This morning Brother Jed was supposed to be at ASU, according to his own schedule, but the schedule was changed today. Now it says that he will be here on Friday, but not today or Thursday, so if you were going to come check him out you should wait until Friday.
Sorry, but Jed moves in mysterious ways.
For those of you who are still on the fence about coming to see Jed this week, here’s a video of one of his songs and a bit of extension cord sex demonstration. How can you pass up such great comedy? It’s like a caricature of Fundamentalist Christianity, but he’s serious!
Jed’s Gay Song
It’s not okay to be gay
It’s not okay to be a homo
You weren’t designed to be that way
God says that it’s a big no-noIt’s not okay to be gay
It’s not okay to be a pervert
It’s not in your DNA
What you need is to be convertedIt’s not okay to be gay
It’s not okay to be a lesbo
You weren’t designed to be that way
God says that it’s a big no-no
For many years now I have been a staunch opponent of teaching Creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) in science classes, but I’m beginning to question that stance, and I’d like to hear some other opinions on the subject.
Instead I propose that we actually teach children about the Christian Creation Myth in schools, but tell the truth about it. Don’t tell them that there is a serious debate in science about whether life on Earth got to its present state by means of evolution or by creation in its current form. Instead tell them that we know evolution happens, that even many Christians including Pope John Paul II agree that it does, and then show them exactly how literal Biblical Creationism falls flat on its face as science.
This would be a great educational experience in critical thinking, and a fantastic demonstration of how ancient unscientific ideas are eventually overtaken by good science based on observable facts. We still see the layperson’s side of this battle going on today since Creationists are much more tenacious than doctors who thought that “bleeding” people would cure them, but people should know that this debate is limited to laypeople and a few fringe scientists who have a lot of faith but little or no training in relevant scientific disciplines.
Instead of ignoring Creationism in school and letting kids be confused by hearing a basic version of the truth about the history of life on Earth in science class and then hearing confusing Creationist lies at home, on the street and in church, often without any arguments presented against it, the common Creationist claims should be debunked and it should be shown for the outdated, disproven, cynical lies that they are. We know that the Creationists are presenting their case, weak though it may be, and bashing evolution and science in any way they can. Why not fight back?
As I have seen too often in children and adults who believe in the Biblical Creation Myth, this and other related religious beliefs can destroy their trust not only in evolution but in all of science, even in anything secular, and then all they are left with is their religion. If we let people become so disconnected from reality and society as a whole, we risk losing them as members of our society along with anyone they manage to convert. This is a real concern since many of these people are evangelical and believe it is their mission to convert people.
So let’s cut this off at the knees. We can give the Creationists part of what they want and put Creationism into the science curriculum, as Creationism and not the “Intelligent Design” pseudonym so no one is confused about what the real issue is. Then we can teach people about the current controversy between fundamentalists and rational people in the laity, and let them know that the controversy in the scientific community between Evolution and Creation is long over and that the Creationists lost decisively.
| February 18, 2009 | ||
| February 19, 2009 | ||
| February 20, 2009 |
Brother Jed, the infamous preacher who travels to college campuses all over the country to yell at the horrible sinners, is returning to ASU.
Last year when Jed visited, he was the catalyst that helped form the current core of both the Mill Avenue Resistance and the Secular Free Thought Society of ASU. The Resistance was already going on, and we went to challenge Jed as part of it, but Jed swelled our ranks considerably. He is one of the best recruiting tools we could ask for!
So if you’re interested in opposing fundamentalist preachers or you want to meet people who are, this is a great chance to do it. If you can’t make it this time though, he will be back in March so keep an eye on the event list!
I can’t give exact times that he will be there, but I believe it will be something along the lines of 9 AM to 5 PM. Somewhere in the middle of the day would be the safest bet if you just wanted to stop by for a little while. I hope to see you there and meet a lot of new people like we did last year!
The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the Resistance does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Friday, February 13th 2009.
Between them they covered between four and five different corners, carrying small white plaque signs with large black lettering exemplaring quotes from the Bible—these signs did not seem constricted only to the True Vine group.
I collected quite a few tracts which have been given to Elaine Mercer, aka Carmina.
Kazz and Omni spent their time talking to one of the members of the Payson Baptist church. That encounter lasted about an hour where various aspects of the loss-of-miracles (i.e. why the contemporary world does not match mythical time of any mythology.) Heard some strange commentary which tried to use the Abraham Dilemma as a discussion of justice.
No recordings were made, but Omni did spend a lot of time talking and Kazz did get some changes to absorb some mirror speech.
Well, you knew it had to happen eventually…we finally have wares to peddle. I think that many of our non-theist readers will be happy, but the believers among you may want to avoid the shop because you will probably be offended if you look.
The rest of you, please check the shop out! We will be putting up new designs frequently and posting them here, so if you don’t see what you’re looking for, keep checking back. The shop isn’t much to look at right now, but we will begin making improvements to it in the near future, so please bare with us as we get things up and running.
If you would like to see different colors or shirt styles, more women’s shirts or any other changes, please send us a note through the contact form or the forum. The only ways we know what you want for you to buy something or tell us what you want, so speak up — or better yet buy something!
Well Darwin, this year it’s been 150 years since your book On the Origin of Species was published, and we’ve come a long way. Scientists have a much deeper understanding of the relationships between all known life on Earth, and your ideas have even helped guide us to a world without smallpox and polio, a world where influenza can be prevented, a world where we can understand what we are and why we are this way.
Do they reject your theory based on a mountain of evidence piled up against it? Do they reject it based on even one piece of solid evidence against it? No. Most of them reject it based purely on their religious beliefs.
Sure there is “Creation Science”, also called the “science” of Intelligent Design, but this is science in the same way that claiming birds are carried through the sky by a divine hand is science. As much as they want to pretend it’s science, it’s simply not.
I’m sure you would recognize the problems we’re having though, you had to deal with the same kinds of people 150 years ago. If only today’s creationists would look at how their predecessors have fared, every one of them trying to disprove evolution and not a single one coming close, the debate might finally be over.
For the book’s 200th anniversary, I hope I have some better news for you. With any luck, medical science will enable me to live at least that long, in part thanks to you.
Today we have something a little different. We often have lay people refuting creationism (which only shows how easy it is to do), but this time we have a whole series of videos with well spoken scientists who know more about their respective fields than almost anyone in the world explaining the basics of science, evolution and more.
Many of you will already be familiar with much of the material presented in these videos, but it is still good information and it is presented in a way that most people should understand it. I would recommend that creationists in particular watch some of these to clear up misconceptions that are encouraged by most of the popular creationist sites.
To start with, here’s one that many of the creationists I talk to should watch:
The Age of the Earth
The rest of the Evolution vs. Creationism series:
With several “pro-life” rallies and demonstrations taking place at ASU recently, and with the other discussions on the subject that I’ve seen or participated in, it seems like a good time to give my current views on abortion and give you a chance to post yours.
First of all, I don’t like any of the epithets used to describe either side. People who don’t want to outlaw abortion are for the most part not “pro-death”, “anti-life”, or even “pro-choice” in all matters, and those who want to outlaw abortion are in my experience rarely “pro-life” or “anti-choice” in every way.
How can you be “pro-life” and still support cold blooded murder through the death penalty? I can see how people would think they were being “pro-life” in opposing euthanasia, and it is a dangerous issue, but even there forcing someone to undergo a prolonged period of suffering before an inevitable death is just cruel. “Pro-suffering”, if anything.
How can we in good conscience take people’s feeding tubes and IVs and let them starve to death just to avoid admitting that we are causing their deaths? I know some people would argue that they are giving time for a miracle to happen, but if there is an omnipotent god out there who wants to save these people then he can damned well intervene before the issue comes up.
It might be reasonable to temporarily remove the tubes, for a few hours or maybe even a day if we think there is a chance that they might wake up, but at some point it just becomes cruel and useless. If we really believe that they can recover then we shouldn’t be removing their life support no matter what the insurance companies want, but if they are really gone with no hope then it is kinder to end it quickly than to dehydrate and starve them to death.
Euthanasia and abortion are often made out to be black and white issues, but there are large grey areas in both. With euthanasia the issue ranges from the assisted suicides of apparently healthy people (although there are almost certainly mental health in these cases), to completely brain-dead people (not politician-brain-dead, but actually brain-dead) who are physically damaged to the point where we know they are essentially dead, and a lot of grey area in between.
On the other extreme, taking “the morning after pill” the morning after a potential conception gives me no moral trouble at all. Although the numbers are disputed, a high percentage (possibly even the majority) of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), usually without the mother even knowing she was pregnant.
In any case, hours after conception the embryo is still just a small mass of undifferentiated cells. There is no chance whatsoever that it can think or feel pain, and the only thing that really differentiates it from the the separate egg and sperm that combined to form it is that it is slightly further along on the road to potentially becoming a person.
Of course it is easier to simply say “life begins at conception” or “life begins at birth”, but neither one is a universally acceptable position, and many of those opposed to one or the other are vehemently opposed. I find the idea of killing an 8 month old fetus appalling, but I also find the idea of forcing someone to let a newly conceived embryo grow to term inside of them appalling.
Where do we draw the line then? I’m not sure. For most or all of the third trimester, I think that babies are developed enough to be removed alive if it’s necessary, and I don’t see any way to justify an elective abortion at this point. For most of the first trimester, I do not think that the fetus is developed enough to cause a serious moral dilemma. With every day that goes by though, the issue gets more cloudy, so I would urge anyone considering an abortion to make the decision one way or the other early on.
I believe week 10 is where the brain really starts to develop, but exactly what state it is in at that point, I’m not sure. I see this time period as the beginning of the real grey area though, and I think it needs continued study and thought.
In order to fairly consider the issue though, we must be willing to talk about it reasonably, without sticking dogmatically to whatever positions we may hold. Although the battles over such issues as abortion and euthanasia have been long and bitter, there is some hope of consensus if we can all admit that we may not be entirely right and we can manage to start a more sober dialog on these sensitive and important subjects.
The passage of “plain language” anti-gay marriage bills such as California’s Prop 8 have some discouraging consequences. According to Courage Campaign, thousands of families are at risk.
Ken Starr, who led the campaign to impeach President Bill Clinton, filed a legal brief last month — on behalf of the “Yes on 8″ campaign — that would forcibly divorce 18,000 same-sex couples that were married in California last year before the passage of Prop 8.
Courage Campaign has put together a beautifully sappy video about the happy couples who would be divorced if their marriages are overturned, with their children featured prominently in it. Unlike in other causes where children are pretty much whored out for “causes”, these children can end up deeply affected by the divorce of their parents.
So the best thing for families is …divorce?
One thing that strikes me about the anti-gay rights groups is how their entire line of argument is based in religious dogma or ignorance, usually both. Gay marriage is “wrong” because of the bible or other religious proclamations based on pastoral patriarchal traditions. Of course, they won’t extend this prohibition to hetero couples that can’t bear children; that would just be spiteful.
Even science has turned against the antigays. One term that they used to rely on without sounding too preachy is that homosexuality is “unnatural” – akin to using intelligent design instead of creationism. However, homosexuality has been identified in various animal groups for years, and more and more evidence show support with the “born that way” argument. The scientific studies and theories are too complex for any simple summation, but I think most in the scientific community at large are satisfied that homosexual proclivities and behaviors are neither wrong nor unnatural.
But what about the “yuck” factor?
I hate beets. I think they’re vile and disgusting. Do I think that we should wipe out this tuberous scourge by enacting legal action against the farming, distribution and sale of this heathen vegetable? Absolutely not. Some strange misguided people might use that precedence to do the same to my beloved broccoli. Simply put, if you don’t like gay sex – don’t have any.
But you can tell Ken Starr where to stick his case.
You don’t need to be an atheist to know that divorcing these couples is unsettling and painful for those involved. Why don’t the anti-gays form their own word instead of being so miserly with “marriage”? Heterogamy actually refers to something completely different, but what about hetrimony?