Yesterday, I posted some quotes from Frank Herbert’s Children of Dune, published back in 1976.  One of the reasons I love this sci-fi series is his comments about religion — he views religion as a tool used by government and the ruling class to control society.   One of my favourite quotes:

“Religion is the emulation of the adult by the child.  Religion is the encystment  of past beliefs:  mythology, which is guesswork, the hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, those pronouncements which men have made in search of personal power, all of it mingled with shreds of enlightenment.  And always the ultimate unspoken commandment is ‘Thou shalt not question!”  But we question.  We break that commandment as a matter of course.  The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humandkind’s deepest sense of creativity.”

Neoconservatism (and its fellow traveller, religious fundamentalism) holds as its ultimate unspoken commandment, “Thou halt not question!”  We are told that Christianity is the only source of morality, but we are also told not to point out the contradictions or hypocrisy — don’t question.  We are told that extremely low taxes benefit all, but we are also told that any questioning of this is renascent creeping communism.  We are told that limiting our liberties will increase our freedom, but we are also told that to question the current regime is to coddle the terrorists.  And, worst of all, we have been told, again and again, that America is incapable of the imagination or creativity which could mitigate or solve our most painful problem — energy (which includes education and poverty).

America lacking imagination or creativity?  That can’t be right.

After all, we are the nation that took that great step into the unknown, creating the world’s first modern democracy.  We fought one of the most powerful nations on earth to a standstill (with, admittedly, an enormous amount of help from France).  We expanded (through war, purchase, theft, and confusion) across an entire continent.  We fought the bloodiest war of the century to end slavery (and before anyone pipes in with the ’states rights’ argument, I would ask, ‘What other difference, other than slavery, was so intractable that it could lead to war?’).  We expanded to the Philippines, Hawai’i, Cuba, and Alaska in a bid for empire.  We provided the material and manpower to break the gridlock of the Great War.  We protected the governments of Central America and the Caribbean from insurgents. We expanded the franchise to women. We created the Hoover Dam, the Grand Coulee Dam, the Mississippi River lock system, the transcontinental railroad (not just once, but seven times), the Panama Canal, and the works of the CCC.  We defeated fascism (with massive help from the Soviet Union) in Italy and Germany, and a perverted militaristic dictatorship in Japan.  We helped found the United Nations.  We declared war on poverty, split the atom, explored the deepest trenches of the ocean and the highest reaches of the atmosphere, visited the moon and visited the idea of equal rights.  More patents.  More Nobel prizes. 

Sounds like a society which thrives on imagination and creativity.  Yet there has always been a fraction of our society, usually (and this is a POMA guess) around 30%, which has resisted these advances.  The high school principle who argued that the high speed of trains was ungodly.  The naysayers who called Alaska ‘Seward’s Folly.’  The isolationists in both world wars.  The Dixiecrats.  And now, the neoconservatives.

Neoconservatives, the new conservatives, are not new.  They are descendants of the reactionary conservatives in all of history.  One thing that is new, though, is their argument that Americans are incapable of adapting, are lacking in the creativity to deal with new challenges, are incapable of imagining a better world.  Neocons insist that any solution to any problem would require intolerable sacrifice.

Dealing with anthropogenic global warming would hurt America by eliminating jobs dependent upon the exploitation of non-renewable fuels.  Dealing with peak oil would hurt the car companies and the oil companies.  Dealing with poverty would mean that millionaires would have a little less money to spend on luxury imports.  Dealing with the health care crisis would mean rationed care (we ration care now, based on money rather than need, so there would be litle difference).  But solving, or at least mitigating, any of these challenges would mean that the United States Government would have to take the lead and push us toward the long-term good while avoiding short-term expediency.

We have also been taught, through 30 years of propoganda, that progress, wealth, security, and liberty are painless.  Neoconservatism preaches that cutting taxes raises revenue (never happened, not even once).  Wars can be won without sacrifice.  The poor cannot be helped, so why try.  If you are rich enough, there are no problems.  It is a self-centered worldview, a prepubescent ‘me-firstism’ elevated to political ideology.

During World War II, we created the atomic bomb through a government program.  No private industry was capable of the investment necessary wedded to, as all private industry is,  pleasing the stockholder this quarter (nuclear bombs do not produce profit (though they did keep the peace for 45 years of Cold War)).  During the 1960s, we put men on the moon, again through a government program.  Again, no private industry could afford the long-term investment.  Private industry was involved in these great programs, but as contractors, not the developers.  Computers, vaccines, aircraft design (NACA), the internet, and nuclear power were all developed with the leadership of Washington.  Politicians willing to listen to the advice of the professional civil servants.

Why was government leadership necessary?  Government is uniquely positioned to be able to take the lead in long-term, high-risk projects.  The President of the United States does not have to show a profit every single quarter.  The CEO of any company must produce profits in the short term — immediate profitability trumps long-term investments which may someday pay off.  Only governments can take those risks.

But Neoconservatism tells Americans that the government is always wrong, the government is always the problem, the government is evil.  Then, to prove they are correct, useless sycophantic appointees, whose only claim to a job is ability to contribute money, are put in charge to overrule the civil servants who have made government their life and mismanage any challenge put before them.  Neoconservatives, wedded to a wordview based on belief rather than reality, would rather see America become a third-world slum run by a wealthy oligarchy with private armies than admit that one of the jobs of government is to supply the leadership to liberate the imagination and harness the creativity of humankind. 

Neoconservatism has robbed America of greatness.  We used to be a nation capable of incredible things when faced with a challenge.  Now, after 30 years of neocon propaganda, we are a nation of whiners.  “It’ll never work” has become our national motto thanks to Cheney, Reagan, Limbaugh, et al.  McCain fits right in.  No matter the problem, hide your head in the sand, spout patriotic drivel, and pray it will go away.

My brother-in-law down in Florida is a member of the International Guild of Knot Tyers (which may be even nerdier than the D&D club I was in whilst in high school). He creates magnificent decorative knots (click here for some samples).  The cool part is (and this is where it gets commercial) that he has books and tools for sale which not only show HOW to tie the knot, but even includes tools which make it easier (I think that, for Mormons, the books show how to tie the knot multiple times).  These are limited production books (three so far with another on the way soon) and well worth the price.

There are a few books (or book series) which I read every couple of years.  The Harry Potter series (light, quick reading, well written and enjoyable);  Barbara Tuchmann’s A Distant Mirror (her best book by my opinion);  Robert Lynn Asprin’s Myth series (a literary Hope and Crosby series with my kind of humour); Brin’s Uplift books (great adventures, great ideas, and individuals making a difference); Asimov’s Foundation series (classic, though he never was all that good at dialogue and personality development, his ideas were so good that the flat people didn’t matter); Orson Scott Card’s Ender series (thank’s, Yunshui, that one slipped my mind); and Frank Herbert’s Dune books (only the ones by Frank;  the ones written by his son are worth reading once, but pale in comparison).  One of the advantages of reading a few books multiple times (othere than knowing what will happen next) is that I keep spotting things I missed before.

I finished Children of Dune last night ( (((Wife))) is in Florida visiting family, so I’ve been reading lots (I also built a 1/48 scale P-51D RAAF Mustang)) and realised that some of Herbert’s observations are, for today’s political and religious climate (and from my (relatively) new-found atheistic viewpoint) remarkably apropos.

Atrocity is recognized as such by victim and perpetrator alike, by all who learn about it at whatever remove.  Atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating argument.  Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past.  Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity.  It is self-perpetuating upon itself — a barbarous form of incest.  Whoever commits atrocity also commits those future atrocities thus bred.
The Apocrypha of Muad’Dib

There, in one paragraph written in 1976, is the one of the most cogent argument against torture (and other atrocities) ever writeen. 

Does torture work?  It does not (just ask John McCain, who falsely confessed to war crimes to avoid more torture), but that is irrelevent.  Torture (whether physical or psychological, whether water boarding or temperature stressing, whether the music of Black Sabbath at high volume or sexual degredation) may (in some rare occasions) bring usefull information, but at what cost?  If we treat our enemies with disrespect, if we treat our enemies as less then human, do we then breed a new generation of enemies who will attempt to top our disrespect and treat us even less as humans? Are we creating a generation of terrorists for whom killing 3,000 people in one day will be an insufficient atrocity to (in the mind of the perpetratory) balance or rectify the past?  

The current White House occupents see themselves as divinely inspired, devinely led, and divinely capable of fulfilling a God-given mission.  Oppression and atrocity are merely tools of expediency used to promote short-term prophits with the illusion that these limited goals will somehow make America a better place.  The hubris of belief and the rejection of fact-based reality will, ultimately, fail.  Whether it fails quickly without destroying our nation or the world, or whether the politics of now will last and destroy what has been built here, I don’t know.

I will not argue with the Fremen [Republican] claims that they are divinely inspired to transmit a religious reveleation.  It is their concurrent claim to ideological revelation which inspires me to shower them with derision.  Of course, they make the dual claim in the hope that it will strengthen their mandarinate and help them to endure in a univere whcih finds them increasingly oppressive.  It is in the name of all those oppressed people that I warn the Fremen [Republicans]:  short-term expediency always fails in the long term.
The Preacher of Arrakeen

There may be something to this idea that a book written in the past can help us understand today’s problems.  As these two quotes show, though, a science-fiction book from 30 years ago can actually be much more accurate than a set of 3,000 year old myths bowdlerized through through the politics of expediency since they were written.

And Herbert’s books are better written, more enjoyable, are internally consistent, and make a hell of a lot more sense than the Bible.

I am posting this on my new computer.  My desktop computer (a five year old Dell (which had done yeoman’s service)) died about a month ago leaving (((Wife))) and I with only (((Boys))) fancy-pants Dell laptop which he will be taking away to college in August.

I ordered a new computer from Dell.  It’s an Inspiron 1525 with an upgraded processor.  The price was reasonable, the thing blasts compared to the old desktop, and it has a cool white and blue pattern on the cover.  They gave me a shipping date of July 29th.  It arrived today!!!!!!

My very first computer, when I was a Sophomore in high school (my second Sophomore year) my parents bought me a computer.  It was the hottest machine on the market at the time.  It was a TI-PC with two 5.25-inch drives, a whopping 128k of RAM, a souped up 8086 processor, and a 1.2-Megabyte hard drive.  It was huge.  Monitor, computer, and printer weighed in at about 30 pounds.  I used it all the way through college.  I got very, very good at writing batch files and programming in C, Cobol, Basic and Compiled Basic.

My second computer was a laptop with a 10-Meg hard drive, a little RAM, and a black and white monitor.  It was good, but by the mid-90s (((Wife))) and I needed a machine which could be used easily.  We fell for a Packard Bell POS which worked fairly well, and then died.

The Dell desktop replaced the PB, and I discovered a computer that actually worked.  I learned all about mp3’s, digital photography, and the limitations of a 10-Gig hard drive.

My new computer has an 80-Gig hard drive (plus we have a 250-Gig external flash drive).  From an 8086 to a dual core Pentium whatever.  From 1.2 megabytes of hard drive to 80 Gigabytes.  From 128 k of RAM to 2 Gigs of Ram.  And the new one is not even top of the line.  Not even close.

In less then 25 years.

What will a computer be able to do in another 25 years?

I enjoy being able check the stats page in my dashboard and find out how people found me (or, more correctly, found my site).  I can click back to people who visit me from links on other sites.  I have discovered lots of interesting and useful stuff.  Then, there’s this:

I found it at anatheist.net, posted by James Tracy.  It is one of the most magnificent examples of “pareidolia, or seeing recognizable religious imagery in what amounts to random stimuli.”  It is also the best example of the usefulness of said imagery.

Humans are pattern-seeking beings.  From an early age, we seek patterns in all that we see.  That set of shapes is Mommy.  That set of shapes is Daddy.  Once we have the basics, we start looking for patterns in inanimate objects as well.  As we mature, though, we understand both the randomness of the natural world and the pattern-seeking within ourselves.

Christians (most notably Catholics (and yes, I realize that not all Christians or Catholics see Jesus’ face on every pancake, tree stump, piece of toast or mould stain (though you don’t see too many atheists looking at a set of random shapes and seeing Jesus or Mary, do you?)))), though, seem to have missed out on this particular piece of maturation. 

Realizing the evolutionary predilections programmed into our bodies is part of maturity.  Recognizing that our evolutionary imperative (as a male) is to impregnate as many women as possible and reigning in that instinct in the interest of family peace is part of maturity.  Recognizing that, although we appear to be programmed to enjoy alcohol (the ripest, most sugar-laden, fruits contain trace amounts of alcohol), drinking to excess is (to males, at least) detrimental to impregnating the correct woman. 

So how would pattern recognition and forcing random objects into a pattern be of evolutionary advantage to a human?  Babies eyes do not focus well.  Their brain has not yet learned to put the electrical impulses from the eye into coherent order.  Being able to force these random shapes into a coherent form and recognize Mommy (as opposed to a Smilodon) increases the chance of getting food rather than being food. 

But some people, it seems, do not outgrow (or, at the very least, channel it into an appropriate adult form (don’t want to piss off the artists, eh?)) the juvenile form of this evolved pattern recognition.  They continue to see Mommy (Mary) or Daddy (Jesus or God (who are the same thing, so how do they know who it is?)) in random inanimate objects.  Maybe that’s one of the disadvantages of subscribing to a set of beliefs based upon received wisdom coming down from an authority figure (the Bible and God).  Not having to think for ones self is not conducive to learning how to think.  Plus, if you believe in the ultimate Daddy, why bother with maturity?  Just live like George Bush.

Hows that for a bizarre association?  Start with a dog’s butt, make a detour through evolutionary survival adaptations, and arrive at the mental immaturity of some Christians and, finally, to George W. Bush.

(((Wife))), (((Boy))), and I went out this evening (well, it was late afternoon (but after dinner (BLT’s made with thick cut hickory smoked bacon and heirloom tomatoes (our tomatoes are not in yet)) and boiled corn on the cob)), stopped at a store so (((Wife))) could find a cloth bag (she’s headed to Florida to visit relatives and she wants a bag which can hold her clothes without having to be checked (a checked bag costs an extra $50.00, for Pete’s sake)).  After, we headed across the river to Rita’s (a somewhat local chain with really good Italian Ices and custard (i’m currently eating a cherry Gelatti (custard and cherry ice))).  Along the way, we stopped at a quickie mart (can’t remember which one (WaWa’s, Turkey Hill, Sheetz (everything BUT 7-11))) as (((Boy))) needed to use the facilities.  While inside, I heard the following:

Customer #1:  This is the twelfth time I’ve been here and the damn gas pump wouldn’t give me a receipt.

Manager:  I’m very sorry, sir, I’ll get you a receipt right now.

Customer #1:  This happens every goddamned time!  What’re you trying to do, save money?  Don’t have to buy paper?

Customer #2:  That’s just like THEM.

Manager:  Here is you’re receipt, sir.

The manager was South Asian;  well spoken, polite, well dressed.  The two customers were Pennsylvania Redneck — unshaved (no beard or mustache, just too lazy to shave), dirty T-shirts (maybe they were coming from work digging ditches (and before anyone attacks me on that one, I have dug ditches)), bad hair cuts (one sported a really nice mullet (not the fish, the hair cut)) and generally looked like the kind of person I would forbid my daughter dating (which is not a problem, because I seriously doubt she would even look at men like that in that way).  The one who made the racist comment sported a T-shirt with the following:

“God Loves Everyone!”

(((Wife))) and I discussed this on the way over to get the Italian Ice. 

So Customer #2’s attitude was:  “God Loves Everyone, But I’m a Racist.”  Or maybe his thought process (and I use the term ‘thought’ rather liberally here) was:  “It’s the truth, I’m just the only one brave enough to say it.”  Does he really believe that this attitude is acceptable?  Apparently, south Asian “Arab-looking” men are acceptable targets for racism (thank you, war on terror). 

The racist comment offended me.  The fact that he was wearing a fundie T-shirt just amused me.

Seen on a church near my home (batteries in the camera were dead (and with the price of gas, we are not going to drive over there just for a photo)):

The Big Book Says It And That’s That

Which big book?  Richard Scary’s Biggest Word Book Ever?  Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary?  Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft?  The Kama Sutra?  The Great Book of World War II Airplanes?  Seriously.  Which book?

I assume (since it’s a church (a Bible church (not one of those Necronomicon churches))) that they mean the Bible.  I always have to wonder — which version?  which translation?  with the Paul insertions or without?  I get the impression, from talking to theists, from reading the posts and comments of theists on line, and from reading the newspaper, that most Christians have absolutely no idea of the history of the Bible.  Yet they claim it is the one, the only, truth which tells the word of God and shows how to live one’s life and is the only source of morality.

But, I guess that’s one of the advantages of belief.  Proofs do not matter.  History does not matter.  Contradictions do not matter.  Additions and deletions do not matter.  With faith, you don’t even have to think — The Big Book Says It and That’s That.

I got home from work today and (((Wife))) reads the following story to me (all quotes are from the Wilkes Barre Times Leader):

A man in Knoxville, Tennessee was “so consumed by the Spirit of God that he fell and hit his head while worshipping.”  After two surgeries (I guess they were trying to find his brain) for which the churches insurance company refused to pay (would that come under an act of God?), he has decided to sue the church.  For $2.5 million (medical bills, pain, suffering and lost income).  Matt Lincoln claims that “he has fallen from the force of the spirit before but has always been caught by someone.”  The churches lawyers say he failed to look out for his own safety (um, doesn’t God supposedly watch out for believers?) and that, after his fall, other parishioners reportedly saw him laughing.

So.  Man gets so overwhelmed with the spirit of God that he falls and breaks his head.  I have some sympathy for the guy (traumatic head injuries can be a bitch), but. . . .  Shouldn’t he be suing God?  After all, it was God’s spirit (which I assume is part of God just like his son Jesus is part of himself which the one which is the trinity which . . . (where was I?)) which divorced his rational mind from the reality around him and allowed gravity (another one of those pesky theories the Bible does not mention) to cause him to fall, not the church.  Well, maybe the pastor’s sermon put him to sleep and that’s why he fell. 

I know one or two of ya’ll are lawyers.  Who should he be suing to pay his medical bills (I’ll leave the pain and suffering out (he believes, so suffering is normal to him)) and lost wages?  The church?  God?  The pastor?  The holy spirit?  What venue (county, city, state or federal) would the case be heard under if one was suing God?  Would he have to prove himself a theist to have legal standing?

At least someone is benefiting from the economic stimulus package:

An unforeseen and surprising beneficiary of the Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that George Bush contends will “boost our economy and encourage job creation,” has surfaced this week. An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans’ mailboxes across the country. (via Pure Pedantry )

I guess that gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘disposable income.’  This really does not surprise me.  The economy is in the dumps.  The stock market is in free fall. Gas is up to $4.00 or more per gallon.  Food prices are skyrocketing.  Bush and McCain want to attack Iran (though McCain has no idea the nature of the threat).  When people are depressed, worried about their economic future, and realize that the powers that be could care less whether they live or die, they will look for pleasure where it is available.  Sex, whether within the bonds of marriage or without, whether solo or with a partner(s), whether manual or mechanical, is pleasurable (for at least one, not necessarily both). 

I wonder how Bush’s Christianist, dominionist, fundamentalist and batshit crazy right wing religious ass hats are taking this.  Considering the way that Dobson and his Fascist Family Focus Focus on the Family have come down on hotels for allowing pay-per-view adult movies, and have railed against masturbation and any form of sex other than man on top of woman with no birth control, I have to wonder.  Will this affect his blind and unwavering support of George W. Bush and Retheopuglican Party?  Or will this just come down to another  instance in which the radical religious right ignores reality and declares that what they believe is TRUTH!

Today I had an off-site program up at a scout camp to the north.  I used my own vehicle, so (((Wife))) could come along.  It gave us a chance to talk without the normal household interruptions, which was kind of nice.

We talked about the church she attended while in Junior and Senior High – a UCC church just outside of Boston.  Her minister (for whom she also occasionally babysat) had a Doctor of Divinity from Harvard.  The man was absolutely brilliant.  Intimidatingly brilliant.  He had devoted most of his life to the study of one set of books written between 1800 and 3,000 years ago.  He spent a large chunk of his life arguing which version of the Bible, which translation of the Bible, which pieces of which story, were the actual word of God. 

Well, I’ve heard it said that, in any discipline, the further along you go in your education, the more you know about less and less.  I admire anyone who can manage a doctorate from Harvard.  That is impressive.  But, I have to wonder.  Could he have devoted his intelligence to a less useful discipline?  A doctorate in divinity strikes me as an absolute waste of brain power. 

I majored in history (specifically European military history (focusing on the modern period (ca 1500 to present))), so my comment may seem a little hypocritical.  After all, does the study of the Bible or the study of real history have any real effect on the world?   I can show at least one instance (off the top of my head) in which the study of history has had a real effect — during the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Kennedy read Barbara Tuchmann’s The Guns of August which laid out an effective argument showing that the First World War had been an accident.   Kennedy altered his approach, consciously trying to avoid an accidental war.

Arguing about a set of anonymous stories collected in it’s (approximate) current form 1800 years ago really doesn’t help today.  If anything, by narrowing the options available to only what is found in those few pages, the study of the Bible forces decision makers into an us-versus-them mentality which, had Kennedy thought along those lines, would have made a catastrophic war more likely, not less.

Now for the question which may generate flames:  Did (((Wife)))’s brilliant minister, with a Doctor of Divinity from Harvard, possessed of an insightful mind, really believe the ‘miracles’ within the Bible?  Would not study have exposed the contradictions, mistranslations, complete lack of contemporary historical references, bowdlerizations, or outright impossibilities?  What selective cognizant dissonance allows an otherwise brilliant person to swallow that one piece of absurdity on faith when all other education focuses upon proof?