You Know How They Are

I was reading a story on The Huffington Post about the trapped gas between Bill Clinton & Barack Obama when I had a realization about racism, identity, and stereotypes. Here's the opening paragraph:

Hillary Clinton's former Campaign Chair Terry McAuliffe is
insisting there's no bad blood between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama despite a
report that Clinton said Obama can "kiss my ass." McAuliffe told CNN, "This man doesn't stay mad. He can get mad for 24 hours. It's his Irish ancestry."

His "Irish ancestry." Right. Imagine how that would play if someone said something disparaging about Barack Obama and followed it up with, "Well, he's black - and you know how they are." Or how about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg getting panned for budget issues: "Well, he's a Jew - and you know how they are." Unimaginable!

So I guess this is my question of the day. If anybody knows, please tell me. Why is one OK but the other is not?

This is obviously an identity issue, and a hugely charged one at that. I'm just mystified at the juxtaposition of acceptable and unacceptable forms of racial stereotyping. I can' t believe I'm just noticing it now. I guess that just shows you how ingrained it is.

But then again, I'm half Irish and half German. And you know how they are.

Thou Shalt Not

Hey, kiddies -

I know I said I wasn't going to do lots of blogging this summer (because the term "off the grid" doesn't get used enough these days), but I lied. I'll still be bringing you semi-weekly doses of hate, pared down to bite-sized nuggets of negativity.

Today's topic is sex... and liquor. I look up city and county alcohol ordinances for a living, and Mary you would not believe the things they put in those codes. It's not for the little munchkins. There are many, many things that city officials do not want anywhere near liquor. Like slot machines, for some reason. But my far-and-away-favorite find is from the DeKalb County (GA) ordinances governing liquor consumption... and sex.

So here's my thing. Why couldn't they just say, "No sex"? What's with the laundry list? I can just see a room full of under-sexed, over-stimulated county commissioners sitting at a roundtable, excitedly asking each other, "What else can we put in there? What else is dirty-birdy?"

The text below is copied and pasted from the honest-to-goodness, no bullsh*t, totally for reals, DeKalb County code of ordinances concerning liquor. My comments are in non-italics. Read and cry:

Sec. 4-104. Prohibited types of entertainment, attire and conduct.

The following types of entertainment, attire and conduct are prohibited upon any premises licensed to sell, serve or disperse alcoholic beverages:

(2) Live entertainment where any person appears in the manner described in paragraph (1) of this section or where such person(s) perform(s) any of the following act(s) or simulates any of the following:

a. Sexual intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, oral anal copulation, bestiality, direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or the use of excretory functions in the context of a sexual relationship, and any of the following sexually-oriented acts or conduct; anilingus, buggery [Buggery!], coprophagy, coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, necrophilia [Bed the dead!], pederasty, pedophilia, sapphism [Lesbians?], zooerasty; or

b. Clearly depicts human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation, arousal or tumescence; or

c. Use of human or animal [aren't humans animals?] ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, or masturbation; or

d. Fondling or touching or nude human genitals, pubic regions, buttocks, or female breasts; or

e. Masochism, erotic or sexually-oriented torture, beating, or the infliction of pain; or

f. Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other sexually-oriented contact with an animal by a human being; or

g. Human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal or anal irrigation. ("Anal irrigation"? Makes me think of Margaret Cho's colonics monologue.)

So now you know what you may and may not do in a bar or liquor store the next time you find yourself in DeKalb County, Georgia.

Happy Pride!

Creepy, Yet Sometimes Useful

Apparently HAM radios can be just as useful as they are creepy.

HAM radios operate independently of telephone wires or cell phone networks, so they can be used when normal infrastructure fails us - like in a flood, an earthquake, or maybe just a really bad time-travel-inducing acid trip. Which is kind of how I feel when I look at people who operate HAM radios.

Every small town has that one guy - and it's always a guy - who's just a little too into HAM radio technology, and there's something vaguely creepy about him that you've never been able to put your finger on. Pets and children generally tend to stay away from his house. Old gramophone music seeps eerily out of the windows, and the garage... just stay away from the garage.

Don't get me wrong; anything that can help people during a natural disaster is a good thing. I just didn't expect it to come out of such an... unusual direction.

One caveat: Jena Malone looked really cool using one in Robert Zemeckis' Contact. Girls using technology who grow up to be badass scientists are always an exception to the HAM radio rule.

So there you have it. HAM radios: not just creepy hobbies of weird old guys who were president of their elementary school’s A/V club.

...and, you know, probably go bird watching in womens' underwear.

Kim Jong "That's Hot" Il Hits The Runway

This season brings us flashy shades and breezy over-the-shoulder light white jackets. Perfect for a walk on the beach… with a 10,000-strong military escort, of course.

The Blessed And Eternal President of the Republic sets a new standard of North Korean fashion not seen since 1945. Just look at that hair! He’s letting it go free this season, with “I’m Still Macho” hair spritz from the new Men’s Fascist-tastic Haircare Product line.

Shoes by Prod-Da. Underwear by 2 xistential. Makeup by Karl Marx.

(Photos snap, dance music throbs…)

Rational vs Spiritual: The God Smackdown Pt 3

This is the final (thank god) exchange between myself and a believer. I think I've learned my lesson.

Jake:

I'm thrilled I have your email address. Myspace was getting old. I
never go one there. I only have gone on there recently expecting a message from
you. Boy oh boy, that last one was hard. I'll admit, I'm spinning a bit. I did
learn one thing. You are much much smarter than me. But that's ok. I still
really enjoy these conversations. So let's see... where to begin where to
begin...

"You're not supposed to exercise your own moral judgment,
because it's an affront to the inerrant word of God. And who are YOU to say that
you know better than God? Who are YOU to prop up some of His words while
brushing others under the carpet? Who gave you that authority?"

I
know this was sarcasm, but i certainly don't believe someone exercising their
moral judgement is an affront to the inerrant Word of God. I just think it's
inadequate compared to it. on my belief about Scripture, one passage I
understand it from is the passage in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is
inspired, profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in
righteousness." I think it is a mistake to understand that the infallibility and
inerrancy of scripture means we have to stone people because they curse their
parents, simply because God said it. God gave those laws to a certain group of
people, at a certain time. Now believe me, I know this can cause a whole wave of
confusion. (and please understand there are others much more suited to explain
this than me) My suggestion is to listen to what John Macarthur says about why
we trust Scripture. http://www.traviscarden.com/resources/grace-to-you-podcast-archive/series/making-a-case-for-the-bible/ I don't know why i think you would listen, but I know if
you're interested, you maybe would. God gave us Scriputre so we can understand
His character and nature, and understand our need for a Savior. The Old
testament, written to to a different group of people, shows how God dealt
directly with people who broke His law, and I would have to say that if we still
lived under the old covenant, than yes, we would have to stone someone who
curses their parents. But remember also, those were instructions to the JEWS,
God wasn't telling the Jewish nation to run around the world and kill everyone
who curses their parents. That's why I don't understand people who take the Word
of God and suggest we do that. I must admit that if that's what you say we
should be doing, it shows your ignorance concerning the new covenant. That's
pending theological lesson number one, dear sparring partner. Christ, along with
His apostles, laid out the new covenant. The new covenant has the fulfillment of
the law in Christ Jesus (Matt 5:17) That means all of those things you see in
Scripture, like death by stoning for cursing your parents, have been placed on
Christ Himself. It doesn't mean we're free to do what we want, instead that
Christ took upon Himself the punishment of our sin, and offers to us full
forgiveness if we would trust Him, and for those who don't trust Him, they will
be judged by God Himself at His return. This is one reason why I don't
condemn people who sin. If I am pointing out sin to someone, it is only because
I hope they will see their condition (you know, the invisible tiger) and turn to
Christ for salvation.

"when a Christian uses the Bible to tell me
that God says having sex with another man is an abomination (Leviticus 20:13),
why can't I turn around and tell him that God tells ME that the punishment for
working on the holy day is death (Exodus 31:16)? Why is that? Why is one true
while the other is not? I'm just saying that it's ridiculous on the face of it
to use the Bible so selectively."

I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE
when you say "if a Christian hates homos, let him speak from his heart, not hide
behind the Bible." Going back to what we talked about before, some people use
Christianity as a way to justify the hate that existed in them long before they
picked up a Bible, or they had it bred into them from an early age. It's really
not difficult to breed people to hate others. I believe the reason it's not
difficult is because human are naturally bent towards hatred. About what you
said above, i believe you can turn around and say that. The same God who
condemns homosexuality condemns working on the sabbath. The sabbath is
different. To give you a summary, it is believed Christ abolished the sabbath
declaring Himself "Lord of the sabbath." (Matt 12:7) Hebrews 4 gives an
excellent explanation of why people under the new covenant do not keep the
sabbath. It's because if we are believers in Christ, we have already "entered
His rest" and have fulfilled the requirement of that law.(theology lesson number
2, dear sparring partner.)
SO... we'll use dishonoring your parents.
God has said an individual who practices homosexuality is just as bad
of a "sinner" as an individual who breaks any of His commandments, including
dishonoring parents. So I would encourage you to throw Matthew 5:7 at them. The
argument SHOULD be, if they understand it, over. This is why I don't freak out
over homosexuality. We're wearing the same shirt, just different colors. That's
all. We both need Christ's perfect righteousness. And He looks at us the same,
too. And He offers it to us both.

"Why would a loving God inspire
you to break His laws."

good question, why would a loving God
"inspire" us to break His laws. My only answer to that question is when I do
something His law condemns, I know it's not because He has inspired me. It's
because I want.

"Then why did it take a nation built on the
principles of the Enlightenment -- science and reason -- to produce the most
peaceful, most powerful, most influential, most prosperous country on the
planet?"

You see, this is where I would have to disagree with you.
I don't believe the great enlightenment was responsible for our government. I do
believe, however, that checks and balances were developed before Christ, so you
did "school" me on that one. Thanks, by the way. That was my mistake. Still
being said, I believe Christianity played a major part in the development of
this Country. The separation of religion from government was never intended to
keep the name of God or Christ out of every government function, it was instead
created to keep America from becoming another Rome or England. If our
forefathers were so adamantly opposed to keep religion out of our "secular"
government, than why would we have the ten commandments on all of our
courthouses, or "In God We Trust" on all our money? That's history lesson number
one, from me, mr. spar. Patrick Henry was a devout Christian, so was George
Washington. These men, although not at all perfect, trusted Christ and His Word.
Even Woodrow Wilson was quoted saying, "The Bible... is the one supreme source
of revelation of meaning of life, of the nature of God and the spiritual nature
and need of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in
the way of peace and salvation." There are plenty of other quotes, but
Christianity didn't seep into our government, secularism did, for better or for
worse depends on the opinion of the individual.

That's right, it
would. But you're arguing a point I never brought up. You're jabbing your lance
on the wrong side of the room. I'm over here. (Hi.) What I DID say is that it
would be impossible for the faithful to prove the existence of gods with logic,
reason, and intellectual arguments, an argument that you danced away from in our
last exchange."

This was made in reference to my comment about you
saying Christianity made no contributions to society. I assumed it was what you
believed because you pointed out many horrible things that have happened as a
result of religion. I would say horrible things have happened as a result of
humanity, religious or not, period. I hope we can agree on that. About the last,
intellectual arguments to prove the existence of God, well, let me show you my
Charleston shuffle... I can't. I have none. I could speak of the vast complexity
of species, but it wouldn't suffice. I could even bring up how ridiculous it is
to suggest something came from nothing, but science has instead suggested there
must be a better explanation, so (and my brain is turning as I'm writing) let me
turn the tables on you just a bit...

How do you explain an
extremely complex world coming into existence from nothing? I say God spoke the
world into existence, you say...

Here's my rule: You can't say
it didn't come from nothing. Something has to have appeared out of
nothing to get something, right? If your argument says anything about anything
starting everything, I'll simply come back and ask, "where did the anything come
from?"


With that question aside, and I do hope the better
part of your next email covers it, I hope you understand how I don't just take
half the Bible half the time. If there was no new covenant and we were
Israelites, I would stone you for your homosexuality. I just hope I would be
able to get around to it before someone stoned me for the mountains and
mountains of sins I have done. I don't have any objections about the Bible,
just the way some people interpret it.

Also, all the best,
warmly, in fun, and which can be best summarized with a smiley
face...

:)

Jake

Me:

Jake - That was a great e-mail. I relished every word,
and I delighted in your logic. Thank you for the lessons in
theology. I can honestly say I learned something about Christianity
today.

There is some sad news, alas. I am succumbing to a very
bad case of tendinitis. No kidding. It's a problem I've had for
about four years, and it's ramping up again now that I'm working at my summer
job, typing all day. My hands hurt so bad today I almost couldn't stand
it. The reason is because I typed at work all day yesterday and then typed
that e-mail to you all night last night. (Although rest assured it was a
labor of love.)

So our correspondence via e-mail must come to an end.
I'm so sorry, because I've really come to enjoy it. But I must limit my
typing as much as possible, and that means eliminating all typing that's not
work-related.

But fear not, young sparring partner. We can avail
ourselves of the telephone, or even meet in person. You'd better believe
I'm all revved up and ready to rip half of your arguments to shreds. In
fact, I'll just take this one jab at your biggest howler. Engarde.

>> If our forefathers were so adamantly opposed to keep
religion out of our "secular" government, than why would we have the ten
commandments on all of our courthouses, or "In God We Trust" on all our
money?

If only slabs of concrete and words on currency had anything
to do with the inner workings of our government. You flunked the same
history test again, Jake. America is a secular government, period.
Secularism didn't "seep into" America. It is at the heart of America, and
I can prove it.

First of all, let's look at the actual text of the First
Amendment:

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

Forget about faces of dollar bills and Commandments on
courthouse lawns, Jake. All that stuff is just window dressing, and has no
bearing whatsoever on the REAL heart of our government, the law. Consider the Lemon Test:

"The [Supreme] Court's decision in [Lemon
v Kurtzman] established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for
legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1.
The government's action must have a secular
legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either
advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government
entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are
violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution."

... I win, you lose, 'twas ever thus.

In case you don't still have it, my cell phone number is
below. The best time to reach me is after 6:00 on weekdays or anytime on
the weekends. I look forward to speaking with you soon. You have been what
Stephen Colbert calls a "formidable opponent." Fondly,

Jason

PS re "America is a secular
government." Oops. America isn't a government, it's a country.
What I meant to write is, "America has a secular government." Sorry.
jh

Jake:

yes, America certainly has a secular government, and I thank God
for it. God forbid humans try to go down THAT road again. We both know how that
usually ends up.

Me:

(OK is it just me, or did he just wildly contradict
himself in that last paragraph? This guy's an idiot.
Disengage.)

Get Some SLEEP, Will You?

Sleep is more important that we think, according to a 60 Minutes report that aired on Sunday night.

Not only does a lack of sleep impair our ability to think clearly, it turns out that - given enough sleep deprivation - we an actually fall asleep while doing normal everyday things. Like driving.

While waiting in line at a coffee house I saw the following headline in the Star Tribune:

Driver in fatal band bus crash running on 3 hours of sleep

Creepy.

Rational vs Spiritual: The God Smackdown Pt 2

Here is the second to the last exchange I had with Jake:

Jake:

hey man.

that's good to hear. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy our
exchanges. The fact that you're gay doesn't scare me at all, either. I think
it's sad people have made such an issue out of homosexuality. You're no
different than me, you just like guys. We're both in the same boat, you just
have a different colored shirt on than me. That's how I look at it. Besides, you
don't strike me as someone that has based their entire identity on their sexual
preference, which I never understood.

I do have to point something out, however. You said "I wish
you guys could sing from the same hymnal." Well, Jason. We don't. People do with
Christianity the same thing Hitler did with Darwinism. (I'm sure you'll give me
flack for that :) )

There is a drastic difference between a Justin Martyr or a
Polycarp, and Queen Isabella. What I'm saying is you have two different
individuals who claim to be following the same "God," but manifest their
devotion in completely opposite ways. Either both of their understandings are
skewed, or one is wrong, and one is correct. I would say the God Polycarp
followed is the true God, but I think the point you may be making is what people
do when they tie on "god" to their lives.

It's as if they can say "we do this in the name of God,
so...let me rape and kill your entire family, than cut off your head." Or, "I
live for Allah, so... I'm gonna strap a bomb to my chest and kill hundreds of
innocent people, or fly an airplane into a building."

I can understand why rational people would like to get rid of
any idea of God in the minds of people... to avoid horrible things like this
from happening, but here's where we will differ:

I believe, (and this will probably shock you) The people who
were involved in those horrible tragedies were simply using the concept of a God
as a way to justify what they themselves wanted to do. I believe the roots go
deep in certain cultures where power mongers use the concept of deities to force
their subjects into complete submission. This was very common. Some emperors
even convinced their subjects that they themselves are gods (Xerxes) These
events were not driven by God, but instead the manifestation of the human
heart's bent towards evil showing itself through the manipulation of people.

I guess this is just my really really really long way of
saying you can't base your conclusion of a certain worldview based on the
actions of some of their (keyword here...) "presumed" followers. I'm not sure if
that's where you were headed. I'm more inclined to believe you were trying to
point out how awful religion is for society, and my conclusion is any society
driven solely by men outside of Christian influence is just as dangerous,
because you then have one man controlling everything based on what he feels is
necessary. (Hitler) Then anything goes.

Look at America. What makes us great? Checks and balances. Why
do we have checks and balances? Because the people who built the foundation of
this country understood that men cannot be trusted alone, but instead must be
held accountable. Where does this idea come from? Christianity. Besides that can
of worms, let me open another one. It would be intellectually impossible for you
to say Christianity has never made any contributions to society. Christianity
has made tremendous contributions to society. I won't sit there too long because
I don't believe the contributions validate the message.

Honestly, if you want to get me all fired up, than find
specific passages in Scripture you are disgusted by. Since I believe Scripture
is in fact the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God, that would be a
good place to start if you'd like to understand why what you would consider a
smart guy like me would would buy into this stuff.

I do have just a couple of caveats:

1. I believe Scripture is inspired, however, I believe it was
written at a specific time to specific people, and can only be understood
correctly if we read it in the context of that culture. When I read it, I take
into account who was this being said to at the time, what was going on, why
would God say this particular thing to this group at this time, and when read
through that filter, is there anything I can learn about the character and
nature of God. (for example: Leviticus 20:9 says "whoever curses their Father
and Mother must be put to death." I wouldn't say in our time we must kill people
who curse their parents, however, from this passage I can conclude that God
cares very deeply about honoring and respecting parents.)

2. I believe that unless you are careful, it's very easy to
emphasize something in scripture that was, through careful study, observation,
and humility (which many "christians" lack) clearly not supposed to be
emphasized. Or even vice-versa. I further believe that if you start there, it
will explain a lot of the things professing believers have done in the name of
Christ.

That's all I got, Jason. I hope you learn something, and I
must admit, I'm looking forward to hearing objections you have about what the
Bible says, because I'm sure there are quite a few.

Well, I hope you had a good weekend, and I look forward to
hearing from you.

Me:

Jake -

Who says good rhetoric is dead?
This, what you and I are doing right now, is a perfect example of good
rhetoric. It's so nice to know that good dialogue is not totally lost to
us as a species, and as diametrically opposed stalwarts.

>> We're both in the same boat, you just have a different
colored shirt on than me. That's how I look at it. Besides, you don't strike me
as someone that has based their entire identity on their sexual preference,
which I never understood.

Thank you for your kind words.
They're very much appreciated, and they reaffirm my regard for you. It's
nice to hear inclusion and reason coming from a Christian on the topic of human
sexuality. It's a rare thing indeed.

You are correct that I do not base my identity on my
sexuality, but if you have never understood why people do this, then you have no
sense of history (in spite of your many historical references). When a
population is selectively persecuted for who they feel compelled to love, OTHERS
are basing their identity on their sexuality. Do you see?

So then of course, when the closet doors finally came flying off
in that fateful June night in 1969 in New York City, the persecuted turned
around and reclaimed their sexuality. They said, "That's right! I AM
a homosexual! And I'm going to celebrate that IN SPITE of your
condemnation, IN SPITE of your hatred and persecution, IN SPITE of your
insistence that I'm going to burn in hell for eternity simply because I dared to
be true to my heart. IN... YOUR... FACE."

Do you understand
why people do this, now? Good. That was history lesson number one,
dear sparring partner.

By the way, I don't blame Christians
or any other religion for the persecution of homosexuals - I think all of
humanity is to blame for this one. But here's where we can tie it back in
with selective Bible quoting: when a Christian uses the Bible to tell me that
God says having sex with another man is an abomination (Leviticus 20:13), why
can't I turn around and tell him that God tells ME that the punishment for
working on the holy day is death (Exodus 31:16)? Why is that? Why is
one true while the other is not? I'm just saying that it's ridiculous on
the face of it to use the Bible so selectively. Don't use it to back up
your beliefs only when it's convenient for you. Use it, but don't do
that. Christians look like idiots when they do that. If a Christian
hates homos, let him speak it from his heart, not hide behind a Bible.
Besides, it's obvious that he's not reading the very book that he's thumping
(Matthew 7:3).

>> What I'm saying is you have two
different individuals who claim to be following the same "God," but manifest
their devotion in completely opposite ways. Either both of their understandings
are skewed, or one is wrong, and one is correct.

If you are going
to go shopping through the Bible like it's a corner grocery store, picking and
choosing the parts that you feel are appropriate and can be appropriately
interpreted in today's world, then you're doing something very dangerous.
Your saying, "No, this is wrong," or, "Yes, I agree with this."

This ISN'T what the church wants you to do, dear sparring
partner. You're not supposed to exercise your own moral judgment, because
it's an affront to the inerrant word of God. And who are YOU to say that
you know better than God? Who are YOU to prop up some of His words while
brushing others under the carpet? Who gave you that authority?

The answer, of course, is you. You gave yourself that
authority. Not a god, YOU. Think about it: why would a loving god
inspire you to break half of his laws?

>> I can
understand why rational people would like to get rid of any idea of God in the
minds of people... to avoid horrible things like this from happening, but here's
where we will differ

Yes, some rational people might like that, but
not me. Haven't you been listening to what I've been saying? I would
fight and DIE for the right of people to believe what they want to believe and
say what they want to say. First Amendment, remember? In fact,
people HAVE fought and died to protect the liberties -- religious and otherwise
-- of the American people, and to suggest that they died in vain is to spit on
the graves of fallen soldiers.

Just because I don't agree
with you doesn't mean I want to silence you or control your beliefs.
(That's the church's job.) The First Amendment guarantees that I have free
speech, too. (Unlike, say, the church.) I can speak out and say I
think people like you have no business forcing your brand of lunacy on people
like me, and I can say why. Christians have been forcing their twisted
torture kink on the rest of humanity for two thousand years, and some of us like
to bite back. Keep your faith to yourself if you can't stand the
heat.

Anyway, people will do awful things with or without
religion. I'm not naive enough to think enforcing atheism will solve all
of our problems, but I doubt those 9/11 hijackers would have rushed into
destruction if they didn't believe paradise was waiting for them on the other
side of the flames.

>> These events were not driven by
God, but instead the manifestation of the human heart's bent towards evil
showing itself through the manipulation of people.

There you go,
thinking for yourself again. It's fun, isn't it?

>> any society driven solely by men outside of Christian
influence is just as dangerous, because you then have one man controlling
everything based on what he feels is necessary. (Hitler) Then anything
goes.

Then why did it take a nation built on the principles of the
Enlightenment -- science and reason -- to produce the most peaceful, most
powerful, most influential, most prosperous country on the planet? This
country is not driven by a Christian sect, it's driven by a secular
government... and there's just no way around it. (If you're not sure, try
to pray in a public school and see what happens.) The names God, Jesus,
and Christ have been locked out of our Constitution in perpetuity, and thank
heavens for that. Once again I've shown you how it's possible to be a good
person -- and a good nation -- without the help of a god. That was history
lesson number two, by the way.

>> Look at America.
What makes us great? Checks and balances. Why do we have checks and balances?
Because the people who built the foundation of this country understood that men
cannot be trusted alone, but instead must be held accountable. Where does this
idea come from? Christianity.

Whoops! Sorry, but you missed
that one by so far I can't even see you anymore. This idea that men must
be held accountable came from Christianity? Wow. It's time to go
back to school, young starling.

Have you ever heard of a
race of people called the Jews? Funny story. They have this little
collection of writing called the Talmud, and it chronicles oral dialogues about
morality and law that predate the New Testament by hundreds and hundreds of
years. Or how about the ancient Greeks? This guy Aristotle had a
bestselling paperback you might have heard of. It's called Ethics, and
it's about... you're gonna love this... virtue and moral character.

Those were history lessons three and four. You're in bad
shape, sparring partner. Don't worry, logic and critical thinking come
slowly at first. That tingling feeling tells you it's working.

>> It would be intellectually impossible for you to say
Christianity has never made any contributions to society.

That's
right, it would. But you're arguing a point I never brought up.
You're jabbing your lance on the wrong side of the room. I'm over
here. (Hi.) What I DID say is that it would be impossible for the
faithful to prove the existence of gods with logic, reason, and intellectual
arguments, an argument that you danced away from in our last exchange.

That right there, that's what I meant when I talked about moving
goalposts by the way. Your side does it ceaselessly.

>> I believe Scripture is in fact the inspired, infallible,
and inerrant Word of God.

(*sigh*) Then why don't you defend
stoning people to death for breaking the Commandments, hmm? Answer this
one, won't you? Because we've been around this circle two or three times
now, and I still can't get a sensible reply. I'd actually really like to
know how you get around it.

>> I believe it was
written at a specific time to specific people, and can only be understood
correctly if we read it in the context of that culture.

Oh, THAT'S
how you get around it. Gotcha. This is what I was referring to
before with the equivocating. It's God's inerrant truth, but you have to
look at it only during the winter solstice on mid-afternoons between the hours
of 2:00 and 3:30, facing west when the light hits it just a certain
way...

Give me a break. You are trying to have it both ways,
and I won't let you. I'm not letting you off this hook, sparring
partner. This is one goalpost that I'm not going to let you move, one
argument that I'm not going to let you dance away from. If it's God's
inerrant truth, then why don't we get to stone Commandment-breakers to
death? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> That's all I got,
Jason. I hope you learn something

I've learned something,
alright. Your sense of history is abhorrent. It's
breathtaking. To miss not only the equal rights movement of the 20th
Century but the entire cannons of the Jewish people and the ancient Greeks,
well... either you slept through all of your liberal arts classes, or you're
willfully ignorant. Either way it's a tragic state of affairs. Thank
goodness I'm here.

>> I'm looking forward to hearing
objections you have about what the Bible says, because I'm sure there are quite
a few.

Don't you see, we're two grown men trying to make sense of
the world around us the only way we know how: our minds. Men (and women)
have been doing this very same thing since time immemorial. It's a
cherished and honored tradition, and I'm delighted to share it with you.
Of course I have objections to the Bible. So do you! You look at the
Bible and tell yourself that it's half-right, half of the time, as do I.
I'd be a fool to throw the whole thing out, because there are some amazing feats
of human inspiration in there. The Sermon On The Mount is, in my opinion,
among the greatest literary masterpieces of all time. If there's one thing
we have in common, it's that we both love parts of the Bible and we both have
objections to the Bible, and that should be a reason for rejoicing. It's
called common ground, and I suspect it's rarer than either one of us can
imagine.

I mean right now I'm listening to Die Sieben Worte
Jesu Christi am Kreuz by Schütz, and it's beautiful. It's
miraculous. I'm moved to tears when I hear the Ave Maria, or when I gaze
upon the ancient cathedrals of Europe. Of course Christians have made
wonderful contributions to our culture. But so have Jews and Muslims and
atheists and Buddhists and Native Americans and Hindus and... and so on.
You guys just seem to forget that you don't have a corner on the market.

By the way, do you mind if we move this conversation over to my
Gmail account? It's intothefuture@gmail.com.

All the
best, and very warmly,

Jason

Rational vs Spiritual: The God Smackdown

My sparring partner Jake has been a great sport. He’s put up with my condescending tone, my straw-man attacks, and my overly-inflated sense of national pride. I've put up with his moving goalposts, his equivocations, and his attempts to save my (doomed) soul. Somehow through the shouting we've managed to forge the tentative beginnings of a friendship.

I decided to reproduce our last three exchanges here on my blog. To set it up, it's important to note that I sent Jake a picture of two grade school girls wearing t-shirts with "God Hates Fags" written in huge letters across the chest and asked him, "Are you sure you want to be associated with these f*cktards?" Without missing a beat, he sent me a picture of Stalin and asked me the same.

Here is the first of three exchanges. More to follow soon.

Jake:

En Garde! :)

I agree. It is a beautiful thing when two people can disagree,
even vehemently, and still get along. I'm not sure how a picture of an
observatory makes you look like a psycho, but ok. You're right, though. I guess
I am in the business of persuasion. The persuasion was so subtle, I even fooled
myself. I still stand by this truth: I'll never convince anyone to be a
Christian. I can only commend every person's conscience in the sight of
God.

Our worldviews are very different, including how we perceive
things. I personally cannot entertain the idea a God does NOT exist when I look
around me, and see what I refer to as "creation" And you’re the exact opposite.
I also don’t want you to think I’m intelligent. I’m really not that smart. I’m
passionate about theology, and I seek to find truth, but I can be a bit of a
doof sometimes.

I just got your message, and yeah, sadly, I’ve seen that
before. I abhor what those people stand for. It’s such a misrepresentation of
the truth it makes me sick. My twin brother is a homosexual, and we talk about
it all the time. I love my brother, and my prayer for him is the same. I pray
he’ll trust Christ. If you want to know what Biblical Christians actually think
about homosexuality, and not that garbage coming out of a small corner of our
amazing, but self-obsessed country, listen to these messages:

Link #1

That is Al Mohler, he’s a smart guy, and he looks at it more
theologically. And…

Link #2

John Piper, he speaks at more of a personal
level.

I’m really not a good sparring partner. I can’t say that
enough. I’ll just throw the same arguments you’ve heard before, and I have
nothing new to offer you, so it probably wouldn’t go anywhere. I even
occasionally look up words you use in an online dictionary. Besides, the old “I
just look around and say to myself, ‘there just has to be something more.’”
Doesn’t work because, well, if that’s how you feel, you have a plethora of
religions you can choose from, and most are far less antagonistic than
Christianity. I’ll also embarrassingly admit my wife is much smarter than me,
and she’d probably be better at intellectual arguments, but she also feels the
same way I do about their effectiveness.

Anyways, I hope you have a good weekend as well. I do think
it’s funny you mentioned “the great exchange” in your email. (thanks for the
great exchange) because that’s what C.S. Lewis refers to Christianity as. By the
way, there are a couple of Christian minds I would encourage you to look up.
They are C.S. Lewis, and Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, especially, would be
worth your time. Of course, as I write this, I’m imagining how I would react to
you encouraging me to read Atheist authors, but I thought I’d throw it out
anyways. Thanks for your phone number. I may just take you up on
that.

Jake

Me:

OK, OK. I'll take Stalin up the ass if it means you have to
take the God Hates Fags up the ass. I think that's a fair trade. The
only thing is that I could go on to cite witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition,
9/11, the raping of alter boys, 9/11, the Crusades, abortion clinic bombings,
9/11, the bullying and murdering of minorities, 9/11, and mentally traumatizing
generations of young children with images of imaginary demons. And you'll
have... well, you'll still just have Stalin I guess.

>> I'm not sure how a picture of an observatory makes
you look like a psycho, but ok.

Oops, sorry! Your original comment was, "That is a
really sweet picture you have on your profile, by the way." I guess I was
conclusion-jumping. There are many pictures on my profile, but I don't
think any of them are of an observatory. Did you mean the trees and the
night sky? If so, there's an interesting God story behind that
picture. (THAT out to whet your appetite.)

>> I'm really not that smart. I'm passionate about
theology, and I seek to find truth, but I can be a bit of a doof sometimes.

You seem smart enough to me. And it's obvious that
you're passionate.

>> If you want to know what Biblical Christians actually
think about homosexuality, and not that garbage coming out of a small corner of
our amazing, but self-obsessed country, listen to these messages:

I think I know what "Biblical Christians" actually think about
homosexuality. I just wish you guys would get your act together and sing
from the same hymnal. Using the Bible to condemn homosexuals - even
lovingly - is a joke if I can't turn around and use the Bible to sell my
daughter into slavery or stone my coworker to death for not observing the
sabbath. You guys cherry pick your chapters and verses, and that should
really, really bug you.

And as long as we're on the topic, I think you should know I'm
gay. I've been in a committed relationship for 14 months, and we're a pair
of godless, infidel sodomites. Just thought I should put that out there
before you pick up the phone to call me. You should know what you're
getting into, but don't worry: we're both responsible, respectable, smart,
law-abiding adults with good manners.

>> It's such a misrepresentation of the truth it makes
me sick.I thought you guys didn't like to talk about truth.

Isn't that being a little to "intellectual" and "rational" for
you?

>> I'll also embarrassingly admit my wife is much
smarter than me, and she'd probably be better at intellectual arguments, but she
also feels the same way I do about their effectiveness.

You're wise to back away from intellectual arguments [regarding the existence of God], dear sparring partner, because your
side could never, ever win one. Let me take you to school:

Imagine if you will that a good friend of yours invites you
into his home, and shocks you with the revelation that he has an invisible tiger
in his house. He tells you not to move, that your life is in jeopardy if
you anger the tiger, that he will pounce and rip you to shreds. Then you
pause, look your friend over, and wonder out loud how it could be that an
invisible tiger could come to exist in the first place, let alone reside in his
house. What evidence can your friend offer that there really IS an
invisible tiger in his house? Your friend throws his hands in the air,
complains that there's no point in trying to prove it rationally, and curses the
ineffectiveness of intellectual arguments.

Right. Meanwhile, you're wondering if you're really
about to be attacked, and whether or not your friend has lost all possession of
his faculties. Think about this. Your friend brought up the
invisible tiger and then accused YOU of being overly analytical for demanding to
know whether the invisible tiger is real. Wow.

This is what rational people have to put up with when we
engage the faithful. Don't bring up the god thing and then characterize
rational people as elitist egg heads who miss the point when we demand
evidence. You're the ones talking to imaginary friends. We're just
standing here.

>> Besides, the old "I just look around and say to
myself, 'there just has to be something more.'" Doesn't work

No kidding it doesn't work. Just because human beings
feel that way DOESN'T MEAN THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE. Having a gut
feeling doesn't dictate what's true or untrue about the universe.

>> Of course, as I write this, I'm imagining how I would
react to you encouraging me to read Atheist authors

Don't worry, I'm not going to encourage you to read atheist
authors. I'm not actually an atheist myself, at least not
technically. The term "atheist" is the label the faithful hang around the
necks of people who insist on falsifiable evidence. I'm a rational skeptic
and a student of scientific naturalism who eschews dogma. I don't go out
of my way to not believe in gods. I'm just standing here. You're the
one with the invisible tiger.

>> I'm really not a good sparring partner. I can't say
that enough. I'll just throw the same arguments you've heard before, and I have
nothing new to offer you, so it probably wouldn't go anywhere.

I agree. We're not going to change each other's minds
anytime soon. Maybe sparring isn't what we should be doing. Maybe we
should try to learn from each other. You are smart (despite what you may
think), and passionate, and I go out of my way to be around smart, passionate
people -- especially those who disagree with me.

>> thanks for the great exchange

Thank YOU for the great exchange. I hope it's not been
in vain.

Jason

Jake:

Off The Grid - For Now

I'm sad to say I won't be blogging for a while, loyal readers. I'm working a summer job with lots of typing, and my tendinitis is really acting up. Who knew computer keyboards could be so deadly?

Needless to say I'll be taking copious notes of all the things that piss me off between now and the end of August, when I return. (Perhaps sooner, if something really pisses me off.)

All the best, and have a great summer!

Freaky Homeless Guy

So a freaky homeless guy followed me to work today. He was squatting in front of the Jerusalem's Restaurant entrance near 15th & Nicollet, and sprung to his feet as I approached him. He complimented me on my “nice uniform” and told me he was looking for friends or maybe a boyfriend. I told him I could be his friend until we reached 11th Street, but he was on his own in the boyfriend department. In the meantime, you need to walk faster.

He was in his mid 30’s, looked a little bit like the guy from Simply Red, and smelled like old salad dressing. I got the feeling that he probably worked in a stoner indie record store when he was in college, and maybe never really recovered from a super bad acid trip in, oh, I’d say about 1992. He told me his name, but I didn’t remember it. Something with a “z” in it. I was too busy sizing him up and trying to figure out how to lose him.

Ever had one of those friends in high school that would come over to your house for a party and never leave? With a tiny bag of seedy pot and beady, shifty eyes? That’s this guy. It was like listening to a long, awkward poetry slam. He was spouting conspiracy theories and doing lots of cosmic stream of consciousness prattling. I learned all about his four boyfriends (he's a polyamorist), his impending gay marriage (mazel tov), and some of his past life adventures. I got the impression that he meant "past life" literally, not metaphorically.

He had West Coast written all over him, but he tried to convince me through his (poorly faked) British accent that he had just arrived from Sussex. (I should have asked him how his crossing was.) Then he told me that he was actually born in Minneapolis... in a past life.

And the name dropping; oy gevalt, the name dropping. He must have claimed to know seven random famous people within a 10 minute window. He knows Peter Murphy and Gary Numan, for example. It was like talking to Penelope's creepy male doppelganger. I resisted imitating her.

He followed me into a Caribou where he asked nobody in particular if he could have some water, proceeded to pour himself a cup of cream, and made the baristas nervous. He announced that he used to work at Caribou ... in a past life... and followed me outside.

We kept walking. I was about to warn him that the Target security guards would pounce on him like Kung Fu Pandas... in this life... if he tried to follow me into the corporate complex. He wandered away at the last possible second.

“Later, man. Hey, see you around.”

Jesus, I hope not.

God: Prove It!

A fellow blogger dropped some Christian bait a few weeks back, and I bit. A friendly jab turned into tit-for-tat, and an e-mail exchange ensued.

Something told me not to take on a Christian - especially in the blogosphere - but I couldn't help myself. We seem to be getting along quite well, despite the fact that each of us believes the other is delusional.

Our latest e-mail exchange is blogworthy:

Jake said:

if an intelligent sparing partnor is what your looking for, I'm afraid you'll be quiet disapointed with me. I even misspelled words to ease the disappointment.

To tell the truth, I'm not in the business of persuasion, and even if I were, we both know our minds are made up. I follow the old 2 Corinthians 4 route of "Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing." Now I'm careful no to throw anyone into the perishing category, but I've been around long enough to know convincing anyone of what I believe is foolish, and, well, kind of pointless.

If I'm going to "witness" to someone, I will commend myself to every man's conscience, and I'll use the Bible to do it, because I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and it's living and powerful, able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the human heart. I believe no creature is hidden from God's sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account.

I believe the human heart (including my own) is above all things deceitful, and desperately wicked. I see the deceitfulness of the human heart first hand when I am able to easily convince someone that at the very least, the majority of the human race is evil, but have found it impossible to convince someone they are part of that majority. That's becoming increasingly more difficult, because more people have faith in mankind, and believe only a minority are "evil"

These are all things you probably don't believe, but at least, I'm sure, you know and understand. And I can assure you I've probably heard most of the rebuttal.

The reason I don't "reason" belief is simple It's logical enough for any rational human being to understand and appreciate:

When I observe intelligent people, I notice that regardless of their intellectual ability, they can believe in very different things. I see people who probably have higher IQ's than both of us put together who affirm the Bible as inerrant, infallible, and inspired. Examples would be men like Martin Luther, Albert Mohler, and (Isaac Newton?). There are many others, but you get the idea. Now you can say these men are idiots, but it's not true. Have they sold out some aspect of their intelligence? Have they just ignored a part of their brain altogether to buy into this religious garbage? You can concoct all sorts of theories, but let's keep this simple. They are intelligent, and they believe the Bible to be the Word of God. What I also see, however, are men who are at least as brilliant as these men who deny the existence of any sort of deity. Men like Richard Dawkins, Einstein, and many others as well.

I'm simply proposing this: Could it be possible that the real issue isn't how much you know? Is there something else going on here? You can't say only stupid people buy into religion, because clearly it's not true, and you certainly can't say brilliant people must conclude that God is real, because that's not true either, so why would I try to convince someone from an intellectual standpoint of the existence of God?

I just want you to ponder this, and respond if you want. I will promise you one thing, though, and you can bet your house on this…
If you think about it long enough, and talk to enough people, you will find a perfectly suitable explanation for this that will appease your conscience, and when you do, hopefully it will strike what really is the issue…

The part of you that you appeased.

ok, ok. I'm done preaching.
That is a really sweet picture you have on your profile, by the way.

My reply:

Thank you for the compliment. It's actually funny what you said about my picture, because my mom thinks it makes me look like a deranged psycho.

Please know that nothing I say here is said with malice. The gloves may be coming off, but I don't mean any of this to come across as hostile or angry.

OK, here we go.

You tell me that you're "not in the business of persuasion," and yet you go on to say, "Could it be possible that the real issue isn't how much you know? Is there something else going on here?" That sounds like you're employing the tools of persuasion, dear sparring partner. But fear not; I understand that part of being a Christian means spreading the gospel, so I never condemn a Christian for trying to change my mind. It's like condemning a scientist for demanding evidence.

I could turn around and point out that a majority of the scientific community – the uber smart folks who brought you the light bulb, medical science, computers, and space travel – are unbelievers. But I won't, because then I too would be committing the same logical fallacy that you did: I'd be making an argument from authority. Or I could reject your proposal that the still, small voice within me is where a god resides, and point out that scores of atheists all around the world (this one included) listen to their conscience and try to do the right thing every day of their lives without the help of a deity. But I won't, because the onus is not on the rational to disprove the existence of supernatural beings.

The onus, dear sparring partner, is on those who claim supernatural beings exist, and no convincing evidence has yet been produced to back up this claim. (Although the Shroud of Turin was a damn good try. Your side gets an A for effort on that one.) All we get are hoaxes, magic tricks, appeals to authority, arguments from antiquity, arguments ad populi (how can God not exist if so many people believe, etc.), equivocations, apologies, excuses, admonitions, fear mongering, and moving goalposts.

Even the brightest and most vociferous proponents of the intelligent design movement (some of the smartest people alive today) couldn't convince a conservative, Bush-appointed judge that their "theory" offers one single shred of physical – or even theoretical – proof that an intelligent creator exists. After all this time you'd think there would be something concrete to which believers could point in an effort to convince the unconvinced, something that would baffle scientists and quiet critics, but there's nothing. Nothing! Why is that? Doesn't that give you pause?

A believer would probably answer that argument with the tired old canard that God does not suffer himself to be contested by unbelievers, and that anyway, faith means believing in spite of a lack of physical evidence. But that completely dances away from the problem of God's existence, and opens us up to the dreadful specter of God popping in and out of reality as a function of his believers' whim. He's either there or he isn't, and no amount of daydreaming is going to settle the question. And how on earth are we going to answer this question but by evidence?

A believer could also argue that God only reveals himself to the faithful, but that's a logical fallacy known as the self-fulfilling prophecy – and it's often associated with mental illness. So faith per se is not the answer to the physical proof problem, and we're back where we started. It's unacceptable to say, "He's there because I say he is." Sorry. That's just not good enough, dear sparring partner.

The problem of evidence is an insurmountable obstacle for the faithful, and an impenetrable shield for the rational.

(Pause. Breath.)

I know it's hard to believe, but I hate the idea of coming at you with my sword unsheathed, my hackles raised. In fact, sparring is something that I've begun to grown weary of in recent years. I seem to have gone through a thunderous transformation from believer to angry denier, and finally to acceptance. I think my excitement at finding a sparring partner is more of a knee-jerk reaction than anything else. It's a shadow of who I was a couple of years ago. (And yet you can still see a flicker of my anger and incredulity, no doubt.)

This may also be hard to believe, but I am indeed interested in extending a friendly hand to an intelligent people who disagree with me on explosively controversial issues... for some reason that really entices me. I somehow feel warmly towards you, which is not what an atheist is usually supposed to feel for a Christian. Then again, I enjoy confounding expectations. It shouldn't be impossible for two people who disagree so strongly to get along as friends. Maybe we can be friends, in spite of our differences. Isn't that like your parable of lions and lambs?

I mentioned before that I'm very patriotic. I'm proud to be an American for many reasons, but the 1st Amendment is definitely among the highest. (I openly criticize people who call for the censorship of Ann Coulter, as I said before.) I can believe what I want to believe, you can believe what you want to believe, and no one can put us in jail or prevent us from living our lives and pursuing our dreams because of it. That's pretty cool. I may disagree passionately with your worldview, but I would literally fight to the death to allow you to freely chose your beliefs and voice your opinions. THAT'S how strongly I feel about our 1st Amendment.

So we can spar and argue and shout and disagree – and then go bowling.

This is a great country.

Flip-Flop Flim-Flam

The term "flip-flop," while not at all new in the English speaking lexicon, took on a new virility during the 2004 presidential race when branded on the forhead of John Kerry.

The iconic re-birthing of this Washington zinger took on the form of Kerry haters dressing up as a pair of flip flops. Hey, what they lacked in originality they made up for in brevity. The message got across loud and clear, and all it took was one glance.

The phrase has seen an epic rise in popularity in the fickle realm of political rhetoric since then. Everybody has worn the label at least once. Obama wore it during the aftermath of Pastorgate, Hillary wore it during the run up to the war in Iraq, and Bush wore it when he switched his breakfast order from Cheerios to Fruity Pebbles.

A politican who changes his or her position in the teeth of shifting public sentiment is just a weak politician. A change of heart can be sincere. I think it's time to consign the term "flip-flop" back to it's original context: footwear.

When a person -- especially an influential politician -- changes his or her mind, I trust that he or she is doing it for the right reasons. This is why we pick our politicians with such care. We assume that they will be able to alter and modify their policies and decisions as they go along. Whether it reflects thoughtful soul-searching or fresh intelligence, changing one's mind can be a very, very good thing.

For instance, we would live in a much, much better world today if the Bush Administration had found the courage to change its policies in light of the disasterous Iraqi liberation and ensuing occupation. "Gosh, this isn't working" might be hard to say, but it might have saved lives.

I want a president who is unafraid to change his or her mind. I want a president who is thoughtful. I want a president who doesn't stick to his or her guns simply for the sake of avoiding the appearance of weakness. At least in this case, the "weaker" path is the more difficult path.

But the Bush Administration comforts itself in its waning days of power. Never having to say "we may have been wrong" is cold comfort indeed, especially in the shadow of dead American soldiers.