Friday, August 14, 2009

Orissa Christians leaders take exception to US report

Orissa Christian leaders take exception to US report

Bhubaneswar, Aug 14 (PTI)
Taking exception to a report by a US panel on global religious freedom placing India on the 'Watch List' for Kandhamal violence, Christian leaders in Orissa today said the majority community has been "extremely cordial" to them.

Minorities in India have been targets of hate campaign by a small section, "but the civil society of the majority community has been extremely cordial and supportive of the minority community in the state," Orissa Minority Forum (OMF) President Swarupananda Patra said.

His remarks came in the wake of a statement made by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom that India was placed on the 'Watch List' due to "disturbing increase" in communal violence there.

Though a few 'criminal elements' created problems for the minority community during the riots, the secular fabric of the society was intact, Patra said.

Who the heck is the US Commission on International Religious Freedom?

This week a US government agency that most people have never heard of announced that they were placing the nation of India on a "watch list" based on claims that Christians and Muslims in India are being "persecuted" by the Hindu majority.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has a total of eight members: a Chair and two Vice Chairs and five Commissioners. Five of the current members are Republican appointees, three of them appointed by former president George W. Bush and one each by former House leader Dennis Hastert and former Senate leader Bill Frist. Of those five one (the Chair) is an officer of the Federalist Society (which some called the "Shadow Justice Department" of the Bush Administration), one is an officer of the Hudson Institute (the "think-tank" that hired Dan Quayle!), one (the Vice Chair) an officer of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (a think-tank whose "fellows" include Rick Santorum and Stanley Kurtz), one an officer of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the fifth Republican appointee is the founder of the Islamic Institute of Boston (go figure).

One irony is that the Chair and two of the Commissioners of the USCIRF are members of groups that have earned a place on a "watch-list" of their own! The Federalist Society, the Hudson Institute, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have their own pages at the website of RightWingWatch.org. And some people might also find it odd that a member of the "Ethics Committee" (sic) of the Southern Baptist Convention sits on the USCIRF, since, as everyone knows, the SBC was formed originally for no other purpose than the preservation of the institution of human slavery, and today the SBC does not allow women to serve as pastors, and is openly and unapologetically homophobic.

None of the members of the Commission are Hindu or Buddhist.

Two countries not on either the Watch List or the even more serious Countries of Particular Concern list are Greece, where it is a crime to establish a religious organization without the government's permission, and government produced schoolbooks contain antisemitic materials; and South Korea, where arson attacks on Buddhist Temples by fanatic Christians have occurred regularly for decades, and where the current President is a fundamentalist Christian who has shown blatant favoritism to Christians in government appointments.

Obviously the agenda of the USCIRF is to serve as an advocacy group for US funded Christian missionaries operating abroad.

A little more on "Plato for Pagans"

Here are a few scattered ideas that didn't find their way into the first post on this subject.

(1) I also plan to do additional volumes beyond the two already outlined in skeletal form. A volume apiece will be devoted the Timaeus and Parmenides, while another volume will include the dialogues on knowledge, logic and language: Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist and Statesman. If I live long enough maybe I'll do one on the Laws, too, although in the meantime I should probably try to figure out a way of covering Book X of the Laws - probably in the volume on the Timaeus.

(2) Wherever possible I will use R.E. Allen's translations, as well as relying heavily on his commentaries. But even when I follow Allen closely I will be, hopefully, making the material more accessible. I think it would be pretty much totally impossible for someone without a strong background to just sit down and read Allen's commentaries starting from scratch. I'm not sure if I will succeed in accomplishing that with my own commentaries, but I'll try.

(3) I also plan to make extensive use of Pierre Hadot's What is Ancient Philosophy? and also Julia Annas' The Morality of Happiness. Both of those books, in my opinion, do have the level of accessibility that I am hoping for - not that they are light reading!! Charle's Kahn's Plato and the Socratic Dialogue and Annas' Platonic Ethics Old and New will also be at my side quite a bit.

(4) I will also weave Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War into the mix, especially in the first two sections of Volume One dealing with the life and death of Socrates. I also plan to make heavy use of the following secondary sources Perez Zagorin's book on Thucydides, Mark Munn's The School of History, Arlene Saxonhouse's Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens, Robert Parker's two books on religion in Athens, and a number of the usual, and perhaps unusual, suspects concerning Athenian history. However, my goal will be to avoid any reliance on peculiarly modern interpretations of Plato, Socrates, or Greek history. Where a contemporary scholar's ideas seem consistent with a natural reading of Plato and/or with objectively agreed upon historical facts, then secondary sources will be used to explain and illustrate such interpretations and historical facts, but secondary sources will never be used as primary justifications.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Lies, Damned Lies, and the "Persecution" of Christians in India

Over the coming weeks and months expect a steady drumbeat of stories claiming that a wave of violent persecution of Christians is sweeping India. The online fundamentalist mouthpiece the Christian Post was very pleased to announce today that India has been placed on the "watch list" maintained by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The USCIRF is an official government agency established by an act of congress in 1998.

You see, Christians like nothing better than to play the martyr. For example, historians now recognize that the so-called "persecution" of Christians in the Pagan Roman Empire was in large part intentionally provoked by Christian fanatics who longed for martyrdom. These fanatics committed acts of criminal violence directed at Pagan holy places and even at individual Pagans including priests, priestesses and even government officials. One of the world's leading scholars of the phenomenon of Christian "martyrdom", G.E.M. de Ste Croix devoted a whole chapter to what he calls Voluntary Martyrdom in his 2006 book Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, in which he wrote that "voluntary martyrdom"
was a great deal more common among the orthodox than the Christian apologists have cared to admit. In all probability quite a substantial proportion of the 'noble army of martyrs' of the first three centuries consisted of volunteers .... It is impossible to doubt that the prevalence of voluntary martyrdom was a factor which both contributed towards the outbreak of persecution and tended to intensify it when it was already in progress.
[p. 153]
Now fast forward 2000 years. Christians today are clamoring about "persecution" in India. Exhibit A is inevitably the claim that Christians were the victims of "religious violence" in the province of Orissa last year. What Christians don't like to mention is that the violence only started after a group of Christians assassinated an 80 year old Hindu holy man along with four other Hindus - all of them unarmed. They also don't like to mention the fact that Christians in Orissa province are known to work together with Maoist guerillas against their common enemy: Hindus. If you look hard enough you'll even find that some Christians have been willing to publicly acknowledge this "problem". Their are now even people in Orissa who consider themselves to be "Christian Maoists"!

Christians also forget to mention that before Swami Lakshmanananda was killed there had been over half a dozen attempts on his life. The Swami had provided police with evidence of death threats against him by Christians just prior to his assassination. And they also neglect to point out that both Christians and Hindus died and lost their homes during the violence that ensued after the Swami's murder.

Here are some other things that get overlooked when the cry of "Christian persecution in India" is heard:

(1) Christians have lived in India for almost 2000 years. Jews have lived in India for even longer.

(2) India is a place of refuge for religious groups that face persecution elsewhere. This is true for Jews, Zoroastrians and Tibetan Buddhists.

(3) Christians have been the perpetrators of large scale religious violence in India for over 500 years. The Catholic Church set up a branch office of the Inquisition in India in the year 1600. Catholics, using artillery, destroyed Hindu Temples in the India and Buddhist Temples in Sri Lanka during the 16th century.

(4) Christians were accused of systematically using coercion and financial inducements in their "missionary work" by Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders of the movement that eventually brought independence to India, who strongly supported tight restrictions on the activities of foreign funded Christian missionaries in India.

(5) The great Indian Rebellion of 1857 began as a response to aggressive Christian missionary activity that was being supported directly by the British East India Company. Many Indians today see the ongoing activities of western funded Christian missionaries in their country as a seamless continuation of European colonialism.

(6) India has a long history of religious tolerance, which Indians are justifiably proud of. King Asoka, who ruled most of India over 2000 years ago, made religious tolerance a basic part of his vision for India in his famous Rock Edicts. By contrast, the Catholic Church did not explicitly embrace the principle of religious tolerance until the second half of the 20th century.

Orissa has been especially targeted by western funded foreign missionaries for decades. This means that Sarah Palin types from the US take their "vacations" in Orissa to "spread the Gospel". For example, follow this link for a 2007 church newsletter from Minneapolis inviting people to go to Orissa to "learn about Indian culture" the old fashioned way - by destroying it!
http://www.lcmc.net/newsletters/1stqtr2007newsletter.pdf

Here is a list of targeted villages in Orissa - complete with latitude and longitude, and the acronyms for which missionary groups are assigned to each village:
http://gospelgo.com/a/or.htm

And here is a list of foreign funds received by NGO's operating in Orissa - compiled by the Orissa government:
http://orissagov.nic.in/p&c/ngo/foreignamountrecv.pdf

Finally, for further reading check out a fascinating four part series of articles from the Boston Globe (in 2006) on the insidious nexus of right-wing American groups, Christian missionaries and US government agencies involved in "foreign aid". Below is an excerpt from Part 1: Bush Brings Faith to Foreign Aid (scroll down below the excerpt for links to parts 2, 3 and 4):
A Globe survey of more than 52,000 awards of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements from the US Agency for International Development -- which distributes taxpayer-funded assistance overseas -- provides the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of Bush's policies on foreign aid.

The survey of prime contractors and grantees, based on records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, shows a sharp increase in money going to faith-based groups between fiscal 2001, the last budget of the Clinton administration, and fiscal 2005, the last year for which complete figures were available. Faith-based groups accounted for 10.5 percent of USAID dollars to nongovernmental aid organizations in fiscal 2001, and 19.9 percent in 2005.

The prime beneficiaries have been large groups including Catholic Relief Services and evangelical organizations such as World Vision -- the former employer of Bush's longtime USAID director Andrew Natsios -- and Samaritan's Purse, which is led by evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, who guided Bush to his own religious rebirth.
Part 2: Religious right wields clout
Part 3: Together, but worlds apart
Part 4: Healing the body to reach the soul

Plato for Pagans: An overview

I am re-starting one of my perennial writing projects: Plato for Pagans. Let's see how far I get this time!!

The immodest goal of this endeavor is to provide a basic introduction to the writings of Plato for modern readers with little or no background in ancient philosophy. There is no shortage of books on Plato and ancient philosophy, but there is a near total absence of such books written from a perspective that treats Plato as a Pagan philosopher, which is what he was.

The format will be a series of commentaries on 17 of Plato's dialogues:

Volume I:
Socratic Philosophy as a Way of Life and Death

The Life of Socrates
Charmides
Laches
Lysis
The Death of Socrates
Euthyphro
Crito
Apology
Phaedo
The Teachings of Socrates
Alcibiades
Gorgias
Protagoras
Euthydemus

Volume II:
The Ascent of the Soul

Ion
Meno
Republic
Symposium
Phaedrus
Philebus

What follows is the beginnings of an explanation for what I have in mind for the first section of the first volume on The Life of Socrates.

The Charmides, Laches and Lysis are generally considered to be "early", "Socratic" dialogues. As such they are accepted by modern scholars as closely reflecting the teachings of Socrates. They are also shorter and more accessible than many of the dialogues that will come later in the series.

Plato's dialogues often raise a very specific question of the form "what is X?", and the three dialogues I have chosen to begin with are no exception:
The Charmides asks, what is temperance (sophrosyne)?
The Laches asks, what is courage (andreia)?
The Lysis asks, what is friendship (philia)?

In addition to having, at least on the surface, easily identifiable subjects, the first two dialogs also have a very straightforward relationship to important events in Socrates' life (and in the history of Athens). The Charmides occurs just after the Battle of Potidaea in 432. The city-state of Potidaea had attempted to revolt against Athenian rule, but they were soundly defeated by the Athenians. Socrates, then aged 37, fought heroically in this battle and his exploits are even recorded in the famous account of the battle by Thucydides. The Laches occurs just after the Battle of Delium, in the year 324, when Socrates was now 45. Once again Socrates fought with distinction and bravery, but the battle itself was a significant defeat for Athens. This is also very close to the time of the birth of Plato.

Like many of Plato's dialogues, the "dramatic date" of the Lysis is much less certain than that of the Charmides and Laches. The Lysis highlights the intense love and devotion that Socrates enjoyed among many of Athens' youths. This is also one of Plato's more maddeningly (some have even said perversely) aporetic dialogues: one concept of friendship after another is taken up, analyzed, and then rejected, so that at the end Socrates himself declares that even though they are all good friends (Socrates, Lysis and the other youths) "as yet we have not been able to discover what a friend is!"

This final declaration of the Lysis highlights one of the central themes of Platonic philosophy: surrounded by friendship we are yet unable to understand what friendship is. The same is true for temperance, courage and all of the others X's that Plato presents in the form of "what is X?": beauty (Phaedrus), love (Symposium), justice (Republic), piety (Euthyphro), death (Phaedo), knowledge (Theaetetus), pleasure (Philebus), and so forth. Sometimes the question is a bit more subtle, such as "can virture be taught?", the question of both the Meno and the Protagoras. In general, though, the method is the same, especially for the earlier dialogues: one by one various answers to the question at hand are at first presented with some optimism, but then inevitably found wanting until at last a state of aporia is achieved.

Aporia means far more than mere "puzzlement". Socrates' intention is always to show us that we do not truly know what we think we know. With his disarmingly intimate style of philosophizing, he draws out of his interlocutors their theories and assumptions about everything from love to death, and in the end shows that whatever knowledge we might have thought we possessed was false. This, in Socratic philosophy, is the beginning of genuine wisdom.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Will this be on the Turing test?

According to the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The phrase “The Turing Test” is most properly used to refer to a proposal made by Turing (1950) as a way of dealing with the question whether machines can think. According to Turing, the question whether machines can think is itself “too meaningless” to deserve discussion. However, if we consider the more precise—and somehow related—question whether a digital computer can do well in a certain kind of game that Turing describes (“The Imitation Game”), then—at least in Turing's eyes—we do have a question that admits of precise discussion. Moreover, as we shall see, Turing himself thought that it would not be too long before we did have digital computers that could “do well” in the Imitation Game.

The phrase “The Turing Test” is sometimes used more generally to refer to some kinds of behavioural tests for the presence of mind, or thought, or intelligence in putatively minded entities.
Alan Turing first proposed this idea in 1950, but nearly 400 years earlier Rene Descartes had written in his Discourses:
If there were machines which bore a resemblance to our bodies and imitated our actions as closely as possible for all practical purposes, we should still have two very certain means of recognizing that they were not real men. The first is that they could never use words, or put together signs, as we do in order to declare our thoughts to others. For we can certainly conceive of a machine so constructed that it utters words, and even utters words that correspond to bodily actions causing a change in its organs. … But it is not conceivable that such a machine should produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence, as the dullest of men can do. Secondly, even though some machines might do some things as well as we do them, or perhaps even better, they would inevitably fail in others, which would reveal that they are acting not from understanding, but only from the disposition of their organs. For whereas reason is a universal instrument, which can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need some particular action; hence it is for all practical purposes impossible for a machine to have enough different organs to make it act in all the contingencies of life in the way in which our reason makes us act.
If you are still a little fuzzy about exactly what a Turing test is, here is a definition from the Dictionary of Cognitive Science:
The Turing test is a behavioural approach to determining whether or not a system is intelligent. It was originally proposed by mathematician Alan Turing, one of the founding figures in computing. Turing argued in a 1950 paper that conversation was the key to judging intelligence. In the Turing test, a judge has conversations (via teletype) with two systems, one human, the other a machine. The conversations can be about anything, and proceed for a set period of time (e.g., an hour). If, at the end of this time, the judge cannot distinguish the machine from the human on the basis of the conversation, then Turing argued that we would have to say that the machine was intelligent.
But how many of us could pass a "Turing test"? To do so one would have to show that one's actions are not pre-programmed, but that they are appropriate and responsive to one's environment -- in other words, that one is acting in a way that is simultaneously rational and spontaneous. The real issue is whether or not there is someone there -- someone who is choosing deliberately to act in this way. As opposed, that is, to just a machine following instructions given to it by a human being.

To reason means to apply one's capacity for reasoning to situations in which there is no previously agreed upon "right" answer. This, it turns out, is Stoic philosophy 101 - it is the central theme of the opening chapter of Epictetus' Discourses, which in translation is usually given the title "Of the things which are in our power, and not in our power", or something similar. The point being that the only thing that is truly "in our power" is precisely our ability to apply our reasoning and make choices.

There is nothing "robotic" about Epictetus' conception of reasoning. The volitional character of reasoning arises from the fact that it is the only faculty of the mind "which contemplates both itself and all other things." Furthermore, this "rational faculty" is "the only faculty that we have received which examines itself, what it is, and what power it has." The rational faculty, in fact, is the only means we have for making any kind of assessment or choice about anything: "for what else is there which tells us that golden things are beautiful, for they do not say so themselves?" The importance of this, in Epictetus' estimation, cannot be overstated:
That which is best of all and supreme over all is the only thing which the Gods have placed in our power.
What got me thinking about this was a very interesting post over at Prometheus Unbound, which includes a beautiful video by Marina and the Diamonds called simply I am not a Robot (also, here's a UK Guardian article on the band from Sept. '08):
You’ve been acting awful tough lately
Smoking a lot of cigarettes lately
But inside, you’re just a little baby
It’s okay to say you’ve got a weak spot
You don’t always have to be on top
Better to be hated than love, love, loved for what you’re not

You’re vulnerable, you’re vulnerable
You are not a robot
You’re loveable, so loveable
But you’re just troubled

Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot
Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot

You’ve been hanging with the unloved kids
Who you never really liked and you never trusted
But you are so magnetic, you pick up all the pins
Never committing to anything
You don’t pick up the phone when it ring, ring, rings
Don’t be so pathetic, just open up and sing

I’m vulnerable, I’m vulnerable
I am not a robot
You’re loveable, so loveable
But you’re just troubled

Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot
Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot

Can you teach me how to feel real?
Can you turn my power on?
Well, let the drum beat drop

Guess what? I’m not a robot
Guess what? I’m not a robot

Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot
Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot
Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot
Guess what? I’m not a robot, a robot

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Huntress of the Moon, and Lady of the Earth

The early 70's were strange times. People actually believed in the possibility of a revolution in the United freaking States of America. A lot of the people who believed that, well, actually, the vast majority, were stupid kids who had very little idea what they were talking about. Three of those kids (Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins, and Ted Gold) were making bombs one day in their Greenwich Village Townhouse, when one of their bombs went off - killing them.

That was on March 6, 1970. Less than three months before Black Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark had been murdered in their sleep by the Chicago police. And less than two months later, on April 30, President Nixon ordered the US invasion of Cambodia, which in turn sparked demonstrations on college campuses around the nation. On May 4 National Guard troops opened fire on student demonstrators at Kent State University, killing four and wounding 9. Then in the early morning of May 15 police opened fire on a dormitory building at Jackson State University, killing 2 and wounding 12.

The result of these and similar events was that in the Spring of 1970 liberals became radicals and radicals became revolutionaries. The famous San Francisco rock-group Jefferson Starship captured the zeitgeist of this time on their 1971 album Sunfighter, and especially in the song Diana, which portrayed Diana Oughton as a revolutionary hero (another song on the same album, Holding Together, also expressed open sympathy for the Viet Cong):
[Diana, Part 1]
How do you feel to shoot down your brother now

And bury us in cages of cement and steel

What do you see when you look at one another now
Who do you see tell me how do you feel

Sing a song for the children who are gone

Sing a song for Diana

Huntress of the moon and a lady of the Earth

Weather woman Diana

[Diana, Part 2]
How do you feel as you cut
Down your children now
And leave them dying
On the grass in the sun

What do you see
When you look at one another now
Tell me old man
Tell me where will you run

Sing a song
For the children going down
Remember - the ones you knew
Remember how we danced
And remember how we sang
In Amerika
So many years ago.

[Diana, from the album Sunfighter, 1971]
If you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, then I strongly recommend you see the amazing 2002 documentary The Weather Underground by Sam Green and Bill Siegel. Whether you were there or not, whether you think people like Diana Oughton were evil, foolish, heroic, or possibly some combination thereof, this is an amazing film.

No townhouses or young revolutionaries were harmed in the creation of the beautiful statue Diana of the Chase (pictured at the top of this post), by the spectacularly talented sculptor Anna Hyatt Huntington. This sculpture can be seen, among other places, at the Washington County Museum of Fine Arts in Hagerstown, Maryland. It can also be seen at Brookgreen Gardens in South Carolina, and also at the Virginia Steele Scott Gallery of American Art at Harvard University.

Huntington's stunning sculpture inspired her friend, Maxwell Anderson, to write the following poem in 1922, the closing lines of which are, well, kind of freaking me out right now as I write this and ponder how eerily appropriate those words are:
Now you have shot your arrow at the Sun,
little Diana, and the god caught you there -
the living wind still in your up-blown hair,
your eyes burnt back from staring hard upon
the target of the glory of high noon -
caught and immured you in his burnished air
forever, a too valiant challenger,
lifting the empty sockets of the moon.

Had you walked soberly your forest shade
and hid your virgin lustre under cloud
and let your bow hang at the eaves unstrung
you had not died so light and fierce a maid,
for, dying, gone to join the mutinous crowd
of beautiful blind rebels who died young.

"witchcraft, astrology, or Tarot cards?"

Some Pagans might be tempted to think that there's little or no point in defending a conservative evangelical Christian like Francis Collins against a nice liberal atheist like Sam Harris. Some might even be tempted to think that Harris has some valid points to make. That could be a very serious mistake.

The thing that Harris cannot stand about Francis Collins is that Collins proves, just by his very existence, that being a deeply religious person is perfectly compatible with being a good, even a great, scientist. And the thing for Pagans to realize is that Harris would be just as outraged, as he has made clear in his own own words, or possibly even more outraged, if Collins were a Pagan rather than a Presbyterian.

Sam Harris is especially incensed by the fact that the prestigious science journal Nature ("which remains the most influential scientific publication on earth") favorably reviewed (Building Bridges, Nature 442, 110) Collins' 2006 book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In fact, the Nature review
praised Collins for engaging “with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs.”
Harris is certain that the editors of this esteemed scientific institution must have been duped, or cowed, or bought off, or put under a magical spell, or something like that. To dramatize just how wrong-headed Harris thinks the Nature editors to have been he asks us to consider this question:
Would Collins have received the same treatment in Nature if he had argued for the compatibility between science and witchcraft, astrology, or Tarot cards?
Harris answers his own question:
Not a chance. In fact, we can be confident that his scientific career would have terminated in an inferno of criticism.
[The Strange Case of Francis Collins]
All that is missing is the MWAhahahahahaha as Harris rubs his hands together and licks his lips at the thought of scientific careers being "terminated in an inferno of criticism" on the basis of the religious beliefs of the scientists in question. In case anyone could possibly not see where Harris is going with this, he approvingly points to how "biochemist Rupert Sheldrake had his academic career decapitated, in a single stroke, by an editorial in Nature." And in case even that doesn't spell this out clearly enough for anyone, one only needs to know that the title of the editorial in question was, and I am not making this up, A Book for Burning? (Click here to download the pdf for that review.)

There are, of course, a great many scientists, physicians, engineers, etc. who do, as a matter of fact, not only believe in "witchcraft, astrology or Tarot cards" but dare to believe that such beliefs are compatible with science. And as I discussed in a recent post ("detached from the masses and usually disempowered"), such things as Alchemy and Astrology were accepted parts of western intellectual culture from antiquity up until the early 18th century. This period includes the so-called "scientific revolution", and we now know that Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and many other paragons of modern science, were heavily involved in just the kinds of things that Sam Harris now insists are far beyond the pale.

I have a PhD in physical chemistry (as does Francis Collins). I also probably have more sets of Tarot cards than Collins has Bibles, and at least that many books on Astrology (including several ancient ones written in Latin or Greek), and I am also a member of a Wiccan tradition whose members consider "Witch" to be a title of honor and respect. And the only PhD that Sam Harris has, by the way, is the type that stands for "Piled higher and Deeper", as we used to say back home in Indiana.

Sam Harris apparently would like to see a purge of all scientists (especially prominent scientists employed by the government) who do not adhere closely enough to the party line. Those who are deemed to be insufficiently atheistic should have their careers "terminated in an inferno of criticism" or, better yet, "decapitated in a single stroke".

Harris is already well on his way to promulgating a list of proscribed subjects and authors. Anyone found to be in possession of such forbidden literature will be terminated, decapitated, etc. Banned authors would include Carl Jung, who wrote about Astrology, Alchemy and even Tarot; Margot Adler, Starhawk, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and all other Wiccans, Witches, etc; Rupert Sheldrake and anyone sympathetic to him, which would include noted mathematician Ralph Abraham, and physicist David Bohm; Arthur C. Clarke who showed an unhealthy interest in reincarnation, psychic phenomena, and communication with non-human species; Arthur Koestler, author of Darkness at Noon, one of the greatest anti-totalitarian works of literature ever written, who also bequeathed almost a million English pounds to the study of parapsychology; not to mention such obviously verboten authors as Aldous Huxley, Alice Walker, Kim Stanley Robinson, Deepak Chopra, Erica Jong, Philip K. Dick, Herman Hesse, William Butler Yeats, Shelley, Wollstonecraft, Goethe, Shakespeare, Milton, and so forth. Also, all books on Buddhism and Hinduism must be banned because those religions promote reincarnation, karma, mantra recitation, meditation and other similarly ridiculous ideas.

I realize that some people might think I am exaggerating the sinister nature of Sam Harris' intentions. But consider what Sir John Maddox, who was editor of Nature for 22 years, had to say when interviewed on BBC television in 1994, 13 years after writing A Book for Burning?:
Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy.
Harris goes out of his way to say that in his opinion Francis Collins is worse than Rupert Sheldrake, and to imply that what he would like to see happen to Collins should be worse than the "career decapitation" that happened to Sheldrake!

The next logical step would seem to be for all scientists to be required to take some kind of Rationality Oath. Also graduate students should be encouraged to denounce professors who are suspected of being soft on religion. Any scientist who comes from a religious family, or who is married to a spouse known to frequent synagogues, churches, Hindu temples, New Age bookstores, or other off-limits venues should be subject to proportionately greater scrutiny.

And the case of Rupert Sheldrake makes it painfully obvious that mere career decapitation is not enough to silence these dangerous heretics. More effective measures must be brought to bear to rid the world of Presbyterians, Pagans, Tarot card readers, and all those who threaten to confuse our public discourse and sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. But don't worry, because Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne & Co. are doing their best to bring us closer to that bright, shining, spiritually sanitized future when science will have already answered all of our questions before they are even asked.

[Thoth Tarot card images were downloaded from the keepsilence.org website.]

Sam Harris. In Defense of Torture. Srsly.

Sam Harris said of himself in October, 2005:
I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror. In the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, this is not a comfortable position to have publicly adopted.
Do tell.

Harris even titled the Huffington Post essay the above quote is taken from "In Defense of Torture".

W. T. F?

But it gets even better. In the same year that Harris wrote "In Defense of Torture" he was the recipient of a PEN Award. According to the PEN Charter:
IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and particularly in time of war, works of art and libraries, the heritage of humanity at large, should be left untouched by national or political passion.

MEMBERS OF PEN should at all times use what influence they have in favor of good understanding and mutual respect among nations; they pledge themselves to do their utmost to dispel race, class, and national hatreds and to champion the ideal of one humanity living in peace in the world.
PEN even has its own "Campaign against torture"!! On their website PEN says:
we are campaigning for the restoration of the right of habeas corpus and an end to torture, arbitrary detentions, extraordinary renditions, substandard trials, and secret prisons.
But Sam Harris says:
I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on emotional grounds, to my defense of torture, no one has pointed out a flaw in my argument.
I would suggest that the flaw isn't so much in Sam Harris' argument as it is in Sam Harris himself.

To learn more about the nice liberal atheist Sam Harris and his public support "for the use torture in rare circumstances" (words that even George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc, have never dared to say out loud much less put into print), just do a google search, or read Andrew Brown's recent blog on the subject over at the UK Guardian. Brown states bluntly that Harris "argues unambiguously for the use of torture. Why pretend otherwise?"

Why, indeed.