invent gravity (or the filled shortbread cookie, which is more of a religious experience). He was simply enlightened enough to notice it. And as a guy who solidly appreciates Tessla and worked with Del Close and Abbie Hoffman, “madness” can be quite an attribute.
I presume, from your comments, that you are religious… but, as you say, I don’t know for sure and it’s not my business unless you make it so. I’m cool with that either way. I should point out that in my opinion, your work in the Air Force meets my definition of scientist. And I’ve jumped out of airplanes with a parachute on my back — that, certainly, meets some folks definition of religious!
Mike Gold
July 5, 2012 - 3:56 pm
Rich — To not my surprise, I sing “God Bless Vespucciland” all the time. It’s amazing how many people don’t know where the word “America” comes from. Amerigo Vespucci is the dude who figured out we-all aren’t Asian.
Doug — Given what Rick pointed out, you are absolutely correct!
Rene
July 6, 2012 - 6:39 am
Lots of people have “philosophies of the universe” that are very counter to what I believe. Most of them don’t earn my scorn, because in all honesty, I can’t say with a 100% certainty that they’re wrong. I’m agnostic, not atheist.
But Rapture folks that yearly say that “this is it!”, and then keep giving bullshit excuses when the Rapture doesn’t arrive on schedule? Sorry, Russ. That is out of the bounds of “eccentric religionist” and starting to look like “ready for the looney bin.”
Russ, I am curious, are you so tolerant of eccentric, non-religious behaviour? If a friend of yours says she believes she can go to Oz or Never-Never Land whenever she wants, do you “respect” her beliefs, or call her a madwoman?
Or is it only eccentric religious folk that deserve special consideration from you?
Rick Oliver
July 6, 2012 - 7:44 am
Russ: Your reply is somewhat disingenuous. I see no inherent contradiction in being deeply religious and critical thinking skills. I see a very large contradiction in a “scientist” rejecting all the evidence of evolution (or the age of the universe) because it doesn’t jibe with one’s LITERAL interpretation of the Bible — a “literal” interpretation that also includes some dubious calculations made by a clergyman in the 1800s. People who choose to believe that the the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that people and dinosaurs co-existed are living in a severe delusion.
If your scientific relatives share the belief of 52% of Republicans that humans — and pretty much everything else — suddenly emerged on the scene 10,000 years ago due to a spontaneous act of God, then I would suggest that there is a rather large hole in their critical thinking skills. If, however, they believe that God created the universe 15 billion years ago and guided the evolutionary process, I’m cool with that.
R. Maheras
July 6, 2012 - 11:07 am
Rene — For the record, every time some religious sect announces they know the date of the Rapture and are selling all of their worldly goods in preparation, it makes me laugh. Why? Simple. I think somewhere in Christianity 101, there’s a passage warning believers to beware of false prophets.
Rick — I think it’s disingenuous to state that 52 percent of Republicans believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. Some do, but geez, so do many pious Democrats. And don’t even get me started on some of the weird shit Democrats I’ve known believe. I know if I start rattling some of it off I’ll no doubt offend someone’s beliefs, but suffice to say a lot of it is stuff that I think is way out there from my sensibilities standpoint. But the bottom line is, that if someone, say, tells me they used to be a cat in another life, I shrug it off and shift the conversation elsewhere.
R. Maheras
July 6, 2012 - 11:14 am
Mike — Tesla is one of my all-time idols.
Rick Oliver
July 6, 2012 - 9:04 pm
Russ:
1. If someone tells me they think God created the world in its current form 6-10 thousand years ago, I won’t argue with them. I will also be disinclined to listen to their opinions or advice on a wide variety of scientific matters that may conflict with their interpretation of their sacred religious text. You might want to read up on Galileo before shrugging your shoulders about folks who vehemently dismiss scientific evidence about the observable universe because it doesn’t agree with their religious preconceptions.
2. I don’t think disingenuous means what you think it means.
R. Maheras
July 6, 2012 - 10:18 pm
Rick — Galileo? Are you serious? That was 400 years ago, and no one back then — not even Galileo — really knew much of anything about the universe. There were probably even plenty of scientists back then who thought Galileo had lost his marbles. Not only that, the Pope and the Catholic Church back then had far more power than even a hundred evangelical churches today.
Tell you what, let’s look at the Galileo deal and have a little fun with it:
Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church, right? Catholics vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and since many Democrats are liberals, ergo, Galileo was persecuted by liberals who thought Earth was the center of the universe. Hmmm. Maybe that’s really not all that big a stretch, since many liberals today tend to think their beliefs are the center of the universe.
So maybe you’re right — the lesson of Galileo may be apropos today. I stand corrected.
And I’m probably being just a bit disingenuous here.
Mike Gold
July 7, 2012 - 12:38 pm
WAIT. What? Catholics were overwhelmingly Democratic back in Galileo’s time? It must have been real easy to become a convention delegate back then.
And you’re saying Tammany Hall and the Pendergast and the Daley Machines were liberals?
Rick Oliver
July 9, 2012 - 11:52 am
Russ: You have a fine knack for missing the point.
R. Maheras
July 9, 2012 - 5:00 pm
Rick — The point that you think your views are at the center of the universe?
I just don’t agree that Christianity is the evil you make it out to be. Your arguments that it is simply don’t stand up to historical scrutiny. And your attempts to label all religious wars as evil is revisionism, pure and simple.
The Civil War was fundamentally a religious war, despite the fact that both sides were predominately Christian. On the surface, it seemed like the war was based on economics, but it wasn’t. In reality, it was based on economics driven by one Christian religious camp’s interpretation of the Bible verses another’s. In short, most on the Union side, including Lincoln, believed that good Christians, in good conscience, could not own another human being. The Confederates disagreed.
So, while religion may definitely be an element of a war, it may very well be a thoroughly positive element.
But Christianity, like any other fundamentally positive philosophy (religious or otherwise), can be twisted and perverted by its followers into something insidious.
That’s why free speech is so important. Our mostly very pious founding fathers were well aware of things like inquisitions and witch trials — the remnants of which were still echoing during their lifetimes. I think that’s one of the reasons they put checks and balances in our government, made free speech a fundamental right, and made a government-sponsored religion a non-no.
Mike Gold
July 9, 2012 - 5:15 pm
Russ, if the Civil War was, indeed, fundamentally a religious war and both sides were predominately (actually, overwhelmingly) Christian, then I think a sane and objective person has to consider the “goodness” of Christianity. The Civil War led to the deaths of between 618,000 and 700,000 Americans and Southerners. All over, according to your argument, two different interpretations of bible verses? Killing 1 out of every 50 people in the nation in a four year period is the Christian thing to do?