Daily Kos - Kucinich Bill Bans Extrajudicial Killing of U.S. Citizens Earlier this year, The Washington Post and The New York Times revealed that the Obama Administration was continuing a Bush-era policy of including U.S. citizens on lists of people to be assassinated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). These citizens have had no trial.
Bad Astronomy - BREAKING: Republicans derail the COMPETES act In a 261-148 vote that went almost exactly along party lines, the America COMPETES act was defeated. Over $40 billion dollars was designated in that bill to go toward science and technology innovation, and to provide a lot of jobs to meet our nation’s needs for the future.
Bad Astronomy - Climate change attacks followup Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.
Daily Kos - NAS: Urgent Action Needed On Climate Change At the behest of Congress, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering just completed a series of comprehensive reports on Climate Change.
First, thanks for the direct talk. I'm not thrilled with being "Joe the" anything, since I despised the whole "Joe the Plumber" nonsense as it was happening and hoped to forget that it ever did. However, that aside, let's get to the details.
Let's deal first with the Awesome fun Bible fact that started this conversation. You give Bryan "big props" for posting it, even though its veracity, to be nice, is what we'll call "dubious." For starters, the Snopes link that Bryan himself posted, with the comment that "its all true with exception of Psalm 118 being the center chapter," says nothing of the sort. In fact, it points out that the whole thing is nonsense, since the chapter and verse numbers were added long after the texts themselves were compiled. Now, I'm sure that almost anyone can look at that and realize it's nothing more than an exercise in mutual back-patting for people who want to believe everything that supposedly looks like evidence to their faiths, so let's move on.
At one point, you say "Joe the Unbeliever can represent all believers in this case." I assume you mean all unbelievers, so I'll just take that as read. You mention that I listed "all of these things that god has supposedly done." Now, I don't think I need to point out that everything I accused your god of doing is in the bible. Obviously, I don't think he did any of those things, since I don't think he exists. However, everything I mentioned is in the bible, and I would hope that to be such a proselytizer, you would have read the entire bible and would know the quotes I refer to, but here's one example of the many items I mentioned in the comments:
Awesome fun bible fact: god's a horrific monster! (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
I think that it's pretty valid to say that this is an angry, frightening, vengeful, and destructive god, no? Your response was confusing to me, and I'll post it here for reference:
It's odd how the miraculous things of God are played down by unbelievers who view it as "fake" or "made up" but when it comes to seemingly bad things about God or scripture, they speak it like it's true. I praise the Lord though b/c ultimately, no matter what you believe, in the end, "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue shall confess"...
As I pointed out in my response to that, I don't believe god did any of those things, so that makes no sense. You, however, profess to believe that the bible is the true word of your god. Therefore, you do (or should to be considered a believer) believe he did those things.
You are also less than forthcoming when you say that I referred to god "allowing" pillaging of villages, etc. Your god did not just allow those things, he commanded them, as I showed in the Deuteronomy quote. That, of course, is one of many situations in which your god has allowed, yes, but also asked for, encouraged, and demanded torture, slavery, murder, and euthanasia.
Also, I know it's just a semantic difference, but I do think it's important. You say that I indicated that I couldn't "believe in" a god who would do all of those things. That's true, I don't believe in him, but my disbelief isn't because of the horrible things the bible says he did. My disbelief is because there is no evidence for your god's existence, and every single argument used to "prove" his existence is logically flawed. This has been shown time and time again by thousands of people, so I won't try to belabor that point here. What I said was:
if the god of the bible, yahweh sabaoth, war god of the Canaanites, destroyer of worlds, murderer of the children of entire nations, *did* exist, you better believe the first thing I'd do is run. Run, hide, and tremble, because if there's anything Christians are right about, it's that (assuming he exists) he is to be feared. I certainly, however, would not worship such a horrifying entity.
The difference between not believing in and refusing to worship are very distinct, though, to clarify again, I also do not believe he exists.
You reference my calling your god a "sky fairy" and say that you "don't believe in fairies either." This may be true, and obviously that is just a sarcastic moniker. However, I would put a million dollars on your believing in fairies if they were in the bible. As it stands, the bible does not mention fairies as such, but it does mention giants, behemoths (though this could be referencing dinosaurs), dragons, satyrs (half man, half goat), sea monsters (leviathan), unicorns, seven-headed, ten-horned beasts (though to be fair, that was in a crazy, psychedelic flashback type situation, probably induced by ergot-laced bread), zombies (dead risen from the grave, including Jesus), flying serpents, and maybe even aliens (Ezekiel).
You say you do, however, believe in a "just and sovereign god, who has throughout the ages demonstrated his characteristics in many, many ways." Well, as I've pointed out, yes – he has demonstrated his characteristics.
You then mention Proverbs (you were right. 3:5, to be exact).
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding
Well, obviously, this is what you and most religious people do. I think that's obvious. However, to me, it seems insane. It's saying not to trust your own knowledge, what you've learned throughout your life and from your culture's history, not from your own mistakes and your own successes and your own failures – but just trust the lord. Wow. I don't know about you, but I'm glad that everyone doesn't do that, or else our entire planet would be ransacked, and we would be all blindly following a collection of writings ranging from two to several thousand years old, written in a time when slavery was great, women had no rights, no one understood germ theory or basic sanitation, food could not be preserved in any real way, and everyone died at around 30-40 years of age.
Proverbs 9:10, which you also cite, says
Fear of the lord is the beginning of understanding.
Well, I think my response to that would be the same. You're saying that it's ok to be afraid of this relentlessly angry and evil being, because somehow being afraid of him will lead you to understanding. Well, that actually makes more sense than the last quote, because being afraid of an all-powerful entity who will turn you to salt for looking in the wrong direction is, most likely, a good way to begin understanding how very awful and dangerous he is.
A bit past halfway, we get to what I really think is the crux of the issue. You not only think that god should be allowed to act this way, you have actually been convinced that "these are people who deserve it." You're telling me that the men, women, and children, and every land animal on the planet, must have all deserved to be drowned in a violent flood? You're telling me that just because the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were "wicked," every single one of them deserved to die? Yes, I know that Abraham tried to save the city but could not find enough "righteous" people, according to the story. It does take a great amount of faith to believe that not only was god justified in deciding an entire city of men, women, and children could be destroyed based on one man's inability to find enough "righteous" people in time, but I guess those are the breaks, right?
Oh, and of course, all of the first-born of Egypt "deserved it" too, right? And I suppose that Lot's daughters "deserved" to be raped by the men of the town so that god's angels would not be harmed? And, of course, Lot's wife "deserved" to be turned into a pillar of salt, so that god's chosen "righteous" man, now widowed, could leave town with his defiled daughters. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it.
You then go on to say that though god has tormented, slaughtered, allowed the rape and enslavement of so many thousands, he has also equally shown love, compassion, and grace. So you're saying that, on the whole, it evens out? You say, very passionately, that mankind has brought god's wrath upon itself, that god wants to be good to us, but we just keep screwing up. He doesn't want to kill and torture and enslave us, and he doesn't want to send us to hell, but we just won't listen, right? I point you to Battered Person Syndrome:
In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.
Crucial, and all of you who agree with him that we bring this on ourselves, I just have this to say to you: It's not your fault. You can leave him. We will protect you, and he will never do this to you again. It's not your fault. It's not your fault.
Speaking of battered persons, you also defend parents who beat their children. That's up to you, but I doubt that child protective services or most of the developed world would agree with you that when you see a child being beaten, you shouldn't just focus on that, because "you don't know the whole story." I won't even try to discuss your mentioning of "the emo girl in your school," because I think it's silly and not very relevant.
Let me point out again, since you say again near the end that you think that a few verses about god being a meanie are "the justification for my unbelief." They're not. They're the reasons why I'm glad that your god doesn't exist. I'm glad. He's a bully. A maniacal, indecisive, violent, evil, omnipotent, omniscient bully.
You encourage nonbelievers to read more about god, to press further into who he is and what he's about, etc. Honestly, that's what I've done, and that's why I don't believe in him and am glad that he does not exist.
Let's talk more about this "Socialism" word that's been bandied about so much lately. Redistribution is one socialist tenet, but saying that someone is a member of group X for sharing one belief with that group is like calling a Muslim a Christian because "The belief in one god is an Christian tenet."
Can you all REALLY not see that our government is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism? It has been for at least all of the 20th century, if not always. That's also true for every other modern country. I'd like to see you run a country with absolutely no redistribution.
The reason for this, of course, hinges on the fact that money is made up out of nothing already and only exists because of faith in the government that backs it, so money itself is socialist, if you want to look at things the way you are currently.
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
So, what kind of socialist is Obama, geniuses?
Obama is NOT a socialist. He agrees more with socialists on some economic issues and more with conservatives on others. McCain also believes in "spreading the wealth around" to some degree, as does the majority of the country (and the world). McCain believes in social security, welfare, poverty assistance, medicare and medicaid, and economic stimulus checks (even to those who don't pay taxes, I'd bet, in some cases). I haven't heard him make a single comment about taxes being an inherently bad thing, about not wanting to help people pay for food or shelter or medicine if they can't afford it, or about dismantling any government-run economic programs.
If anything, the most you can say is that McCain is LESS socialist than Obama. The only ignorant people in this debate are those who don't see that or refuse to admit it.
UPDATE: See? McCain is a socialist, too. Oh, and the man whose words conservatives ignore almost as much as their beloved Jesus:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
This is hilarious. One of my favorite sillyness examples when related to religious fundamentalism. Dobson says Leviticus no longer matters? The whole old testament is overridden by Jesus? Then why is homosexuality wrong? Why is the earth still only 6,000 years old? Why was it still created in 7 days?
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy - chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
Nearly 2,000 years later, some who claim to speak in Jesus' name are taking a different view. Consider Bishop Eddie Long, who pastors a megachurch in Lithonia, Ga. With a salary approaching $1 million a year and a nine-bathroom mansion situated on 20 acres, Long's choice of vehicles reflects his opulent lifestyle: He drives a $350,000 Bentley.
Far from casting out money changers, Long is likely to join them. In a 2005 profile in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he defended his high-flying ways, insisting, "I pastor a multimillion dollar congregation. You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering."
I just met a person the other day who used to go to the megachurch near my house. He told me they thought about putting a Starbucks in at one point.
Bors Blog: World History With The Pope Funny comic response to pope benedict saying atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice
On the Origin of Species - Condensed and Abridged Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life ...in 9,387 words
About 2 years ago, I wrote this post, referencing a post on Dave Pollard's site, How to Save the World. The basic idea was that several blogs had had their traffic skyrocket just by including a photo called porn.jpg, shown here:
It was just a silly experiment, but I was looking today, and you know what? That post is my 7th most popular post ever. Jesus, people.
Seed: Pollutants Change 'He' Frogs into 'She' Frogs Frogs that started life as male tadpoles were changed in an experiment into females by estrogen-like pollutants similar to those found in the environment, according to a new study.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6184577.stm Scientists say the benefits that come from trees reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide can be outweighed by their capacity to trap heat near the ground. - not good news for carbon offset companies
Computer modelling indicates that trees only really work t
Discovery Channel :: News - Archaeology :: Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazaret
Science Friday on evolution today's Science Friday will feature Ed Humes and Randy Olson talking about educating people about evolution"tune in!
Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet | csmonitor.com It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially defor
Climate Challenge Cool flash game on the bbc - try to stop global warming while remaining a popular and helpful president
GOP Rep. Recycles Phony Lincoln Quote During Escalation Debate | TPMCafe Here's GOP Rep. Don Young of Alaska on the House floor today, coming out against the anti-escalation resolution. To make his case, Young very portentously attributed the following quote to Abraham Lincoln: "Congressmen who willfully take action during war
Kansas Adopts New Science Standards he Kansas State Board of Education has changed the state science standards once again, this time to take out language questioning evolution. This turnaround comes fast on the heels of the ouster given this past election to the ultra-conservative Board
The image of the infant god-man is an important one in Christianity, but it was no less so in pagan savior religions.
Madonna and infant Jesus.
This one is perhaps the most strikingly Jesus-like, and depicts the infant Dionysus. This is from the 4th century B.C.
From the Roman catacombs - Mother Isis with infant Horus.
Far more prevalent than any other symbol in Christianity is the cross or crucifix. This is said to represent the cross on which Jesus was crucified before rising from the grave 3 days later. However, in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter says Jesus was "hung on a tree." St. Paul's letter to the Galatians says the same. The god-man Attis was also hung, on a pine tree (remember the pine cone imagery). The cross, according to Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy of The Jesus Mysteries was an important symbol in the ancient world. The four arms represented the four elements.
(The Jesus Mysteries, 50-52).
From The Jesus Mysteries: Dionysus as a child is given a cross as an omen of his fate - to be crucified.
Another symbol often used in Christianity is the Ichthys, or "Jesus Fish." The symbol was used by Christians to mark their secret meeting places or was used as a "secret handshake," or perhaps both. Christian reasons for the history of this symbol are that it represents Jesus' miracle of feeding 5,000 people with fish or that Jesus called his disciples "fishers of men." However, the symbol's history is much older and more complicated than that.
When Jesus helps catch a large number of fish in the Gospel of John, the gospel mentions that it was 153 fish. Pagan priest and mathematician Pythagoras and his followers regarded 153 as a sacred number, and the ratio of height to length of the shape is 153:265, which Archimedes called "the measure of the fish. When two circles of the same circumference are combined such that the edge of one touches the center of the other, we see the fish take form:
Final Analysis: The similarities between these pagan god-men and the symbols and art that were inspired by their stories, and Jesus Christ are interesting. They bring into question, in my mind, the very foundations of Christianity. Was the story of Jesus yet another story of a dying and resurrecting god-man combined with the prophecy of the Jewish savior? Was there ever a real "Jesus The Man?" These questions fall outside of the scope of this project, but the similarities are striking.
I hope you have all enjoyed the presentation. Thank you.
This is a presentation I did for a class, but I thought it was pretty interesting, so I figured I'd post it here.
The Son of God was born several thousand years ago on December 25. He was described thusly: He "is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15). He was depicted as an infant on the lap of his mother in art, and one of these depictions can be found in the catacombs of Rome. As an adult, he was a traveling teacher and healer, and he had 12 disciples.
His birth was celebrated yearly on December 25, as was his resurrection, which happened 3 days after his death and entombment. His disciples "formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ" (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).
This story sounds familiar to all of you, I'm sure. However, it's not the story of Jesus that I'm telling. It is the story of Mithras. Franz Cumont wrote The Mysteries of Mithra (Full Readable Version Here) in 1903. According to him, Mithraism came originally from Persia (basically modern-day Iran). It's not completely certain when Mithraism was primarily observed, but some scholars place it in the 1st century AD. Others say it could have started before then but was most popular during the first to fourth centuries A.D.
These similarities were no secret to early Christians, because they had to endure the mocking of their pagan neighbors who couldn't understand why they believed in the story of Jesus which was so much like their stories that the Christians discarded. Pagan philosopher Celsus asked this very question: "Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God"
Tertullian, a church father, wrote "The Devil, whose business it is to pervert the truth, mimicks the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments, in the Mysteries of idols. He himself baptises some that is to say, his believers and followers; he promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras: thus he marks on the forehead his own soldiers: there he celebrates the oblation of bread: he brings in the symbol of the Resurrection, and wins the crown with the sword."
Tertullian and the early Christians, then, were so painfully aware that their beliefs were so similar to those of the Dionysus/Bacchus/Mithras followers that they came up with an explanation - Satan himself created these stories before Jesus was born in order to confuse those who might otherwise become Christians.
Many ancient Christian sites are built on top of pagan sites after the Christian religion took over in those places. Italy is no different, with Rome hosting many Christianized sites. St. Clement's Church, one of the oldest churches in Rome, was built on top of a Mithraeum, or Temple of Mithras. This is an image of ruins taken from the Mithraeum:
Another such Christianized site is St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican Church. There are many tombs under the Basilica. These were discovered during a 1939 excavation. Some of the tombs found were non-Christian, and others were Pagan, but one bit of imagery found on one of the Christian tombs is interesting:
This image depicts Jesus, but he is depicted as a sun god or "Sol Invictus," a later form of Mithras.
Mithras is not the only pagan god who shares similarities with Jesus, however. Mithras as savior, son of god, born on December 25 and resurrected 3 days after his death is acting as another representation of the general god-man known to scholars as Osiris-Dionysus. Here you can find a chart comparing many dying and resurrecting god-men with Jesus.
This particular amulet, which supposedly depicts Dionysus/Bacchus, other Roman forms of the god-man, has been claimed a forgery by some, but evidence is inconclusive either way.
Another interesting similarity between pagan and Christian art is the use of pine cones in Dionysus imagery and Christian imagery, particularly in the Vatican and in Catholic dress.
Here, Dionysus carries a pine cone on a staff.
Here, Bacchus carries the pine cone staff.
This is the largest pine cone in the world at the Court of the Pine Cone, Vatican.
Bartlett on peak oil Last Friday, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) appeared in a 90-minute documentary called Oil Crash.
Oil and security Western national-security experts are still wedded to the idea that "threat to our country" means "aggression toward our country,"
Recent Evolution - SciFri Podcast - 2006031012 A new survey of the human genome indicates that there may be as 700 genetic variants that have undergone changes within the past 10,000 years.
H.R. 1606: Time to ACT Please take a moment to call your Rep. about this FEC/internet issue. I know it doesn't seem like the most important issue in the world, but it's a tremendous threat to the legal existence of sites like this."
Here are my most recent del.icio.us links: Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman
The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics.
The Wizard of Oil "We're off to steal the Business, The Wonderful Business of Oil! You'll find it is a Whiz of a Biz! If ever a Biz there was!
How to Turn Your Kid into a Treehugger Want your kids to become as passionate about the environment as you are? According to a new study out of Cornell, it's as simple as getting them outdoors
Growing potatoes Clean it well and make drainage holes in the bottom. Add about six inches of soil to the bottom and plant a layer of seed potatoes five or six is the right amount for a whiskey barrel. When the sprouts reach six to eight inches high, shovel more dirt
generate a word cloud from your blog A word cloud is a visual depiction of content (words) used in a body of text. The word clouds we use at snapshirts.com are arranged alphabetically and depict more frequently used words in progressively larger fonts.
Here it is. Right off the bat, he's starting out with a caustic attack on religion. He's my brother, but I got all the tact in the family. He'd rather piss people off. It's sure fun to watch!
I know, a tired topic - but I don't care! My brother told me about this girl the other day who said that "all the evidence for evolution can fit on one table." I found that funny, because I'm sure it's quite true - you could probably put it all on a dvd-r or two and plop them on a table. But, um, what does that have to do with the validity of a theory? Also, how much space can the evidence of the existence of god take up?
There was this kid in my biology class who, when told that human beings were homo sapiens, continually shouted "I ain't no damn homo!" We couldn't make him understand that "homo" didn't mean gay unless it was suffixed with "sexual." He said "I'm a damn tree, then, 'cause I ain't no homo."
He was a winner. This was 10th grade.
My beef with religious folk not agreeing with evolution is that "man created Adam from the soil" is to be taken literally while the firmament, a dome with holes in it that leaks water when it rains, is meant to be a metaphor. Of course, had you questioned this a few hundred years ago you'd have been beheaded. Hell, you could be killed for saying the earth was round or that the universe wasn't revolving with the earth at it's center.
See, it's really convenient when you can say "that's a metaphor" after it's been proven untrue. How long until everyone realizes that "creating Adam from the soil" and "taking his rib to create eve" is a freaking obvious as hell metaphor? I mean, even if there is a dude in the sky who blinked everything into creation, do you think he really would have tried to explain evolution to people who couldn't even figure out that drinking the water the animals bathed in was a bad idea?
Why can't you accept that the dude sitting on a cloud with a white beard is TRYING his best to explain to you how things actually happened now that you have the ability to explain and verify it? Why can't you accept that maybe, if he does exist, he's trying to use these people of great knowledge and wisdom in order to give you the truth? I mean, don't forget, they crucified Jesus for delivering god's messages - they always kill god's messengers.
The red-hot rhetoric over Social Security on liberal talkradio network AIR AMERICA has caught the attention of the Secret Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Government officials are reviewing a skit which aired on the network Monday evening -- a skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to the president!
The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."
The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.
"What is with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.
"Even joking about shooting the president is a crime, let alone doing it on national radio... we are taking this very seriously," a government source explained.
Oh Jesus. I already disliked this woman, and now i dislike her even more. Way to make your network look bad, Rhodes. Judge what you think for yourself; here's an MP3.
To recap the story: three malls in the Palm Beach area are calling their seasonal varmints by names other than the Easter Bunny, so as to get all parents, not just the Christian ones, to bring the tikes to the mall to get some chocolate eggs and then buy a bunch of stuff from Toys 'R Us
The promo from the Fox News site:
Why is the "Easter bunny" under attack? You won't believe what some malls in Florida have planned less than two weeks before one of biggest day's on the Christian calendar.
Ok, no, seriously. This is true. From the transcript:
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: You know something, David? Look, where is the tolerance on the left anymore? I mean, this is the Easter Bunny. This is about Bob's kids and my kids going to the mall. Are you really going to be hurt, are you really going to be offended by a mall identifying a bunny as the Easter Bunny? Is your faith shaken that deeply?
SILVERMAN: On a scale of one to ten, we're talking about a two. But on a scale of one to ten, the actual act of calling it something more neutral is nice to see. You know, it's nicer to see.
HANNITY: Should we remove the name of Jesus Christ from the public square totally?
SILVERMAN: We're talking about the Easter Bunny.
HANNITY: Take "In God We Trust" off U.S. coins, right? "One nation under God" out of the Pledge. We go back to the Declaration of Independence and say, "Endowed by our creator," out, too?
SILVERMAN: Absolutely not. We're talking about malls that are allowed to call the Easter Bunny anything they want.
This is faaaaaaaaaaar nuttier than the Christmas is under attack bullshit that O'Reilly and his cohorts were spouting at the end of last year. At least that was about people "attacking" a Christian holiday... not that it's really very Christian anymore... and not that anyone was actually attacking it. But the EASTER BUNNY? The only relation he has to Easter is that his name includes the word, and in some homes he shows up on Easter to give the kids candy. He certainly has nothing at all to do with the resurrection of Jesus, that's for sure.
I mean damn, the idea of a Godman dying and being resurrected is very deeply rooted in Paganism, but the Easter Bunny is quadruply so.
The rabbit is well known as a sexual symbol of fertility. In various parts of the world, religions which developed from Babel also associate the rabbit with periodicity, both human and lunar (Egypt, China, etc.). As you may remember, the Mother Goddess Semiramis (Easter) is associated with the Moon. In other words, the Easter bunny symbolizes the Mother Goddess. Annual Spring time fertility rituals are associated worship of the Mother Goddess and Tammuz, the reincarnation of her husband Nimrod.
In fact, many Christians think it's evil to do the whole bunny thing, because it's so Pagan and evil and... whatnot.
Finally, we hear from Rush:
Rush concludes by saying, "But I bet this is happening all over the country: the banning of the Easter bunny and Easter eggs and this sort of thing." And if it is, it's undoubtedly the fault of the ACLU, Ward Churchill, and Hillary Clinton.
Politics : John Negroponte Nominated As National Intelligence Director
This means that Negroponte will be the top intelligence officer in the country. Why do I think this is a bad thing?
John Negroponte is currently the U.S. Embassador to Iraq. I was against this as well, for the same reasons I'm against him being our Intelligence Director. However, it's even scarier for him to be a top U.S. intelligence official, because now it's US that he's going to be fucking with - not just poor, defenseless foreigners.
Also, don't forget about The Salvador Option in Iraq, in which the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration's battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success.
John Negroponte is an unsuitable candidate for National Intelligence Director.
Mr. Negroponte was a key figure in the Iran-Contra affair. As Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, he helped direct the covert war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. He has also been charged as collaborating with the Honduran government in the training of so-called "death squads" and in carrying out other human rights abuses. These charges have never adequately been answered.
Themes, Memes and Symbols:
John Negroponte. Iran-Contra. Human rights abuses. Death squads. Bishop Romero. Disappearance and murder of dozens of Nicaraguan nuns. Illegal war against the Sandinistas. Torture.
We're talking about a guy with that history ending up with this job:
If confirmed by the Senate, Negroponte, 65, will assume a post created by legislation aimed at overhauling the nation's intelligence system. . . . "As DNI [director of national intelligence], John will lead a unified intelligence community and will serve as the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters," Bush said in making the announcement. He said Negroponte would have authority over budgets and that the CIA director would report to Negroponte. Bush also said that Negroponte would be "my primary briefer" on intelligence on a daily basis and would have regular access to the president, although he would not work in the White House. . . . The new director will oversee agencies with combined budgets of more than $40 billion, and Bush made clear that Negroponte would have considerable authority over setting those budgets and other matters. Negroponte "will have the authority to order the collection of new intelligence, to ensure the sharing of information among agencies, and to establish common standards for the intelligence community's personnel," Bush said. "It will be John's responsibility to determine the annual budgets for all national intelligence agencies and offices and to direct how these funds are spent. Vesting these in a single official who reports directly to me will make our intelligence efforts better coordinated, more efficient and more effective." Bush said that while CIA Director Porter J. Goss would report to Negroponte, the CIA would "retain its core of responsibilities for collecting human intelligence, analyzing intelligence from all sources and supporting American interests abroad at the direction of the president."
Intelligence Battalion 3-16 was also created in the early 1980s with the help of the CIA. Together with the DNI, Battalion 3-16 is blamed for the repression, capture, interrogation and disappearance of about 180 people, generally popular movement leaders.
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Honduras
October 14, 1998
Barrera . . . recalled how he nearly suffocated people with rubber masks, how he attached wires to their genitals and shocked them with electricity, how he tore off a man's testicles with a rope. "We let them stay in their own excrement," he said, his gold front tooth reflecting the dim lamplight. "When they were very weak, we would take them to disappear."
"I responded to the Economist, I also responded to the committee in 1989, in good faith and to this day, I did not believe that death squads were operating [in Honduras]."
A former commander of Battalion 316, General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, might have made an informative witness at Negroponte's confirmation hearing, but although he has lived in Florida for several years, he is suddenly unavailable. He left the United States in February after his residence visa was canceled . . . When an American reporter asked about the notorious battalion, he demurred, saying he wanted no more "problems with the United States" because "your country is too powerful."
A columnist named Jeff Gaither wrote an interesting column for NCSU's Technician Newspaper, and I felt the need to respond. His thoughts:
According to the Global Evangelization Movement, 85 percent of the population of the world believe in, and worship, some sort of God. And I am not ashamed to count myself among this 85 percent that recognize there exists some power higher and better, than themselves.
But in environments where there are many intellectuals (such as our fine University) one will always find an abundance of persons who do not believe in any God. It is, of course, the right of such people to do so. However, I suspect they do not believe in God not because of any ethical or logical conviction, but from a simple wish to feel intellectually superior to the 85 percent of the world that does believe in a higher power.
A little bit of logic, or a little bit of wisdom, is dangerous. Young people, with good solid minds but almost no experience of the world, analyze the question of the existence of God and draw conclusions that are contrary to the experience and lifetimes of speculation of millions of persons far older and wiser than they.
It seems to me unlikely that any undergraduate student is likely to formulate any arguments against the existence of God that did not occur to such geniuses as Aristotle, Rene Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton, all of whom believed in him.
But I am not implying, of course, that one should not think for oneself. I only stress that one ought to consider that if there are arguments against the existence of God, there are arguments for his existence, too.
In the first place, let us consider that it is a principle of the universe to proceed towards a state of maximum chaos. This is a scientific law (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and also holds true in practical experience. When you don't clean your room every day, it becomes gradually messier and messier, until after a week or so it is a disgusting place, with the trash can overflowing and clothes strewn everywhere, such that it disgusts and depresses you even to enter.
But when you take a walk out in the woods, everything is fine and uncluttered, exactly as it should be. And even if there is clutter, a fallen tree, say, there is beauty in it. There is none of the disorder and aesthetic disgust which one finds in the world of man. And yet we do not expect, physically, nature to be naturally aesthetically pleasing; on the contrary, we expect it to have grown more disorganized and cluttered as time went on. A forest should, by all rights, be filthier than anybody's room.
That a forest, or a canyon, is beautiful, implies that somebody has, in some sense, organized it; and since no man was responsible for this organization, we must (unless we will suppose that aliens came to Earth and organized everything) presume that GOD is responsible for the natural harmony and beauty of the world.
Another excellent reason to believe in a benevolent god is that the world has grown kinder, rather than crueler, throughout history. Torture is no longer practiced in any but a few countries; kings no longer wage war for sport (except perhaps our own); and indeed, when a natural disaster befell the people of Indonesia a few weeks ago, nearly the entire planet sprang to their aid. But why should we care what happens to anybody else? There is no logical, rational reason for it.
And since there are no logical grounds for morality, we can only presume that it comes from some greater idea, which lies outside the bounds of logic. And if we believe in something greater, we have, effectively, believed in God.
The strongest reason to believe in God is not, like these preceding arguments, rational. It is simply that when you speak to him (or her; I do not presume to know God's gender, though I suspect the question has no meaning), you feel a happiness, a joy that comes from outside yourself, a feeling comparable to being in love. So the only conclusions are that God hears you and is sending you love or your mind is releasing endorphins into your system and tricking you into believing that God is responsible for the happiness they produce.
But if this second choice were the case -- if the love of God one experiences through prayer were just a psychological illusion, then could one not get the same joy out of worshipping a rock, or a pencil? It should not make any difference what one prays to, so long as one prays honestly. And yet it is just not satisfying, to pray your troubles to a rock, and beg it for guidance. The happy feeling of prayer only comes when you address God, or nature, or some other suitably high force. I pray to God often, and am certainly happier for it.
Now, no doubt a lot of atheists and agnostics are reading this article and cringing, thinking that the author is weak-minded or gullible, and requires imaginary support for his fragile ego in a cold, meaningless world. And perhaps they are right (I know I am gullible). But I ask, in any case, what is the point of believing in a cold, dry universe, devoid of all meaning? What good could it possibly do anyone to believe in that? If your goal is to be happy, you might as well try believing in God; it can hurt nobody, and might do you a world of good.
Indeed, atheists who vocally condemn religious persons as weak-minded are only trying to bolster their own egos and convince themselves that they are superior to everyone around them. I suggest that prayer, and an opening up to God, are far more efficient and worthy means of gaining happiness, than entertaining in one's mind a false feeling of superiority toward the rest of the world.
" However, I suspect they do not believe in God not because of any ethical or logical conviction, but from a simple wish to feel intellectually superior to the 85 percent of the world that does believe in a higher power. "
After this line, I should have stopped reading. That, too, would have been prudent. What Jeff fails to realize is that not everyone who doesn't believe in the God of the Bible or other holy books is an atheist. Some people, such as myself, simply know through research that most of the Bible, Koran, Torah, and what have you is fiction. No one can argue very well for the existence of God any more than they can argue against it. So-called "proof" of his existence, such as the scientific evidence Jeff mentions, doesn't prove anything except that God's existence is possible. It certainly doesn't prove that the God of the Bible, who killed the first born sons of the egyptians, flooded the planet because most of the people on it didn't listen to him, forced a man to hold a knife to his son's throat only to save the boy at the last second, covered a BELIEVER with boils to test his faith, exists or ever existed. If he does, I don't ever want to meet him in a dark alley.
Proving the nonexistence of God is, of course, impossible. However, proving the fallacies in the bible is simple. The sky is not a firmament with holes that leak water when it rains. There is no evidence that Jesus (or Yeshua, which actually is Joshua) ever existed during the proposed lifetime of Jesus Christ in that part of the world other than the fact that there were tons of people with that name at that time. There is no evidence of the Jesus of the Bible even mentioned in historical texts until several hundred years after he supposedly lived, by people trying to spread the Christian faith. Our species has existed for several hundred thousand years, but the God of the Bible only revealed himself a few thousand years ago, and then only to a small group of people?
I have no problem with religion. I have no problem with people believing or not believing in God if they so desire. However, it has to be pointed out to people such as Jeff that even if there is a higher power of some sort, which I believe there likely is, it is beyond all comprehension of our mere organic minds that have yet to even allow us to get past useless wars and resource plundering. It probably not the least bit humanlike, and I doubt it created US in its image. If that higher power exists, I hardly see why he would ask his people to write a book full of now obvious falsehoods and call it his infallible work.
Haha, some doofus left a bunch of those jesus tracts in the men's room. I swiped them and did some editing before returning them.
They weren't even the funny kind, those Chick booklets that you find that talk about how you'll go to hell if you celebrate Halloween... these were the "hell fire" type (they actually said the words "hell fire" on them) from some local Baptist church.
It is touching that the Right has managed to transform the holiday season into another hate fest. But, let me say this -- when the occasion arises, I tend to say "happy holidays." Not because I'm worried about offending people. Not because I'm trying to be overly inclusive to people of all faiths. It's because it really feels fucking stupid saying "Merry Christmas" on December 1 when Christmas is over 3 weeks away.
The "holiday season" is that period from Thanksgiving until New Years. If we count Thanksgiving, which we should given the ever-lengthening advertising campaign which seems to define the season, that includes 3 federal holidays, one of which falls on December 25. Now, some people may like wishing others a "Merry Christmas" over a 40 or so day period which encompasses the "holiday season," and good for them, but I personally like wishing people a "Merry Christmas" on or about the actual day. I even think it may be what the baby Jesus would want, though I'll have to check with Pope O'Reilly I.
When Oliver Cromwell took over England in 1645, Christmas was cancelled as part of a Puritan effort to rid the country of decadence. This proved unpopular, and when Charles II was restored to the throne, he restored the celebration. The Pilgrims, a group of Puritanical English separatists who came to North America in 1620, also disapproved of Christmas, and as a result it was not a holiday in early America. The celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed from 1659 to 1681 in Boston, a prohibition enforced with a fine of five shillings. The people of the Jamestown settlement, on the other hand, celebrated the occasion freely. Christmas fell out of favor again after the American Revolution, as it was considered an "English custom", and it was not declared a federal holiday in the United States until June 26, 1870.
Nearly half of all Americans surveyed said they think the US government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.
The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious....
For your convenience, Steve over at "No More Mr. Nice Blog" has broken up the results on party
affiliation and religiosity. As the survey notes, "high religiosity" is
high Christian religiosity, American style:
Religiosity is measured only for Christian, Atheist, or Agnostic
respondents; together these comprise eighty-seven percent of the sample
(625 respondents). Adherents to other faiths are excluded from analyses
involving religion. The measure is a standardized additive index of
four separate questions: self-reported church attendance, literal
interpretation of the Bible, self-identification as an "evangelical,"
and whether the respondent believes Israel is a fulfillment of the
biblical prophesy about the second coming of Jesus. Using the overall
measure, respondents were split into thirds and categorized as
exhibiting low, moderate, or high religiosity.
Now, the results of key questions -- on Muslims and life during wartime in general.
1) Government should have greater power in monitoring Internet activities such as email and online transactions. Independents: 34%; Democrats: 40%; Republicans: 64% low religiosity: 35%; moderate religiosity: 52%; high religiosity 61%
2) Law enforcement officials should be able to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists. Independents: 55%; Democrats: 54%; Republicans: 76% low religiosity: 50%; moderate religiosity: 65%; high religiosity 79%
3) We need to outlaw some un-American actions, even if they're Constitutionally protected. Independents: 30%; Democrats: 34%; Republicans: 42% low religiosity: 28%; moderate religiosity: 39%; high religiosity 43%
4) Government officials sometimes need to lie to the press about military operations. Independents: 42%; Democrats: 36%; Republicans: 62% low religiosity: 48%; moderate religiosity: 51%; high religiosity 49%
5) In a time of crisis or war, the media should NOT cover anti-war protests. Independents: 26%; Democrats: 24%; Republicans: 48% low religiosity: 24%; moderate religiosity: 28%; high religiosity 46%
6)
In a time of crisis or war, the media should NOT report comments of
individuals who criticize the government. Independents: 25%; Democrats: 22%; Republicans: 45% low religiosity: 20%; moderate religiosity: 29%; high religiosity 44%
7)
In a time of war or crisis, individuals should be allowed to stage
public protests against the government or its policies. Independents: 63%; Democrats: 71%; Republicans: 50% low religiosity: 69%; moderate religiosity: 56%; high religiosity 51%
8)
In a time of war or crisis, individuals should be allowed to criticize
publicly the government, or its policies. Independents: 65%; Democrats: 75%; Republicans: 51% low religiosity: 72%; moderate religiosity: 58%; high religiosity 54%
*****
All Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts with the federal government. Independents: 17%; Democrats: 24%; Republicans: 40% low religiosity: 15%; moderate religiosity: 30%; high religiosity 42%
Mosques should be closely monitored and surveilled by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Independents: 24%; Democrats: 22%; Republicans: 34% low religiosity: 13%; moderate religiosity: 33%; high religiosity 34%
U.S. government agencies should profile citizens as potential threats based on being Muslim or having Middle Eastern heritage. Independents: 15%; Democrats: 17%; Republicans: 34% low religiosity: 16%; moderate religiosity: 24%; high religiosity 29%
Muslim
civic and volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover
law enforcement agents to keep watch on their activities and
fundraising. Independents: 27%; Democrats: 21%; Republicans: 41% low religiosity: 19%; moderate religiosity: 33%; high religiosity 40%
Thinking about smashing windows or overturning cars during the Republican National Convention? Think again: that will cost you a discounted buffalo chicken salad from Applebee's or a cheaper ticket to see "Tony n' Tina's Wedding."
In a transparently mercantile bid to keep protesters from disrupting the Republican National Convention later this month, the Bloomberg administration will offer "peaceful political activists" discounts at select hotels, museums, stores and restaurants around town during convention week, which begins Aug. 29.
Law-abiding protesters will be given buttons that bear a fetching rendition of the Statue of Liberty holding a sign that reads, "peaceful political activists." Protesters can present the buttons at places like the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Sex, the Pokémon Center store and such restaurants as Miss Mamie's Spoonbread Too and Applebee's to save some cash during their stay.
EXPERTS fear up to 15,000 stray dogs will be poisoned before next month's Athens Olympics so the city looks "pristine".
Authorities in the Greek capital fear the sight of packs roaming the streets will damage the country's bid to show it is modern and civilised, the RSPCA said yesterday.
Jesus, the things that people do for the "right image."
So, my girlfriend and I just got a puppy, and the condition was that I (as the silly hippy you all know and love) would have to let her get it neutered if we were to get it. Now, I gave in because I so badly wanted the dog, but I still have my doubts. I doubt if I'll get my way, and I did already promise to let her do it, but here's the thing:
I'm becoming an anti-circumcision advocate of late, because so many people I know are having kids, and every time I hear about this I cringe. I'm cut, and I'm glad I am, but I'm really feeling like it's completely wrong to do that to a baby without his permission. Adult males can easily have the procedure done, and it's not supposed to be TOO painful, so aside from cultural and religious reasons, why the hell should you cut your baby's penis? It seems so barbaric!
Therefore, I feel the same way about neutering/spaying. The difference, of course, is that the animal can never decide that it wants the procedure, and probably wouldn't decide for it if it did have that ability. It just feels like you're taking away that animal's rights as a living being when you remove sexual organs. Would you like it if someone forced you to be castrated?
Probably not.
I know there are so many benefits to spaying / neutering, and it certainly makes sense to do it when you have an outside dog that could possibly go into heat and produce unwanted puppies or go around humping everything it sees. That makes sense to me, because you don't want those puppies to then be killed in the shelter. Then again, I don't believe in that either.
Jesus, I'm hard to please, eh?
I just have this feeling that animals have rights, too, and it seems like lopping off a dog's balls to keep its behavior the way you want it if it's an inside dog with almost no chance of ever mating (especially since mine's a datschund / lab mix, will barely be bigger than a datschund, and unless is as virile as his daddy will probably never be able to mount any dog he comes in contact with) is a bit mean and spiteful.
"You aren't calm enough, let's see how a little castration works!"
Am I alone in this? I can barely even find websites with any good information on alternatives to spaying / neutering. I've found a few that say it's wrong.... but don't provide any alternatives. I guess poor Sprocket is going to get neutered, but I feel so bad that I can't do anything to stop it. Having him around, though, is already worth the guilt I'm going to feel. He's so cute!
So, Edwards is the pick. That's good news for Kerry, because it means he has a strong chance to win now. The south will vote for Edwards, women will vote for Edwards, and younger voters will vote for Edwards.
The media is already all over him, saying that his "one negative point is that he has no foreign policy experience," and that Cheney might run circles around him in debates. Shit, his lack of foreign policy experience and Washington insider status is exactly why I like him!
Maybe THEY haven't gotten to him yet :)
By the way, can YOU tell photoshopped images from real ones? Apparently, the AP can't or doesn't care.
And, he's a cutie! Remember ladies, when you vote for president in November, VOTE CUTE!
# Disparity in penalty for crack vs. powder is not justified. (Jan 1)
# Admits having smoked marijuana. (Nov 2003)
# Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
# Crack down on CEO pay; and require honest accounting. (Aug 2003)
# Governments don't belong in bedrooms, including gay bedrooms. (May 2003)
# Right to abortion is constitutionally protected. (Jan 8)
# Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
# Two public school systems: one for rich, one for others. (Feb 26)
# Pay for college tuition in exchange for part-time work. (Aug 2003)
# New Deal for Teachers: more pay & scholarships. (Aug 2003)
# Free first year of college for all willing to work for it. (Jun 2003)
# Supports real increases in CAFE standards. (Jan 25)
# Convert agricultural waste into energy products. (Aug 2003)
# Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
# Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
# Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
# Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
# Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
# Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
# Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Of course, he does have plenty of negatives:
# Supported the Iraq war (but how war was conducted not OK... whatever that means)
# Supported Iraq invasion because of WMD threat... jesus
# Supports the death penalty
# Supports missile defense system
Just thought that you guys might enjoy a history lesson. The origins of Easter are really interesting.
Easter takes its name from Ishtar, the Babylonian and Assyrian goddess of love and fertility. The Phoenicians knew her as Astarte, sister and consort of Baal, a God worshipped in much of the Middle East and Mediterranean. Some of the ancient Hebrews also worshipped Baal.
Astarte spread through Europe, becoming Ostara, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, fertility, and the rising sun. The Old English word for Easter, "Eastre" refers to Ostara.
Around the second century A.D., Christian missionaries seeking to convert the tribes of northern Europe realized that the time of the crucifixion of Jesus roughly coincided with the Teutonic springtime celebrations, which emphasized the triumph of life over death. Christian Easter gradually absorbed the traditional symbols.
The egg and the rabbit, two of Easter's most common symbols, also have ancient associations with spring.
Eggs symbolize birth and fertility in many cultures. Ancient Egyptians and the Persians colored eggs to give as gifts during their spring festival.
The legends of ancient Egypt connect the hare, which comes out at night to feed, with the moon. Rabbits have remained fertility symbols in other, later cultures.
According to Anglo-Saxon myth Ostara, wanting to delight some children one day, turned her pet bird into a rabbit. The rabbit proceeded to lay brightly colored eggs, which Ostara gave to the children.
So, just as Christianity itself springs from Pagan roots, so does Easter. Cool, huh?
Ok, and now it's time for a bit of an environmental update. Firstly, researchers studying CO2 levels in the atmosphere report that the amount has expanded at an accelerated pace in the last year, leading to the highest levels thus far. The really scary part of that article is that
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by 2100 will range from 650 to 970 parts per million. As a result, the panel estimates, average global temperature would probably rise by 2.7 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius) between 1990 and 2100.
That could be catastrophic for wildlife and plant life, not to mention for us. However, some scientists are now saying that global warming won't get bad enough to cause any problems. Great, right? Well, only if you don't consider that they're saying this because we may have 80% less oil than previously thought, which means that world production will peak in about 10 years. As far as I'm concerned, that's great news, because we really need to stop using those fuels even before then. The problem, of course, is that we don't yet have a viable fuel alternative to replace the fossil fuels with.
That means that if we did indeed run out of oil before getting these replacement systems into place, civilization as we know it would basically... well... collapse. That's fine and good for the rest of the world; the way we're abusing the planet it's simply a natural occurence for our system to collapse. It still isn't exactly a happy day, however.
I know, a tired topic - but I don't care! My brother told me about this girl the other day who said that "all the evidence for evolution can fit on one table." I found that funny, because I'm sure it's quite true - you could probably put it all on a dvd-r or two and plop them on a table. But, um, what does that have to do with the validity of a theory? Also, how much space can the evidence of the existence of god take up?
Well, they can't protest in Central Park.. but they CAN get 
