Evo Morales, first indigenous president in the Americas, re-elected in landslide

The UK Guardian has dubbed Evo Morales' re-election as President of Boliva a "rout". The more subdued Wall Street Journal was only willing to venture that Morales "appears" to have won (with over 90% of votes counted he has double triple the number of votes of the second place candidate). The Christian Science Monitor says that Morales is "solidifying the revolution he promises to bring to the country's long oppressed indigenous majority."

Morales is both an Aymara Indian, and a socialist. Paganism has no intrinsic affinity for modern politics of either the right or the left (or otherwise), although the opposite is very often assumed by Pagans all over the political spectrum. Something similar is true, in my opinion, for the indigenous religious traditions of the Americas (setting aside for now what relationship these traditions have to Paganism).

To say the least, leftists have not historically been reliable allies for indigenous peoples. Both revolutionary Marxists and more sedate Social Democrat types have often been under the spell of overtly eurocentric conceptions about historical and economic "progress". Although they may have become more sophisticated in their phrasing over the decades, many leftists continue to promote the idea that being conquered by Europeans was a net positive gain for the uncivilized peoples of the world who lacked the good fortune to have been born in Europe or of European ancestry, and that this net gain more than offsets any inconveniences that may have been experienced during the processes of conquest, enslavement, colonization, and forced religious conversion.

Prominent American leftist Michael Parenti, for example, proudly advances the noxious idea that being conquered by the more "advanced" Chinese was the best thing that ever happened to the feudal, superstitious Buddhist savages of Tibet, by virtue of the fact that the Chinese were acting in the name of the European ideology of Communism, which ideology they then proceeded to generously share with their new Tibetan comrades. Parenti informs us that the Chinese occupiers "promote social reforms", and only wish to help the poor, stupid, self-oppressed Tibetans:

Among the earliest changes they [the Chinese] wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build a few hospitals and roads. At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect reconstruction. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants. “Contrary to popular belief in the West,” claims one observer, the Chinese “took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion.”
[Friendly Feudalism]

This sounds like the same kind of crap that President Andew Jackson used to spew when explaining how his policy of "Indian removal" was in the best interests of the Native Americans:

[The removal policy] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community ... Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the Red Man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home.
[Address to Congress, December 8, 1830]

Parenti's attempts to justify the brutal occupation of Tibet also sound precisely like the justifications that the United States government routinely gives for it's military adventures abroad, all of which Parenti has of course dutifully opposed.

Perhaps (or perhaps not) surprisingly, old Karl Marx was far more sympathetic to the "Hindoos" of India as they suffered under the yolk of British Imperialism, than the modern day Marxist Parenti is to the Buddhists of Tibet. In an article published in English in the New York Daily Tribune in 1853, Marx referred briefly to previous foreign conquests of India at the hands of Muslims and the Portuguese, and then categorically declared that

There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before ... England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.
[The British Rule in India, June 25, 1853]

One can only hope that a significant number of Latin American leftists are more inclined to Marx himself than to the Marxism of Parenti when it comes to respecting the cultural traditions, including religious traditions, of non-European peoples.

U.S. Government launches balloons to test accuracy of information on the Internet

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced today that they were launching one thousand red balloons as part of a nationwide experiment to evaluate the accuracy of information as it spreads on the Internet.

200 balloons were launched simultaneously from each of the State Capitol Buildings of all 50 states at 12:05 pm EST today (12-05). A team of volunteers from the Supercomputing Center at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis will be monitoring all Internet traffic that contains the phrase "red balloons". These volunteers will be using a specially modified version of the FBI's Carnivore software to gather this information. Carnivore, in turn, was a joint venture of the Clinton Justice Department and Microsoft, Inc.

The project was designed jointly by DARPA and an ad-hoc committee of wikipedia senior editors. An unnamed spokesperson for the wikipedia editors stated that they hope to counter widespread concerns about the unreliability of the Internet as an information resource. DARPA, of course, is the Defense Department agency largely responsible for originally creating the Internet. Unnamed Defense Department sources stated that no public funds were used for the project, which is being financed completely by the Gates Foundation and the Partnership for a Better Informed World.

Are there two kinds of religion? (Part One: David Hume on Polytheism and Monotheism)

David Hume on Polytheism and Monotheism
Two hundred and fifty years ago, the great Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) set down his thoughts on the subject of the origins and foundations of religion in The Natural History of Religion. In that work, Hume wrote that “polytheism or idolatry was, and must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind". Indeed, the first section is titled "That Polytheism was the primary Religion of Men." The following excerpt, comprising the opening half dozen paragraphs of that section, nicely illustrates what Hume has to say, while at the same time providing us with a rather unguarded view of the self-perceptions of Europeans of his day with respect to their fellow, non-European, human beings.

It appears to me, that if we consider the improvement of human society, from rude beginnings to a state of greater perfection, polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind. This opinion I shall endeavor to confirm by the following arguments.

It is a matter of fact incontestable, that about 1,700 years ago all mankind were polytheists. The doubtful and sceptical principles of a few philosophers, or the theism, and that too not entirely pure, of one or two nations, form no objection worth regarding. Behold then the clear testimony of history. The farther we mount up into antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheism. No marks, no symptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancient records of the human race still present us with that system as the popular and established creed. The north, the south, the east, the west, give their unanimous testimony to the same fact. What can be opposed to so full an evidence?

As far as writing or history reaches, mankind, in ancient times, appear universally to have been polytheists. Shall we assert, that in more ancient times, before the knowledge of letters, or the discovery of any art or science, men entertained the principles of pure theism? That is, while they were ignorant and barbarous, they discovered truth; but fell into error, as soon as they acquired learn- and politeness.

But in this assertion you not only contradict all appearance of probability, but also our present experience concerning the principles and opinions of barbarous nations. The savage tribes of America, Africa, and Asia, are all idolaters. Not a single exception to this rule. Insomuch that, were a traveller to transport himself into any unknown region; if he found inhabitants cultivated with arts and sciences, though even upon that supposition there are odds against their being theists, yet could he not safely, till farther inquiry, pronounce any thing on that head: but if he found them ignorant and barbarous, he might beforehand declare them idolaters; and there scarcely is a possibility of his being mistaken.

It seems certain that, according to the natural progress of human thought, the ignorant multitude must first entertain some grovelling and familiar notion of superior powers, before they stretch their conception to that perfect Being who bestowed order on the whole frame of nature. We may as reasonably imagine that men inhabited palaces before huts and cottages, or studied geometry before agriculture; as assert that the Deity appeared to them a pure spirit, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, before he was apprehended to be a powerful, though limited being, with human passions and appetites, limbs and organs. The mind rises gradually, from inferior to superior: by abstracting from what is imperfect, it forms an idea of perfection: and slowly distinguishing the nobler parts of its own frame from the grosser, it learns to transfer only the former, much elevated and refined, to its divinity. Nothing could disturb this natural progress of thought, but some obvious and invincible argument, which might immediately lead the mind into the pure principles of theism, and make it overleap, at one bound, the vast interval which is interposed between the human and the divine nature. But though I allow that the order and frame of the universe, when accurately examined, affords such an argument; yet I can never think that this consideration could have an influence on mankind, when they formed their first rude notions of religion.

The causes of such objects as are quite familiar to us, never strike our attention or curiosity; and however extraordinary or surprising these objects in themselves, they are passed over, by the raw and ignorant multitude, without much examination or enquiry. Adam, rising at once in Paradise, and in the full perfection of his faculties, would naturally, as represented by Milton, be astonished at the glorious appearances of nature, the heavens, the air, the earth, his own organs and members; and would be led to ask, whence this wonderful scene arose. But a barbarous, necessitous animal (such as man is on the first origin of society), pressed by such numerous wants and passions, has no leisure to admire the regular face of nature, or make enquiries concerning the cause of objects to which, from his infancy, he has been gradually accustomed. On the contrary, the more regular and uniform, that is, the more perfect nature appears, the more is he familiarised to it, and the less inclined to scrutinise and examine it. A monstrous birth excites his curiosity, and is deemed a prodigy. It alarms him from its novelty; and immediately sets him a-trembling, and sacrificing, and praying. But an animal complete in all its limbs and organs, is to him an ordinary spectacle, and produces no religious opinion or affection. Ask him, whence that animal arose; he will tell you, from the copulation of its parents. And these, whence? From the copulation of theirs. A few removes satisfy his curiosity, and set the objects at such a distance, that he entirely loses sight of them. Imagine not that he will so much as start the question, whence the first animal; much less, whence the whole system or united fabric of the universe arose. Or, if you start such a question to him, expect not that he will employ his mind with any anxiety about a subject so remote, so uninteresting, and which so much exceeds the bounds of his capacity.

Part of Hume's thesis was controversial, and part was not. The part that was controversial was his contention that polytheism came first, and that monotheism does not appear on the scene until much later. Hume's solidly historical theory of "primary polytheism" was strongly opposed by the completely ahistorical theory of "original monotheism". Two centuries after David Hume, Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883-1959) produced a very nice and succinct summary of the debate between these two positions, in his essay The Formation of Monotheism, which I will talk about in a future post. I will also defer until the (hopefully not too distant) future the following two highly relevant questions:

1. Is this distinction between polytheism and monotheism really so absolute? Aren't there "transitional" religions occupying some gray area between monotheism and polytheism, and/or between primary and secondary religions?

2. What about Christians (and others) today, like Karen Armstrong, who attempt to portray "all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions" as essentially the same or at least equally valid, and who, implicitly or explicitly, reject the idea that there are fundamentally different kinds of religion?

What was not controversial, however, was Hume's claim that monotheism and polytheism represent utterly different forms of religion. This was uncontroversial because it is, as everyone knows, one of the most basic theological cornerstones of Christianity and all other genuinely monotheistic religions.

For now I will conclude with another extended excerpt from Hume on another controversial claim of his: that primary, polytheistic religions are inherently tolerant, whereas monotheistic religions are inherently intolerant. Here is the entirety of the section titled "Comparison of these Religions with regard to Persecution and Toleration.":

Polytheism or idolatrous worship, being founded entirely in vulgar traditions, is liable to this great inconvenience, that any practice or opinion, however barbarous or corrupted, may be authorized by it; and full scope is left for knavery to impose on credulity till morals and humanity be expelled from the religious systems of mankind. At the same time, idolatry is attended with this evident advantage, that, by limiting the powers and functions of its deities, it naturally admits the Gods of other sects and nations to a share of divinity, and renders all the various deities, as well as rites, ceremonies, or traditions, compatible with each other. Theism is opposite both in its advantages and disadvantages. As that system supposes one sole deity, the perfection of reason and goodness, it should, if justly prosecuted, banish everything frivolous, unreasonable, or inhuman from religious worship, and set before men the most illustrious example, as well as the most commanding motives of justice and benevolence. These mighty advantages are not indeed over-balanced (for that is not possible), but somewhat diminished, by inconveniences, which arise from the vices and prejudices of mankind. While one sole object of devotion is acknowleged, the worship of other deities is regarded as absurd and impious. Nay, this unity of object seems naturally to require the unity of faith and ceremonies, and furnishes designing men with a pretense for representing their adversaries as profane, and the objects of divine as well as human vengeance. For as each sect is positive that its own faith and worship are entirely acceptable to the deity, and as no one can conceive that the same being should be pleased with different and opposite rites and principles, the several sects fall naturally into animosity, and mutually discharge on each other that sacred zeal and rancour, the most furious and implacable of all human passions.

The tolerating spirit of idolaters, both in ancient and modern times, is very obvious to anyone who is the least conversant in the writings of historians or travellers. When the oracle of Delphi was asked, what rites or worship was most acceptable to the Gods? “Those legally established in each city,” replied the oracle. Even priests, in those ages, could, it seems, allow salvation to those of a different communion. The Romans commonly adopted the Gods of the conquered people; and never disputed the attributes of those local and national deities in whose territories they resided. The religious wars and persecutions of the Egyptian idolaters are indeed an exception to this rule; but are accounted for by ancient authors from reasons singular and remarkable. Different species of animals were the deities of the different sects among the Egyptians; and the deities being in continual war, engaged their votaries in the same contention. The worshippers of dogs could not long remain in peace with the adorers of cats or wolves. But where that reason took not place, the Egyptian superstition was not so incompatible as is commonly imagined; since we learn from Herodotus, that very large contributions were given by Amasis towards rebuilding the temple of Delphi.

The intolerance of almost all religions which have maintained the unity of God is as remarkable as the contrary principle of polytheists. The implacable narrow spirit of the Jews is well known. Mahometanism set out with still more bloody principles; and even to this day, deals out damnation, though not fire and faggot, to all other sects. And if, among Christians, the English and Dutch have embraced the principles of toleration, this singularity has proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil magistrate, in opposition to the continued efforts of priest and bigots.

The disciples of Zoroaster shut the doors of heaven against all but the Magians. Nothing could more obstruct the progress of the Persian conquests than the furious zeal of that nation against the temples and images of the Greeks. And after the overthrow of that empire, we find Alexander, as a polytheist, immediately re-establishing the worship of the Babylonians, which their former princes, as monotheists, had carefully abolished. Even the blind and devoted attachment of that conqueror to the Greek superstition hindered not but he himself sacrificed according to the Babylonish rites and ceremonies.

So sociable is polytheism, that the utmost fierceness and aversion which it meets with in an opposite religion is scarcely able to disgust it, and keep it at a distance. Augustus praised extremely the reserve of his grandson, Caius Cæsar, when this latter prince, passing by Jerusalem, deigned not to sacrifice according to the Jewish law. But for what reason did Augustus so much approve of this conduct? Only because that religion was by the Pagans esteemed ignoble and barbarous.

I may venture to affirm that few corruptions of idolatry and polytheism are more pernicious to political society than this corruption of theism, when carried to the utmost height. The human sacrifices of the Carthaginians, Mexicans, and many barbarous nations, scarcely exceed the Inquisition and persecutions of Rome and Madrid. For besides that the effusion of blood may not be so great in the former case as in the latter; besides this, I say, the human victims, being chosen by lot, or by some exterior signs, affect not in so considerable a degree the rest of the society. Whereas virtue, knowledge, love of liberty, are the qualities which call down the fatal vengeance of inquisitors; and when expelled, leave the society in the most shameful ignorance, corruption, and bondage. The illegal murder of one man by a tyrant is more pernicious than the death of a thousand by pestilence, famine, or any undistinguishing calamity.

In the temple of Diana at Aricia near Rome, whoever murdered the present priest was legally entitled to be installed his successor. A very singular institution! For, however barbarous and bloody the common superstitions often are to the laity, they usually turn to the advantage of the holy order.

In case anyone missed it, in the above passages David Hume can hardly be said to be at all admiring, or even sympathetic, in his view of polytheism. In fact, he can't help but repeatedly insist on the superiority of monotheism! It's quite possible that this is simply a posture that he chooses to adopt, perhaps ironically, perhaps defensively. Nevertheless what he is saying can in no way be interpreted as any kind of straightforward endorsement of polytheism.

Hume was not at all unique in his assessment of the relationship between monotheism and intolerance: this view was shared by other Enlightenment figures including Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Edward Gibbon. But this same opinion was also shared, and very forcefully reiterated, by the historian J.B. Bury (1861-1927), and it is supported by the work of a wide variety of eminent contemporary historians including, but not limited to, Ramsay MacMullen, Perez Zagorin, Charles Freeman and Jan Assmann. For more on Bury, MacMullen, & Co., see this previous post. On the general issue of religious typology also see these previous posts:
The Essence of Religion
What is Counterreligion?
What kind of religion is Buddhism?
In honor of Freddie Mercury: "We are Zoroastrians, my friends ...."
Religions of the Library
Religions of the Library, Part Deux

LSD, Creativity, and Spirituality (Marlene Dobkin de Rios)

"Boundaries Dissolve"
Everyone has heard of Carlos Castaneda. (I mean, well, haven't they?!?) But how many people have ever heard of Barbara Myerhoff or Marlene Dobkin de Rios? Myerhoff was actually a friend and fellow graduate student of Don Carlos back in the day. She is even credited with talking him out of burning his PhD thesis, which was later published as The Teachings of Don Juan, a Yaqui Way of Knowledge. Like her friend Carlito, Barbara also did field work on the spiritual traditions of indigenous people whose religion involved the ingestion of mind altering naturally occurring substances, i.e., entheogens. And Myerhoff also crossed the line that separates detached objective observer from shaman's apprentice.

But Barbara Myerhoff managed to not only bridge the divide between doing research and going native, she also did not burn that bridge once she had crossed it. In a very real sense this makes her a far greater Shaman than Carlos ever was, for she was truly able to "walk between the worlds", whereas Castaneda simply left one world for the other, and pretty much stayed there (never mind that he continued to attempt to play the objective, skeptical, analytical observer: no one was fooled). The best introduction to Myerhoff's life and work, in my opinion, is her wonderful book Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians. (And I also talked about her a while back in my post on Chasing Waterfalls.)

But the person I really wanted to talk about is the extraordinary Marlene Dobkin de Rios. She was yet another young adventurer-cum-graduate-student back in 1960's who went out among los indios to study their primitive, pagan, "primary" religions. But like Myerhoff she managed to retain her grounding in and connectedness to her own world while entering fully into theirs. Really it's not going too far to say that de Rios went far beyond merely blurring the dividing line that is supposed to cleanly separate the neatly fenced in and manicured mental garden of the modern, western academic scholar from the luxuriant psychic jungle of le pensee sauvage: she obliterated it and then did a little dance, scattering the remaining debris. And she did it all without the slightest hint of bravado or bluster, let alone megalomania or messianism. There is not even a hint of exaggeration in what I am saying here.

But for now I'm not going to say any more about her remarkable biography (which you can read more about on her website if you like). Instead I want to dive right into one of her more recent writing projects (I believe her first major book was Visionary Vine: Hallucinogenic Healing in the Peruvian Amazon, published in 1972).

In 2003 de Rios published, together with Oscar Janiger (and with a forward by Rick Strassman), the book LSD, Spirituality and the Creative Process. Here is an excerpt:

Contemporary writers of the psychology of religion characterize both mystical and religious experiences in terms such as unity, which is the direct perception of connectedness or oneness. Thus in mystical states there is a complete lack of differentiation between the self and the object of awe and reverence, and boundaries dissolve. Opposites such as good and evil, justice and injustice, and god and humanity disappear, and all things tend toward a unified, undifferentiated oneness. Additionally, such experiences often include the transcendence of time and space and a sense of sacredness, which may present emotions ranging from awe (fascination, wonder, or terror) to a deeply felt positive mood. Profound insights can occur and are described by religious practitioners as epiphanies, theophanies, moments of illumination, and states of grace. Often people experience both understanding and redemption. Sometimes enduring changes in a person's emotional well-being, beliefs, values and behaviors occur....

As Anthony Wallace, an anthropologist, points out (Religion: An Anthropological View, 1966), religious behavior universally makes efforts to induce an ecstatic spiritual state by crudely and directly manipulating physiological processes. These include drugs as well as sensory deprivation, mortification of the flesh by pain, sleeplessness and fatique, and deprivation of food, water, or air. As early as 1959 Wallace argued that the use of LSD and other psychedelic drugs lay in what he called a folk interpretation based on the basic phychophysiological reaction to the drug, so that the ecstatic experience is phrased for the individual as communication with the divinity. Wallace argues convincingly that the physiological manipulation of the human body, by any means available, to produce euphoria, dissociation, or hallucination is one of the nearly universal characteristics of religion. The ecstatic experience is a goal of religious effort, and whatever means are found to help the communicant reach it will be employed!

While scholars have identified many different types of religious experiences, the key elements and essential categories of universal religious behavior as defined by Wallace include the following:

1 . Prayer: addressing the supernatural
2. Music, dancing, singing, and playing instruments
3. Physiological exercise: the physical manipulation of psychological states including the use of drugs, sensory deprivation, mortification of the flesh by pain, sleeplessness, fatigue, deprivation of food, water or air
4. Exhortation: addressing another human beings, particularly as a representative of divinity
5. Reciting the code: mythology, morality, and other aspects of the belief system
6. Simulation: imitating things in ritual explicitly oriented toward the control of supernatural beings
7. Touching things believed to contain supernatural power, such as laying on of hands in religious healing
8. Taboo: not touching sacred objects, refraining from certain behaviors
9. Feasts: a sacral meal, or eating or drinking materials that containe a supernatural force or power
10. Sacrifice: immolation, offerings, and fees
11. Congregation: processions, meetings and convocations
12: Inspiration: a temporary union with a god or spirit
13: Symbolism: manufacture and use of symbolic objects that may represent the divinities themselves

For many, the sense of unity or awe is one of the most arresting aspects of the mystical-religious experience, as Wallace points out in his discussion of the physical manipulation of the psychological states. The concept of an absolute unitary state of being as one in which all perception of multiplicity of being is eradicated has been nicely delineated by the anthropologist Eugene D'Aquili and his colleagues. In this state individuals directly apprehend absolute unity with themselves, others, and the universe. Subject and object merge and boundaries to the self are weakened. Reality itself is perceived as oneness. Attached to this experience is a profound and intrinsic sense of underlying beauty and goodness. That is, the universe is perceived as a whole, good, and purposeful. When people leave this state, they do not perceive it as having been an illusion, hallucination, or delusion. Rather, they see it as the fundamental reality that underlies all reality.

It is important to note that this sense of reality differs enormously from that traditionally validated by scientists. Psychologist Charles Tart makes a distinction between baseline states of consciousness (b-SoC) and discrete altered states of consciousness (d-ASoC). He argues convincingly that rational consciousness is merely one type of consciousness, equally valid with that induced spiritually, or one, for that matter, induced by LSD. Science arises from our rational, baseline state of consciousness that perceives reality as an amalgam of multiple discrete beings in emotionally neutral subject-object relationships.

The absolute unitary state, on the other hand, arises from discrete altered states of consciousness. The absolute unity of being can be considered an ultimate trance state. For D'Aquli and Newberg, the trance stage progressively becomes intense, with a blurring of the boundaries of individuals until they perceive no spatial or temporal boundaries at all and experience absolute unity, devoid of content. The self-0ther construct is obliterated. Ultimately, the person experiences a movement from a baseline orientation in an external reality to a more intense sense of unity with the rest ofthe world and an increasing loss of a sense self and other. The person now can lose individuality and experience a sense of absorption into the object of focus or the universe in general. As D'Aquili and Newberg argue, a person reaching the absolute unity of being not only becomes one with that object and experiences a breakdown 0f the self-other dichotomy, but also "the object that he is absorbed into is also broken down, which gives rise to an experience of unity with all things .... D'Aquili points out that common result of this experience is freedom from fear of death.
[pp. 116-119]

The Hatred Driven Life

Even before Obama had invited him to a prominent role in the inauguration, Rick Warren had already publicly compared gay marriage to incest:



Now he's at it again. Most of the US media only recently caught wind of the fact that Warren has long been tied to a virulently anti-gay Christian "pastor" in Uganda named Martin Ssempa. But two astute journalists, Ed Brayton and Max Blumenthal, have been writing about this for almost a year now. Ssempa has been involved in such things as publishing the names of "accused" homosexuals in newspapers while simultaneously calling for them to be arrested and jailed for this "crime". Rick Warren has actually cited his association with Ssempa as evidence of his "compassionate" involvement in fighting HIV/AIDS!!!!

But Ssempa, who has appeared as a guest preacher at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, was not satisfied with the existing laws in Uganda already making it crime to be gay. And so Ssempa has supported new laws that include stricter penalties and even in some cases the death penalty. Warren claims to have severed ties with Ssempa, but has refused to condemn the proposed new legislation in Uganda. Warren did, however, publicly campaign in favor of California Proposition 8, which resulted in adding a ban on gay marriage to the state constitution.

Warren pulled the wool over a lot of peoples' eyes with his "Purpose Driven" spiel. I hope those folks are learning from this.

"Otherwise I do not have any strong feelings about that subject."

"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that, when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.

"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

"Otherwise I do not have any strong feelings about that subject."
[Bill Clinton, Jan. 8, 2008]

“Meet the mastermind of the Ayodhya demolition.”

Koenraad Elst, a western scholar who has had extensive contacts with the Hindu nationalist milieu going back to the 1980's, states in a new post on his blog that the 1992 destruction of the Babri Masjid was "pre-planned", which he states flatly "has always been obvious". Elst also writes that he has talked personally to "members of the demolition vanguard" who described to him their training and even the tools that they brought with them on the appointed day. But the most fascinating thing of all is what Elst writes next:

They also mentioned the name of the mastermind of the whole operation; it was not Advani nor A.B. Vajpayee. Which brings us to the most startling fact of the demolition’s aftermath: the total refusal of the Indian media to investigate the details. Collectively, they spurned the scoop of the decade, viz. a cover picture with the caption: “Meet the mastermind of the Ayodhya demolition.” The reason is that they found it more expedient to blame Advani and barred themselves from publishing or indeed finding anything that might disturb this story-line.

Go to Elst's blog to read the whole post here.

What Elst is saying now is not new. In 1996 he wrote almost precisely the same words (see this previous post in my blog, and links and references contained therein).

The only thing to add to this is that Elst is hardly an unknown figure. He has published multiple books on the subject of Ayodhya, and he has a blog in English that anyone can find easily if they really want to hear both sides of the issue (or at least more than one side). And yet the western media simply follows the lead of the breathtakingly incurious Indian media. The truth is out there. In fact, it is staring you in the face. All you have to do is open your eyes.

Try not to smile as you watch these. Go ahead and try.

Yet Another Idiotic Atheist Ad Campaign

Nothing makes winning an argument easier than playing both sides, which is known as a straw man argument. Although the exact origins of the phrase are not agreed upon, one folk etymology nicely illustrates exactly how this works. This etymology is based on a military training exercise in which soldiers charge straw dummies and skewer them with their bayonets (see illustration). Take that!!

Maybe in the future the "straw man" argument will also be known as the "atheist ad campaign argument". The crux of the biscuit, when it comes to these atheist ad campaigns, is to reduce all discussion of religion down to the false dichotomy of: do you believe in the God of Abraham, nor not?

But the really pathetic part, for the atheists that is, is that they have played into the Christians' own straw man argument!

The ad campaign just announced by the American Humanist Association turns out to be yet another example of atheists cluelessly carrying water for their kissing cousins, the monotheists. Nothing pleases the Christians more than when non-Christians assume, or, even better, forcefully assert, that the Christian "God" is the end all and be all of Religion. Once this key tenet of Christian theology is admitted, that theirs is the one and only "God", the Christians have already won the day regardless of what else follows. No matter how mightily you beat your chest as you do so, as long as you are declaring your rejection of the Christians' "God" you are playing the Christians' game. And more fool you. (scroll down for more.....)



Other posts dealing with the so-called New Atheism:
The Essence of Religion
Sam Harris. In Defense of Torture. Srsly.
The Strange Case of the Wannabe versus the Scientist
Why They Hate Francis Collins
Contra Atheos
Contra Atheos, Part Deux
On Atheism, Paganism, Christianity, and Human Equality