Huckabee Wants to Change Constitution to Include “A Living God”

January 15, 2008

faithwatch
PFW:27

Mike Huckabee, according to the Drudge Report, recently said that The Constitution must change:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’shuckabee wants to change constitution what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

This couldn’t be further from what the founding fathers of this nation intended. Please help put a stop to this man’s political endeavors by letting people know what the founding fathers intended when they purposely did not include a mention of “God” in our Constitution.

Advertisements

Satirical Web Site Gets Taken Seriously

December 27, 2007

The clever satire on the web site, landoverbaptist.org, has been taken seriously by one Christian website, Cross Nation. The Christian site dedicated to “Bringing Civilization to the Internet” thinks that some people might be confused and actually believe some of the things on landoverbaptist.org, so they make a handy list clearing up the facts. The result is actually something that is not all that different from the satire on landoverbaptist.org! It’s a funny read, and certainly not meant to be so. Here’s their explanation:

This section is dedicated to detailing the many misrepresentations of Fundamentalist Christianity found at the satirical website known as Landoverbaptist.com or Landoverbaptist.org. The “Terms of Use” link at the bottom of the homepage of Landoverbaptist.com/.org does have a disclaimer acknowledging that Landover Baptist is fictitious, yet no effort has as yet been made by either critics or the website itself to show the disparities between fact and fiction.

Below is a chart, put in rough alphabetical order, showing in the left column what Landoverbaptist.com claims Fundamentalists believe and showing in the right column what Fundamentalists really believe in their own words.

And here’s a couple excerpts from their list:

  • What Landoverbaptist.com claims
    Fundamentalists believe.
    • Afterlife

    You are probably asking yourself, “Why will Jesus be removing our reproductive organs and teats before we get to Heaven?” Well, my dear lady, the answer is quite simple. In Heaven, there’ll simply be no need for genitals. My guess is that the Lord is pretty disgusted after having to watch His creatures hump away on each other for the last 4,000 years. I know I’d be! Think of it this way, Jesus and His Daddy have been sitting up there in Heaven watching the longest pornographic film ever made, and frankly, they are no longer amused.
    (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
    news0704/grandpa.html, accessed 06/20/07)

  • What Fundamentalists
    Believe in their own words.
    • Afterlife

    “Will our resurrection bodies have sex organs? Since men will be men, and women will be women, and since there will be direct continuity between the old bodies and the new, there’s every reason to believe they will.”
    (Alcorn, Randy Heaven Wheaton, Illonois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2004 p.339.)

  • What Landoverbaptist.com claims
    Fundamentalists believe.
    • Cinema: LOTR: The Two Towers

    This time around, you don’t have to be a Bible Scholar or a Creation Scientist to see that The Two Towers are giant structures built to glorify and honor the aroused genitalia of two of the most powerful evil beings in the movie. The imagery is kept discrete only by the merciful fact that both creatures are uncircumcised – otherwise the shape of two enormous, throbbing purple penis heads would have been staring every moviegoer in the face! The citizens of Middle Earth pick which penis they like best and head toward it. (http://www.landoverbaptist.org
    /news1202/twotowers.html, accessed 03/15/07)

  • What Fundamentalists
    Believe in their own words.
    • Cinema: LOTR: The Two Towers

    Families who felt so-so about the violence of Fellowship should be aware that things get darker and more intense here. No more frolicking in the Shire. The scenic splendor of Rivendell gives way to slithering sidekicks and hordes of invading beasts. (Thank goodness for John Rhys-Davies, who provides much-needed comic relief as Gimli the Dwarf.) If things truly are darkest before dawn, director Peter Jackson has gone all out to set up an unbelievably bright “dawn” in act three, next year’s Return of the King. From a storytelling perspective, that makes sense. After all, The Empire Strikes Back was the most foreboding film in the original Star Wars trilogy. But the often dreary onslaught here may be more than some families want to endure (this is not a film for children). (http://www.pluggedinonline.com
    /movies/movies/a0000116.cfm, accessed 03/17/07)


    Idiotic Comment Award

    December 27, 2007

    Every once in awhile, we like to poke fun at those who post comments on the Internet with which we take issue. Today’s Idiotic Comment Award goes to a commenter on another Web site outside of TheGreatRealization.com. I thought it was fair game since the comment was on a story that referenced a Great Realization post questioning the Godliness of the world’s largest philanthropists.

    Before we get to the comment, here’s the article.

    [DRUM ROLL PLEASE] And the idiotic comment award goes to a user by the name of “Patrick” for the following gem!

    I don’t know any religious thinker who says “without religious belief you cannot be moral.” I don’t doubt that there are some religious people who think so, but this is not a serious argument. I know many religious people who say that without religion, society cannot transmit morals, moral behavior is not promoted in society, and that immoral behavior is not discouraged. I don’t think a feeling of empathy can get a society to that point.

    As far as the effect of religion on Buffet and Gates, I wonder if they haven’t been raised in religious homes. I don’t know. Maybe their motivations are simply altruistic, in which case they are the exception to the rule. Still, the American culture and environment in which they operate is religious. Good behavior is determined largely by the values that the Judeo-Christian tradition has engendered. As Arthur Brooks has shown, religious people give more than secular people. Of course that is not true in every particular. Regardless of their religious (or lack of) motivation, Gates and Buffet are doing good things.

    stupidOkay, Patrick. Let’s take this piece by piece. First of all – there are MANY religious thinkers (if not most) that argue that religion is essential for morality. Just recently Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney made that exact argument in a speech about religion. Christian writers argue all the time that without Religion, we’re relegated to being a bunch of immoral monkeys running amuck around the planet. Just yesterday, Chuck Colson used a twisted understanding of the philosophy of Nietzsche to argue in the Christian post that:

    One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.

    Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.

    Of course, it should also be noted that Colson thinks that “You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta.” Apparently he doesn’t read this blog.

    Look – I probably shouldn’t even use Colson as support here. He’s obviously got a screw loose and furthermore doesn’t understand science very well.

    The point is – as an atheist, one sometimes fears telling other people about their lack of belief because of situations like this:

    magikent: …so I helped serve food to the homeless at the shelter over Thanksgiving and then I delivered cookies to all the grandma’s in a three state area.

    believer: Really, that’s so nice of you.

    magikent: Yeah, then I went home and wrote a blog entry for “The Great Realization,” my atheist blog.

    believer: What? You’re an atheist? I thought you said you helped feed the homeless? [HEAD EXPLODES]

    dumb

    I hear stories like this all the time. There are sadly many that simply can’t imagine a human possessing morals and values without the threat of eternal damnation.

    Patrick also argues that “Good behavior is determined largely by the values that the Judeo-Christian tradition has engendered.” What? Patrick, my dogs can exhibit good behavior and I’m pretty sure they haven’t been up watching the 500 Club. Good behavior has to do with several things. The innate desire to end suffering, the natural understanding of “the golden rule,” and the desire to show compassion to others. These are things that are possible without any religious beliefs. They’re simply a condition of being human. We want to be happy and in order to be happy, we learn what makes us end our sufferings. One of the most obvious of these is to treat other people the way we would want to be treated. Even more sophisticated “learned behavior” could be attributed to mimicking of parenting styles and role models more than religion. However most Christians would tell you that it is the code of the Bible (most of the things above are mentioned as God’s word in the Bible) that is necessary to know these tips for good behavior. Because many of the Judeo-Christian God’s rules are natural, inborn desires and feelings in humans, the Bible is unnecessary for good or moral behavior. How many of the “Ten Commandments” can be explained through “Treat others as you wish to be treated?” Almost all of them. Yet Christians will argue that without understanding and living through God’s law, one can not be moral.

    Patrick doesn’t believe it, so he get’s today’s idiotic comment award. YAY.


    Is Scientology any Weirder than Christianity?

    December 8, 2007

    CNN reports that Germany will move to Ban the religion of Scientology.

    Germany’s top security officials said Friday they consider the goals of the Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation’s constitution and will seek to ban the organization.

    The interior ministers of the nation’s 16 states plan to give the nation’s domestic intelligence agency the task of preparing the necessary information to ban the organization, which has been under observation for a decade on allegations that it “threatens the peaceful democratic order” of the country.

    The ministers, as well as federal Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, “consider Scientology to be an organization that is not compatible with the constitution,” said Berlin Interior Minister Ehrhart Koerting, who presided over the officials’ two-day conference.

    Scientologists in Germany responded:

    While failing to pursue the Hamburg Minister of Interior’s motion, the Minister of Interior Conference has demonstrated that they are completely out of step with the rest of the world. Their statement and recommendation are a blatant attempt at justifying the ongoing and never-ending discrimination against the Church of Scientology and its members in Germany.

    The suggestion that the OPC not only continue but expand its intrusive and illegal investigation represents a desperate attempt to concoct a justification for a never-ending investigation that wastes millions of taxpayer euros.

    The Scientology religion was founded by L. Ron Hubbard. The first church was established in the United States in 1954. It has grown to more than 7,500 churches, missions and groups and 10 million members in 163 nations.

    The letter also went into detail about many nations in which Scientology is considered a legitimate religion.

    In case you’re out of the loop, here are some legitimate facts about Scientology as I best know how to describe them: by showing you a clip from the South Park Scientology episode.

    I agree that Scientology is ridiculous. It’s too ridiculous to believe. But empirically, is it any less-believable than Christianity, which is accepted in most nations of the world without question?

    Scientology
    • Man is like a huge bundle of spiritual potential. He’s also immortal!
    • Faith doesn’t really exist. All things true must be observable.
    • Goals: “spiritual release” and “freedom.”
    • Man consists of three parts: the thetan, which is like a soul; the mind, which is used by the soul to interact with and control his environment; and the body, which is nothing more than a tool.
    • There are 8 dynamics of existence, which basically go from the biggest (God) down to the smallest (individual). Things like family and physical universe make up the ones in between.
    • There’s an instrument called a “tone scale,” which is basically a way to measure how enlightened you are. You can identify where you and other people are on the tone scale, which are basically numbers that represent different moods or characteristics. The goal is to move up to “higher tones.”
    • There’s also an ARC triangle. It basically represents three qualities that are important in relationships: affinity, reality and communication. I think it’s just symbolic.
    • All chemicals are barriers to spiritual freedom. Drugs and alcohol – bad! Pollution – bad! Toxins – bad! Brooke Shields – bad! To undo the effects of chemicals, you have to do something called a Purification Rundown, go in a sauna, and then take a lot of minerals.
    • E-meters are devices used during the “auditing” process, in which a person’s spiritual weakenesses, etc., are flushed out. The E-meter is “a highly sensitive instrument that reacts to changes in mental activity.”

    Christianity
    • Because the first man ate an apple, all men are now born evil.
    • A man who died 2000 years ago is a ghost but will come back.
    • That ghost’s father is constantly watching you and will grant you with immortality if you act like his son.
    • If you are bad and don’t ask for God’s son to forgive you, you’ll be sent to an eternal hell.
    • Oh yeah, the son was born of a virgin.
    • Pat Robertson can leg press 2,000 lbs

    Okay, I don’t have to go into all the different religions and explain why they are any more weird than Scientology. Things seem less weird once we’re familiar with them and they become accepted as normal facets of society. That has happened in the case of other religions in Germany, but not Scientology.

    What scares me is that the persecution of one religious freedom in Germany could lead to the persecution of ANY religious freedom – including the freedom to not practice religion. There are more than 40 million atheists in Europe, yet it would not surprise anyone if, one day, a country’s government decided that Atheism was a threat to the “Principles of the Nation’s Constitution.” All it would take would be one accepted instance like what Germany is doing to Scientology. It that were accepted and looked at by other nations as acceptable, it sets the precedent for it to happen anywhere.


    Romney to Discuss Religion

    December 3, 2007

    faithwatch
    PFW:22

    Republican Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, plans to talk about his religion in a speech entitled “Faith in America” on Thursday, CNN reports.

    Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden, in a statement, says, “This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected. Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”

    I believe this will be a hit with middle-of-the road moderate voters and perhaps could leave far-right Christian voters cold as it further exposes his Mormonism, something they’ve been uneasy with from the start.

    I’ve expressed in the past that I’ve like some of the things that Romney has said about religion – mainly that he doesn’t think it should be a factor in his run for Presidency. But with the same token, he has also stated that America should have someone of faith leading the country – obviously a statement that I disagree with.

    Romney’s website links to a CBS story about the planned speech.


    Canadian Poll Claims Atheists Less Likely to “Do Good”

    October 24, 2007

    In a poll conducted by Reggie Bibby of The University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, the assertion is made that atheists are less likely to do good. This is just the latest in the Christian’s “defense” on what they believe is a “War on Christianity.” One can tell a pretty obvious bias from Bibby’s statements and comments regarding the poll.

    Here’s what the Baptist Press has to say about the study:poll

    Is it necessary to believe in God in order to have solid personal values? A new survey seems to answer that question with a “yes.”

    The survey by a pollster at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, found that adults who profess a belief in God are significantly more likely than atheists to say that forgiveness, patience, generosity and a concern for others are “very important.” In fact, the poll found that on 11 of 12 values, there was a double-digit gap between theists and atheists, with theists more likely to label each value “very important.”

    The survey by sociologist and pollster Reginald Bibby examined the beliefs of 1,600 Canadians, 82 percent who said they believed in “God or a higher power” and 18 percent who said they did not.

    The poll was released as an aggressive branch of atheism is getting increasing attention. Led in part by authors Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as well as by the so-called Blasphemy Project, the new combative form of atheism argues that society would be better off in a “God-less world.” The research — while not addressing any specific authors or groups — seems to claim otherwise. The poll was conducted in 2005 and released Oct. 8.

    “To the extent that Canadians say good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price,” Bibby said in a press release.

    The Ottawa Citizen took the poll results seriously, asserting in an editorial that “declining religious affiliation could be accompanied by a decline in civility.”

    “Clergy and theologians have long argued something similar, namely, that without formal religion it is hard for society to maintain and perpetrate ethical behaviour,” the editorial stated. “Of course, clergy are not the most objective analysts in these matters. Bibby, however, speaks as an academic. …

    “Bibby’s research suggests that as religiosity declines, we start to travel blind — and society pays a price,” the editorial continued. “Religious affiliation, apparently, has a civilizing function. We become socialized at church. The fear, then, is that as we separate ourselves from these institutions, social harmony could suffer.”

    “To the extent that Canadians say good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price,” Bibby said in a press release.” ????

    What an incredibly scientific and non-biased thing for the CONDUCTOR of this research to say!

    I’m glad at least there are some Canadians who can see through this so-called “research.”


    Ed Brayton Addresses Evolution Education at YearlyKos

    August 17, 2007

    Ed Brayton, of “Dispatches from the Culture Wars,” gave a speech at YearlyKos.


    My personal favorite part was the following definition:

    Virulent Ignorance: the systematic accretion in one’s mind of a collection of myths, half-truths and outright falsehoods that gives one the illusion of knowledge.