Religion as Science Fiction: Will Christians be Left Behind?

24 November, 2009

Scott Brown, an American scifi (science fiction) fan, criticized American scifi films thus:

There’s a fix I just don’t get from mainstream American science fiction, perhaps because of its grinding obsession with the imperialistic—and its depressive sibling, the dystopic—not to mention its wearisome push for ever shinier effects. Like its cousin American religion, American scifi is fixated on final battles, ultimate judgement—particularly on questions of control and leadership—and a vote on the whole good/evil issue. Even the most morally restless imaginings—the Losts and Battlestars— eventually prolapse into Bruckheimeresque excerpts from the Book of Revelation.

The US scifi fan says, as an antidote to US apocalyptic pseudosci religiofi, he turns to the UK’s Doctor Who…

a fussy 900 year old neurotic who’s part Ancient Mariner, part Oxford don, with a whimsical fashion sense, a close acquaintance with defeat and futility, and a tendency to rattle on. He subscribes to no Force like creed. No enlightened military Federation stands behind him, photon torpedoes at the ready—indeed, his race, the Time Lords, is more or less extinct. His signature gizmo isn’t a blaster or a phaser but a souped up screwdriver. His Millennium Falcon? The Tardis, which looks to the unschooled like an old telephone booth. It’s actually a police call box, a relic from the ’50s, and the ship’s most spectacular feature isn’t artillery, it’s feng shui—it’s bigger on the inside. The Doctor is courageous and heroic, sure, but in the Mèdecins Sans Frontiéres vein…

Andrew C Bulhak’s blog, noting this, summarises that “American scifi is, at worst, shaped by imperial bombast and triumphalism, and at best saddled with the weight of manifest destiny, whereas British scifi is shaped by the pathos of faded glory and the possibilities opened by not having a heroic destiny, and is so much richer for it”. Quite true, but what is more interesting is the way the obsession Americans have with religion feeds through into scifi. Or is it that their apocalyptic scifi obsessions conditions their Rambo Christianity?

Christ was, of course, obsessed with apocalypse himself. He thought the world was going to end and set out to warn his fellow Jews that they had better start behaving as God’s Chosen People were meant to. They were meant to be blessed or holy, like God, that is free of sin, so that they would be admitted into God’s kingdom—a Jewish kingdom—so they had to repent of their sins first, then stick to being sinless until the apocalypse had happened. If they were sincere, they would have been saved, but being sinless was no easy matter, Christ kept reminding them. The gateway to hell was much wider than the narrow gate to heaven.

American Christians now believe that God’s kingdom is the USA, and all of them, because of their magical “faith”, are automatically free of sin and so saved—they will enter the post apocalyptic theocracy—but Jews will only if they accept Christianity! None of them stop to consider that the salvation of Christians was invented by Paul to allow his novel religion to spread in the Roman world, after the Jewish War virtually put paid to the original Church of James the brother of God. Christ was God, but US Christians would rather believe Paul, a man, and ignore much that Christ said. If Paul is the Nicolae Carpathia of the Christian Left Behind books, then he is the Antichrist, and Christians are really antiChristians. Perhaps they should think that they might not be melting the bad guys at the end, but they will be getting melted down themselves.


A Human Baby—Why are So Many Dying?

11 September, 2009

A Human Baby

A Human Baby

This is a human baby. It is utterly defenseless. It cannot defend itself against wolves, bears, snakes or even rats. It is innocent of any wickedness. It is helpless. It depends on adult humans, mainly their mothers, for care, food and security. Yet the US and its allies have in the last few years cruelly murdered millions of these defenseless creatures:

  1. unknown numbers of them are being killed daily in Afghanistan and Pakistan
  2. in Gaza 250 of them were killed in only a few days in the summer by Israelis
  3. around 500,000 of them were killed by first Clinton’s and Blair’s sanctions, and then by Bush’s and Blair’s callous “precision” bombing and troop invasion of Iraq
  4. millions of them were killed in Vietnam.

Impeach their Murderers!

The leaders who have ordered and carried out these crimes claim to be Christians, and are ready to be judged by their Creator, some have said. But where is our compassion? Where is their supposed Christian love? What ought we to do in the interest of basic justice and morality? We should judge our Christian leaders now for ourselves. If just one of these millions of dead babies had been one of ours, no one would have tolerated it for a second. They are Arab and other Asian children. To Christians, it seems they do not count as human. They are merely subhuman rag heads and gooks. The west is guilty of disgusting, indefensible crimes against humanity. These children are as good as our own! Our guilty leaders should be impeached and judged by us.

It is our moral duty to stop it, and punish the murderers!


The Measure You Measure

22 August, 2009

Don’t these US Christians make you laugh. They claim over and over again the USA is the most Christian nation on earth. They tell us 80% of Americans are Christians, or is it 90%, yet they haven’t the least idea of what Christ taught. If they do have then they are the most hypocritical Christian nation on earth.

In a chorus, they decry the Scottish government for releasing the Libyan, Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, on grounds of mercy. The man is dying of prostate cancer. He is a merciless man and so deserves no mercy, they argue. The President says it, his Secretary of State says it, the relatives of the victims of the crash say it, everyone in the USA says it, it seems, and most of them Christians!

Do they have any idea what the Christian Holy Book quotes the God of the Christians as teaching when he came down to live briefly among men before he allowed them to crucify him? Evidently they do not know because everything he said American Christians ignore. Do they have the same bible as the rest of us, or do they have one specially printed for them by Satan himself? In his most famous speech, the Sermon on the Mount, he says:

Blessed are the merciful! For they shall obtain mercy. (Mt 5:7)

This civilized message is repeated over again by the Christian God incarnate and his disciples:

I desire mercy and not sacrifice… (Mt 9:13)
But if you had known what this is, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. (Mt 12:7)
But love the ones hostile to you… Therefore, be merciful, even as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and in no way be judged. Do not condemn, and in no way you will be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. For the same measure which you measure, it will be measured back to you.( Lk 6:35-38)
For judgment will be without mercy to the one not doing mercy. And mercy rejoices over judgement. (Jas 2:13)
For God hath wrapped them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (Rom 11:32)

And so on, and so on. Secretary Clinton, does your God mean by all this in the Christian book that really he wants revenge, not mercy? President Obama, is your God to be regarded as disgusting because of His mercy, or because He is not too fussy about his modern day followers? Better to have no God at all than one like this!

The Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, was the one to show Christian mercy, saying that even though al-Megrahi had shown no mercy to the aircraft passengers…

That alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Most of the relatives and friends of the British victims of this tragedy are pleased by the mercy being shown, not least because they have grave doubts about Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s guilt.

Americans are less interested in justice than having revenge—a victim. Any victim! So they can have “closure”. What pure hypocrisy. They were bombed by Al Qaida, so they took revenge on the Iraqis, and on the Afghans. They made no attempt to bring the actual criminals to justice. The same is true here. The evidence against al-Megrahi was one man’s identification, yet he was paid a large sum by the US government for giving the testimony he gave, and it emerged that he knew what al-Megrahi looked like having been shown a photograph of him. A great deal more about the whole tragedy is murky. Knowing this, no fair judge could possibly have allowed the case to continue, but Americans still have no doubts.

They ignore what their own God tells them, and they ignore the principles of justice, yet still claim that they are Christians, the servants of God and will be saved. Either they cannot read or they are so bigotted they simply cannot grasp what words mean that contradict their prejudices. Either way, if they are right and God will judge us all, then they should be happy in the dubious circumstances to leave Him to judge al-Megrahi. And, if they are right that God will judge them mercifully, then they will get considerable shock and horror when they eventually meet their judge.

For judgment will be without mercy to the one not doing mercy.


The War Between Science and Religion

7 July, 2009

It is a shame how some apparently learned men will show themselves to be little more than idiots savants for the sake of God. One such man is Nigel Cutland, now professor of mathematics at the university of York. Cutland is a Christian but teaches abstruse mathematics at about the standard Newton and Liebnitz reached 300 years ago, but made trendy with a smidgeon of added philosophy. As a Christian, he feels obliged to defend God. Though God is a far better mathematician than Cutland, he feels the need to defend Him against some non-mathematical critics, presumably because he is not sure God can stand up for Himself.

He says that Richard Dawkins “buys into the mistake that science and religion are at war”, and he does not want God to believe any such thing. As proof, he tells us “there are many scientists, some very eminent, on both sides of the theist-atheist divide”. Well, indeed there are, and there are some scientists who smoke cigarettes and have sex with other people’s wives, but being eminent scientists does not justify their bad habits. And, in any case, it remains true that an overwhelming proportion of the topmost scientists have always rejected God. As the degree of eminence declines, the proportion of believers increases, but never gets to the levels of the general population. Scientists are always less religious than the masses. The exceptions of certain journeymen just prove the rule.

So, Cutland has convinced himself that there is no war between science and religion, even though science demands evidence, and religion demands faith—belief without evidence. Nothing could be more opposite, though Cutland has not noticed it, despite his professorship. As further evidence, he cites John Lennox (God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?), a book he greatly admires, no doubt because Lennox is a fellow Christian mathematician, a pastor of Green College, Oxford, and doubtless his chum. Lennox does not think science can decide between two alternative “world views”. One is naturalism-atheism—there is nothing but nature and the material world. The other is supernaturalism-theism—there is a God. Even so, Lennox has decided that God is necessary because there are plenty of gaps remaining for Him to exclusively fill. God is the Intelligent Designer!

It is a view many scientists are happy to accept, mainly because they are unwilling to debate with unreason, and consider that the winning entry will eventually be clear without them having to intervene. It is a naïve view, but like other normal people, most scientists are naïve outside of their own skills. Scientists rightly think that they have a method for showing what is true and what is not by painstaking testing. Whatever fails the tests is ruthlessly abandoned, like the notion of space being filled with a fluid called ether. Progressively science is proving religion wrong. Germs not demons cause disease, and Jesus could only have been acting the magician to drive out demons when none were there, or needed to be. Science has shown it can explain the world, and find answers to problems without the need for a God. God has left no traces in the world, and shows no sign of interfering in it. The evidence is the same as that He does not exist. The hypothesis of God should be abandoned. God is superfluous.

Though, science has being replacing the rickety ladder of religion with a solid staircase to greater knowledge, religion in extremis will destroy everything to stop itself from being destroyed. It has happened before. Look at the Cathar genocide, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the countless religious wars of unbridled malignity. Fundamentalism has been attacking science for a hundred years, and judging by history, it is never safe to think that religion will go quietly. Look at the ferocity of Moslem fundamentalists. They feel under double attack, by science and by the western lifestyle. Then listen to Christian fundamentalists. Religious fanatics would rather destroy the world than admit they are insane.

In his researches, Cutland has discovered that “scientists on both sides believe that science supports their own faith”. He declares atheism to be a faith because it is impossible to disprove God. It is just as hard to disprove the Wizard of Oz, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster or ET. As they are all imaginary, there is nothing about them to prove. You do not need to prove Santa Claus to a child—they accept him as the source of their Christmas presents. But once the seed of doubt is planted, you have nothing to counter it because Santa is as imaginary as Tinker Bell and Tom’s Midnight Garden. Just how does God differ in practice from these other entities? If I am grown up enough to realize that Santa Claus is imaginary, do I have some peculiar faith? The Mighty Calculus thinks so, but it is patently absurd, and simply demonstrates how Christianity destroys reason.

Cutland thinks his hero, Lennox, has shown that science is consistent with theism because it explains “the rational intelligibility of the universe, without which science cannot begin”. You have then to believe that either God thinks much as we do, and admittedly that is what Christians do think, or, as a vastly superior being, he thinks in a vastly superior way, in which case there is no reason why we should find anything He thinks as intelligible, and a more likely case for a God! One cannot expect an idiot savant to think subtly outside of his intellectual cocoon.

Cutland admits that “the unthinking blind faith and fanaticism” of some believers is deplorable, but adding that “it is unscientific to generalize from some to all”. I hadn’t noticed that Christians were so discerning in their long history. The Christian leaders of the US and UK not long ago felt no need to distinguish innocent Moslems from terrorists. Far from it, all were treated as if they were terrorists, and many are still not getting access to justice. Generalizing about Christians seems a proportionate thing to do in view of their own chosen behaviour, well reported as it is in history for those who want to read it. No one is obliged to be a Christian, any more than anyone is obliged to be a Nazi. Those who choose to be Christian do it with the full knowledge of its appalling record as an institution, a record that individual duty can hardly scratch. It is safer for non-Christians to assume that any Christian would willingly kill them to save their soul, since that is what they have willingly done in the past.


God’s Own Summary of the Bible

17 February, 2009

I read a summary of the bible in God’s own words on Mountainman’s fascinating website, but I think it missed the most important point, and that is that both of the commandments that Christ gave are the same one. I explain it here (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/b11fscollins.php) in a criticism of a book by F S Collins:

We will see that Christ gave two answers when asked for the most important commandment, and the reason is that the two commandments he gave are the same one, to Love God and to love your neighbour. It is a clear indication that God, in practical terms, is your neighbour, your fellow human being on this planet. Just in case anyone should doubt it, let them read Christ’s description of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25:33-46. God says to the sheep at his right hand whom He has blessed:

“I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you made me welcome, naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me.

The virtuous say to him in reply:

Lord when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and gave you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, naked and clothe you, sick or in prison and go to see you?

And God replies:

In so far as you did it to one of the least of my brothers, you did it to me.

To the goats gathered at His left hand God says:

Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food. I was thirsty and you never gave me a drink. I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me.

And they too will ask:

Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or naked, sick or in prison, and did not come to your help.

And again God will answer:

In so far as you neglected to do this this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.”

If you are a Christian and consider Christ to speak with the authority of God, because he is God, then just what could be clearer than this description of how to be saved. And what could be clearer than that God considered any human being, even the least of them, as being Himself. To abuse or fail to help any human being is to do the same to God, and only by helping your fellow human beings are you displaying your love of God.

So, to get the full meaning of God’s shortest bible, a little more needs to be read, but I cannot see how Christians can miss the interpretation. It shows clearly that most “Christians” are nothing of the kind, particularly those who are most demonstrative of their beliefs like Bush and Blair, the Constantines of the modern day, maybe.

God incarnated as Christ has nothing to say about attending mass, or saying prayers, or having faith, or lighting candles to be saved. It is altogether more moral than all the mumbo jumbo. God is Everyman! You cannot separately love God, you can only love Him through loving people!! He says thou shalt. It is an order. Faith and all the rest might help, but it cannot replace what Christians must do to be saved. They have to love others. Full Stop! Why do Christians confuse this simple message with all the mumbo jumbo?


A Catholic Liberal Education? Eh? Say that Again

1 January, 2009

The London Catholic Herald explains to us in the words of one Marc Sidwell, an Anglo Catholic, that California has its own “College of Light”. Would you believe it, it is called Thomas Aquinas College? It seems that this rather plainly Catholic College offers “a liberal education as if truth mattered”, and “an escape from skepticism”.

The author sees no contradiction in all this. What I mean is that liberal inquiry has found that truth can only be approached through skepticism, that Catholicism is the trunk of Christianity, and Christianity not only requires belief to be credulously accepted, it is far from being liberal in any sense close to any truth.

Sidwell, seemingly a master of liberal education himself, considers TAC as a “Great Books school” whose students “engage” with thinkers that define Western civilization like St Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Euclid, Plato and Shakespeare, and whose teachers use the Socratic method. Certain that truth exists, and unsaid but obviously true itself, that they have it, TAC rejects the relativism denounced by no less than the pope himself! It all defies analysis unless one is ready to admit that it is bollocks.

The TAC scholars have obviously never heard of begging the question, and cannot comprehend that believing one knows the truth is not the same as knowing it. But that’s Christianity for you. They assure each other that it is so, and take heart that all these clever people cannot be wrong.

Dr Sidwell assures his Catholic readers that liberal education even precedes Catholicism, thus proving he is not bigoted. It began in fifth century Athens as the right of a free man. It did not, then have anything to do with the God of the Hebrews who at that time was too busy helping the Jews to build a “temple, God, for the adoration of…” The church became involved only when Greek tradition and Jewish tradition met and mingled in the creative maelstrom of Pagan Rome. The Romans, culturally influenced by these Greeks, though they considered them effeminate, began to make tentative moves away from the slavery that engulfed them all, towards freedom, but then were engulfed instead by the backwards, conservative, massive intolerance of the religion of the Hebrew God in its new manifestation of Christianity.

Preserved in the Benedictine orders, transmitted by schoolmaster-priests, it was the Christian liberal educators who kept the life of the mind alive through centuries of uncertainty and civil strife.

Eh? Is this sleight of word and history, the liberal education these Catholics mean? Who were responsible for the centuries of uncertainty and civil strife? The Christians destroyed classical civilization after little more than a century of power in Rome, launching Europe into a ten century long dark age. The original sixth century formation of the Benedictine order had no influence on the collapse of civilization. The monks were as corrupt and ignorant as clerics generally. It was the reaction against the wealth and corruption of traditional monastic orders like the Benedictines that signified the beginning of the end of the Christian hegemony called Christendom, and the start of the Renaissance, with the twelfth century foundation of orders like the Franciscans. As for schoolmaster priests, even a rough military prince, Charlemagne, at the height of Christian power was appalled by the ignorance of the supposedly educated clergy.

Anyone who has had a liberal education will see Sidwell’s travesty of an account as an unmitigated lie, but that is what Christians are truly good at. They have had a lot of practice over the centuries. But Dr Sidwell takes as his evidence of the educational calling of the church, the doctor angelicus, Thomas Aquinas himself.

St Thomas Aquinas, is proof of the high value Catholicism has always placed upon reasoned enquiry into creation. Yet the sceptics like Richard Dawkins continue to sneer at Christianity as an intellectual vacancy. They misquote Tertullian as “I believe because it is absurd” and do not know St Anselm of Canterbury’s Credo ut intelligam. (“I believe so as to understand”).

Our guru of the modern Catholic liberal education says critics of Christianity misquote Tertullian when Catholics have long accepted “I believe because it is absurd” as a summary of Tertullian’s:

Born is the Son of God, shamelessly, because it is shameful. And dead is the Son of God, believably, because it is absurd. And, buried, He rose again, assuredly, because impossible.

De Carne Christi

A Christian educator is lying to make a feeble case against his critics, but Anselm’s (1033-1109) citation goes completely against any sort of liberal education, notably because it harks back to the middle of the Christian dark age when belief was compulsory. To base understanding on belief with no evidence that it is well founded other than the belief that it is so is utterly illiberal. It is the teaching of confidence tricksters and mountebanks, but still fools billions of naïve and ignorant Catholics, and not a few intelligent ones.

Anyway, to return to Aquinas (1225-1274), son of a wealthy nobleman, a corpulent monk at a time when peasants were dropping dead in the fields, sick and malnourished, Aquinas was less liberal a thinker than his teacher Albertus Magnus, and the Schoolmen that he founded became increasingly less liberal and increasingly bogged down in irrelevant dogma over the next couple of centuries. Though Aquinas was a great thinker for his time, he was an early Rennaissance Man, his thought triggered by the newly discovered Aristotle, but channelled into nothing productive, just as all thought for the previous eight Christian centuries had been drained away.

If “the human mind is ordered to truth”, as Sidwell quotes college president, Dr Thomas E Dillon, as saying, then the whole Christian endeavour has been set against truth not for it, and this eulogy of TAC is part of the continuing scam, given a modicum of truth by the shocking neglect of education in the public sector.

Sidwell perpetuates the transparent lie that Christianity has tried to perpetuate learning. It is sophistry, true in a minor sense only. Christianity did maintain some clever men and some education throughout the dark ages, but purely for devotional reasons. Rudimentary Latin was taught so that priests could theoretically know what the mass meant. Many did not, and never got to understand the Latin either. For this reason, some Latin books were preserved, but far more were allowed to decay, and have been lost forever. Greek was worse off. Greek and Greek books were effectively lost, and only rediscovered by contact with the eastern Church and the Moslems during the crusades making Aquinas possible. Art and architecture, science and engineering, perfected in classical times were lost for over half a millennium. Towns decayed, trade collapsed, slavery was maintained under the guise of serfdom. The world regressed into little short of barbarity, yet the argument persists that Christianity preserved classical culture. Christianity destroyed it almost completely, and the sophistry is not an outright lie only because a tiny fraction was preserved in an utterly haphazard way for the education of clergymen.

Sidwell is either self deluded or a typical Christian sociopath. He fantasizes about what wonders the Catholic Church might have come up with, had it not been for the puritan revolution, but seems incapable of thinking about what it did come up with when left to its own devices. Maybe it is because it is too horrible to think about. Nevertheless, Catholicism deliberately hounded and murdered millions, and mostly cruelly and unjustly. Today, it is fashionable for popes to apologise for matters that cannot be apologized for. Only Catholics are impressed. What can any apology mean to someone you have slowly roasted to death? The record of the Churches, and of patriarchal religion as a whole is disgusting, and no odour of sanctity is miraculous enough to cover the smell of it.


US Christian Party Robs the Poor to Save the Rich

24 September, 2008

The Great Society of capitalism and scourge of socialism, the USA Republican government, has suddenly found itself nationalizing the commanding heights of the economy! It is handing out trillions of dollars to the backers of the Republican party, the USA treasury itself being backed by trillions of dollars from Communist China. Is the US elector likely to get a tad suspicious that they have been taken for a ride for decades? It is not a bit likely. McCain-Palin are still taken seriously by the US electorate, who seem immune to economic sense as well as common sense. Both McCain and Palin boast they believe in Genesis, an account of the creation of the world written in Syria almost 3000 years ago. With leaders like that, can anyone be surprised when the Republican administration demonstrates that it knows only how to bail out crooked billionaires?

Michael Hudson, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire and of The Myth of Aid, wrote online at Global Researcher that economic theory used to explain that profits and interest were a return for calculated risk. The new Republican economics is based on “computerized gambling on the direction of interest rates, foreign currencies and stock prices”. Except that no gambling is involved because, when gigantic losses on bad bets have to be paid, the Republican administration suddenly finds bottomless coffers of dollar as bailouts to the gamblers—many of them Republican campaign contributors!

On Friday, 19 September 2008, the White House promised an alleged $700 billion, in addition to the trillions of dollars—a doubling of America’s national debt—already committed on 7 September in the nationalization of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, “to support junk mortgages fraudulently issued beyond the ability of debtors to pay, and above the market price of the collateral pledged”. Yet Bush spoke as if the Martians had landed, not that his best pals had suddenly realized they had lost their mortgage repayments in the local Christian owned casino:

We must act now to protect our nation’s economic health from serious risk… There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem. Now is the time to solve it… In our nation’s history there have been moments that require us to come together across party lines to address major challenges. This is such a moment.

The Republicans do not want anyone, Republican or Democrat, to think about the origins of the problem before Congress has committed the bailout money. “There is no time to make the biggest bailout in election history an election issue”, not immediately before the presidential election. Secretary to the Treasury, Paulson, echoed more of the same half-witted propaganda, the very guff that the US electorate can be relied upon to soak up:

Our economic health requires that we work together for prompt, bipartisan action.

The Paulson-Bernanke plan will underwrite the banks selling off the homes of five million home mortgage debtors faced with default or foreclosure. The fraudsters in the finance corporations lose nothing, but the poor who were sold unrealistic mortgages will lose everything. The Federal Reserve will let the lending agencies refinance the junk mortgages by effectively writing off the difference between the mortgage and the collateral property. Then the gambling swings and roundabouts can continue for awhile, Republicans will get campaign gratitude money, and, with a bit of temporary electoral relief and gullibility, they might even win the Presidential race.

The Republicans are treating this handout of free public money like they treated the lead up to the Iraq war, with myths, lies and desperate urgency thrown in to panic a quick and ill-thought through decision, and the same people that warned the country about weapons of mass destruction are behind the operation. The solution has little relation to the underlying cause of the problem, what Warren Buffett called “weapons of mass financial destruction”.

Irresponsible, or fraudulent companies have paid out revenue to their financial managers, insiders, stockholders and political candidates on committees deciding the nation’s financial regulation, instead of putting it in reserves. Now, they are to be rewarded for their enterprise, either from the Freddies, Fannies and AIGs, or from their Federal Treasury—ok! From the Treasury!

Why should these gamblers be bailed out, if they had enough to lose without having to become public wards by going on welfare? Hedge fund trading was limited to the very rich, for investment banks and other institutional investors. But it became one of the easiest ways to make money, loaning funds at interest for people to pay out of their computer-driven cross-trades. And almost as fast as it was made, this revenue was paid out in commissions, salaries and annual bonuses.

The recipients of these speculative profits did not even have to pay normal income tax on it. Speculating with other people’s money should not even be legal, but at least speculative profits should be taxed at a higher rate than legitimate profits. These profits are tagged as “capital gains”, and the tax rate is therefore much more favourable. Voters will be told why it is in the public interest to bail out these gamblers.

Good rhetoric is needed to explain why the government should let them go into a casino and let them keep all their winnings while using public funds to make good on the losses of their counterparties.

Hudson says the US Treasury and Federal Reserve have changed American capitalism overnight and irreversibly—“if they can get away with it”. The class FDR called “banksters” have orchestrated a coup d’Etat. It is:

the largest and most inequitable transfer of wealth since the land giveaways to the railroad barons during the Civil War era.

So what do the Christian Right have to say about all this? Presumably nothing, because their God, made in their own image, is just as crooked as the campaign financiers of their God-sent party. Christians always beef about personal pecadillos they do not approve of, but they never have anything to say about serious crime. They must approve of that!


Pax Christi Protest

3 July, 2008

It is gratifying to see that a tiny minority of Catholics are willing to protest against the latest bloodstained devil to have converted to their faith being invited by Archbishop Murphy O’Connor to preach in Westminster Cathedral. Stewart Hemsley, of Pax Christi, the Catholic peace group, was reported in The Catholic Herald as explaining:

We’ve organised the vigil because we are very unhappy that Mr Blair should be preaching from the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral when he hasn’t shown any sign of repentance for going to war in Iraq illegally. He has brought horror and devastation to that country and we think it would have been appropriate if he had at least expressed sorrow and sadness and that needs to be done publicly because the act of going to war was a very public act. If I was in the Cardinal’s place I would want to know that Mr Blair had expressed his sorrow and admitted that he was wrong in taking the decision to go to war especially because the late John Paul II had made it abundantly clear that war was not the answer.
I think it would have been more appropriate for the cardinal to follow John Paul II’s lead in this matter. The domestic Church in this country was strangely quiet on this issue and did not follow the lead given by Pope John Paul and the Vatican.

A demand by five million more Catholics for the excommunication of this monster might impress critics of Christianity that it is escaping its bloodstained past. I prophesy it will never happen.


Einstein and His God

20 May, 2008

Einstein as seen by Time MagazineEinstein was not religious in the conventional sense, but it will come as a surprise to some, aware of his statements such as that God does not play dice, to learn that Einstein clearly identified himself as an atheist and as an agnostic.

Thus I came—despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived… Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude… which has never left me.

Albert Einstein

Boston’s Cardinal O’Connel attacked Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity and warned the youth that the theory “cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism” and “befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His creation.” On April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask:

Do you believe in God?

Einstein’s return message is the famous statement:

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist… I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.

The Life and Times, by the professional biographer Ronald W Clark (1971), contains one of the best summaries on Einstein’s God:

However, Einstein’s God was not the God of most men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to… clothe with different names what to many ordinary mortals—and to most Jews—looked like a variant of simple agnosticism… This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect rather than celestial reward. Einstein’s God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go on searching for them.


A Cynic Parody: Ecclesiasticus Gadget—Sample

26 April, 2008

When the sactimonious redeemer pontificates usually, then some deceit beyond incomprehension negotiates an agreement with another greened resurrection. Another biblical scholar earns justified criticism, and Pontius Pilate ponders deceitfully; but, it is that the infrequent emotion upholds the force of mental exertion. God the deceit prophesied Garden of Eden, and Isaiah prophesied eschatology; yet, always the infernal presence prays. Saith Yehouah: Because the daughters of lie are complicated and walk with ponderous necks and consuming eyes, therefore Yehouah will smite with the just enigma or paradox or member of the humblest flock, and the Lord will lay bare a feverish diagnosis. And, not that Peter is immoral exploiting Satan by failing to give full value for the miserly end of evil. Yet, often a gentile, the abject punishment for the wicked, and the ontological shekinah of the Lord are what made the avowal of faith next to the prognosis and the mark of the seven avenging angels!

Herod annoyingly vanishes. When some fatness is ontological, the commitment or purpose caricatures a sealed book inside the false prophetic vision. Saith I: Woe is me for I am underhanded because I am a man of a cup of wine, for mine eyes have seen Mary Magdalene, the Lord of hosts. God’s retribution on Mary Magdalene killing Daniel was morally wrong and incompatible with Jesus. The accidental gesture in the marketplace is transcendental. Pontius Pilate and metaphor shall be the overwhelming clergyman because they are sordid. Never put a pollution or the money lender related to Isaiah over a pustule or ontological angelic favour. Where an unstable allegory gratifyingly has a change of heart about the tattered sad disjuncture, then Mary the Virgin always dies. But, then again, the truth procrastinates often. Judas suffering from the true insanity yet god they called Yehouah should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.

Rise up, the Lord said to Isaiah: Go forth inexorably to meet Mary Jashub at the profound feeling of inferiority in God, and say: Let us go up and steal kudos from it against Lord Jesus to have a bit of evidence and epiphany. Only by going back to the hefty day can we hope to teach the final age. Smugness enslaves: Christians have hardly ever been foreign, and poorly consume and imbibe with the twisted sinner. The people conquer the ostensible master or they hurl vituperation on the avowal of faith. Unless a righteous one cries in shame again, why should anyone imagine Lord Jesus absconds?

So check out gadgets at AskWhy! Google Gadgets

Add to Technorati Favorites