The persistance of Christianity?

Why is it that when a non-believer confronts one of the faithful the argument invariably turns on demands that we must prove mythical beliefs wrong? In all aspects of science and in the law the burden of proof rests with the person asserting the positive claim. Proving or disproving a hypothesis is a relatively simple process for the scientist, but apparently quite difficult for the faithful.

Literature, history and science yields untold examples of rational, scientific and theoretical thought, but the Bible is not considered literature, history or science. Perhaps it should be… but it isn’t. We might wonder why Christianity is so underrepresented, but clearly it is because scientists, historians and theoreticians reject the concept of miracles. This renders the Bible moot and relegates Jesus to the status of street corner evangelist.

But if we were to accept the claims of divine creation, how would we prove it? If we are to take the whole of academia as guidance… we can’t… which leaves the real question; Why does the myth survive if there can be found not a single shred of evidence for the Christian story of creation, yet evidence disproving Biblical explanations abound? The answer is as simple as brainwashing.

It is not necessary to prove fact or fiction if we are able to convince the mind to accept theory without evidence. The Jesuit Francisco de Jassu y (St. Francis) Xavier said “Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man.” That same creed is still practiced by the Jesuits, as well as in schools across the globe. It was a foundation stone for the Third Reich and is said to have been a favorite quote of Josef Stalin.

Adults tend to be skeptical and are far more able to sift fact from fiction. For this reason cultists and politicians alike strive to indoctrinate the children at the earliest possible age. Witness the ongoing battles waged by Christians to teach creationism as part of the science curriculum in our public schools.

What kind of “truth” is it that must be taught to the immature mind that a more mature person might reject? As humans mature we develop what Michael Shermer calls a “Baloney Detector,” but children exposed to early brainwashing will not have fully developed these critical thinking skills. Children intrinsically trust that which adults teach, and adults with an agenda are quick to take advantage of this.

Christians are Christian not due to truth or evidence, but because they are born into an environment intent upon brainwashing children at an early age.  Just like all religions across the globe, Christianity is cultural and fails to be representative of the truth.

###

Interesting commercial

Genius

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

With apologies to my friend David Brady...

I really don't know much about Steve Job's personal life, but if he never got to wake up to the smell of campfires with mist rising off the river, if he never got to run laughing through the pouring rain while camping, or was visited by the Armadillos at Ft Wilderness Campground, or listened to the howl of coyotes from a Panther Junction hillside, or watched the red sun rise on the West Texas prairie while trying to keep warm from a steaming cup of coffee........I'm not sure I would trade lives.

Each of us here live better than the Kings of a century ago. We have found our passion and are likely not slaves to the world order, but have made it our slave. I would like to think I would honor your lives as equal, or even surpassing Steve Jobs. While I admire his successes, His brief life is a good reminder that we have precious little time to enjoy our success and no amount of money can help when your number comes up.

Jobs was riviled by some, loved by many, and there likely is much that could be said to strip away the veneer of greatness. Regardless of how you feel, it must be acknowledged that the man was just crazy enough to change the world .

"Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast."

― Isaac Asimov

###

Moralism and the demise of liberty

In the last blog (the one about vibrators) I responded to a comment with mention of the infamous La Grange Chicken Ranch, and how moralism caused the demise of that Texas institution. That would be a long story and strictly and opinion piece, but here is a transcript of the events that actually closed the whorehouse, as told by a man who was there.




Gov. Briscoe and the Chicken Ranch
Robert L. Hardesty, SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
Published: 5:19 p.m. Friday, July 30, 2010

During the three years I worked for Gov. Dolph Briscoe, I never saw him duck a tough decision. He was a cautious man. But in the end, he followed his favorite dictum from Sam Houston, "Just do right and risk the consequences." I heard him say it dozens of times. I well remember the first time I heard it. And there were a lot of consequences.

It all began on a quiet day in my Capitol office in 1973. I had recently been appointed by the newly elected governor to be his press secretary. My previous experience being limited to speech writing for President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had a fixed notion about the responsibilities of a speechwriter, one of the first being keeping his name out of the newspapers. He used to tell us, "You should have a passion for anonymity."

Well, that was about to end. My executive assistant, Mary Nell Carlson, buzzed on the phone. "Bob, Marvin Zindler is on the phone and wants to talk to you immediately."

"And who is Marvin Zindler?"

"Don't you know who Marvin Zindler is?" Her tone of voice sounded as if she wanted to end the question with, "dummy?"

"Never heard of him." I was, as I say, new to this business.

"He's with Station KTRK in Houston. He's about the biggest name on Houston television."

"Well, put him on," I said, totally unaware of what I was getting into.

"Mr. Hardesty, this is Marr-vin Zindler."

I soon learned that that was the way he always spoke, on and off the air. Everything was a pronouncement.

"Yes, Mr. Zindler, what can I do for you?"

"You can get me an appointment with the governor on Monday." (This, as I remember, was Friday.)

"Can I tell the governor why you want to talk to see him?"

"I'm onto the biggest story of my career. There are laws being broken. And I want to know what the governor is doing about it."

"Doing about what?"

"You don't think I'm going to tell you, do you? You'd leak it to every reporter in the Capitol. This is an ex-clu-sive."

"Mr. Zindler, I have no wish to ruin your ‘exclusive.' But I have to know why you want to talk to the governor. I'm not about to let you go in there and blind-side him on a subject he doesn't know anything about."

"Hardesty, I'm going to call you on Monday morning and I'd better have an appointment with the governor or there's going to be in trouble."

"Well, you can call, but I don't promise anything."

I hung up, fuming. I don't respond well to threats. I sat there for a long time, wondering what to do. I knew I had to protect the governor. That's what he would expect me to do. But how? Protect him from an irate reporter? Or protect him from a potentially embarrassing story?

Finally, I called the governor and told him about the Zindler call.

"You did right, Bob. I can't see every reporter who thinks he has a big story but won't tell us what it is. See what he's working on. Someone should know."

That "someone," I decided, was Mack Wallace, the director of the Governor's Criminal Council. If laws were being broken, Mack would know about it. He was the former district attorney of Athens and a wonderful gossip. He knew everything that was going on in the state — at least everything worth knowing.

"You don't know about Marvin Zindler?" he asked. "He's an investigative TV reporter and a self-appointed consumer guardian. He's always snooping around Houston restaurants to see if he can find any rat (droppings) in the kitchen. And if he does, he embarrasses the owners on his TV show. Closes them down if he can. I guess that's important but he's a real jerk. He's had a total makeover of his looks: chin job, nose job, eye job, silver toupe, huge padded shoulders. A showman, not a reporter. ‘Marr--vin Zind--Ier. Eyyye-Witness News.'

Why do you ask?"

"He says he's investigating some illegal activity somewhere and wants to talk to the governor about it. That's all he'll say."

"Let me make some calls."

An hour later he was in my office. "Aw. He's investigating that old whore house down in LaGrange."

"Whore house?"

"Yeah, the Chicken Ranch. Says it's open illegally — which I guess it is. It's been there for as long as I can remember. Probably longer. Kids from UT and A&M go there for their first serious sex. Everybody knows about it. Nobody ever complains about it. The girls are clean. It's respectable."

"Why is it called "The Chicken Ranch."

Mack knew I was new to Texas and he loved to instruct me on the little-known folklore of the state.

"Because back in the Depression nobody had any money and the madam started accepting chickens in exchange for services."

"What's Zindler got to do with it?"

"Well, apparently he's trying to make a name for himself statewide and he's been snooping around the place, interviewing the customers and even taking pictures. Now he says he confronted the local sheriff — Flournoy — with his ‘evidence' but the sheriff wouldn't close it down."

"So now he wants to confront the governor with his ‘evidence,' " I said. "So he can go on the air and say the governor knows all about it but won't close it down."

"That's my guess. Or he wants to be able to say, ‘I shamed the governor into closing it down.' " "Either way, the governor comes off looking bad."

I immediately put in another call to the governor. "Well," he said with a sigh, "we'd better have a meeting first thing Monday morning."

Then I put in another call that I was looking forward to — to Marr-vin Zindler.

"I understand you want to talk to the governor about the Chicken Ranch," I said.

He exploded. "How did you find about that? Who leaked it to you?"

"Oh, I have my sources," I replied casually. "Am I going to see the governor?"

"Call me Monday, as we agreed."

I hung up before he could say anything more.

Later in the day, Attorney General John Hill stuck his head in my office. "What's this Monday meeting all about?" he asked.

I told him it was about the Chicken Ranch and he said, "If Dolph thinks I'm going to touch that tar baby he's sadly mistaken." (His very words. I'll never forget them.)

Early Monday morning we gathered in the governor's office. "We" consisted of the governor, Attorney General John Hill and his First Assistant, Larry York, Department of Public Safety Director Col. Wilson "Pat" Spier, Secretary of State Mark White (one of Briscoe's most trusted advisers), the Governor's Executive Assistant Charles Purnell, Mack Wallace, and myself. And, of course, Janey Briscoe, the governor's wife, who was sitting on the sofa, knitting.

The governor opened the meeting by nodding to me. "All right, Bob, fill us in on this Chicken Ranch business."

I told them everything that had transpired on Friday. Wallace, chewing on the stub of a cigar, filled in some blanks. When we had finished, the governor looked up and said, "You know, I didn't know that place was still open."

I thought Janey was going to choke.

Turning to Speir he said, "I assume it is still open, Colonel."

"Yes, governor, we've had it under surveillance for some time. There were rumors that organized crime was involved, but we couldn't find any evidence of that. It's a very important part of the community. No complaints. And we didn't see any reason to close it down."

"Do you have the authority to close it down?

"Well, we think so."

"It's operating illegally?"

"We assume so."

The governor turned to Hill, the attorney general, who had been strangely quiet during the whole meeting. "John? They're operating illegally?"

"Well, Dolph, they almost certainly are, but I'd want to research it." He obviously wasn't going to commit himself.

Hill's first assistant interjected. I'm not exactly certain of what he said, but the gist was that the entire operation had been operating outside of the law for years and was still operating outside of the law.

The governor took a deep breath. "Well what are we going to do?" he asked.

The room was silent.

"Bob," he asked me, "What are the press ramifications of closing the place down?"

"Not good. They're going to have a field day if you shut it down and they're going to come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't shut it down. Zindler will see to that."

"Well, Pat," he asked Spier. "What are we going to do?'

"Just give me my marching orders, governor, and I'll obey them."

The governor turned to Hill.

"Just tell me what you want me to do, Dolph," the attorney general replied. My God, I thought, talk about profiles in courage.

The governor turned to Mark White "Mark? What do you think?"

The secretary of state tried to lighten things up a little. "Governor, I didn't go to UT or A&M. I went to Baylor University. I didn't know about places like The Chicken Ranch."

The rest of us roared with laughter. Janey Brisoe, sitting next to Mark, patted him on the knee and said in a low voice, "I'm so proud of you."

Then White added, "Governor, I don't see that you have any choice."

After a long pause, the governor turned to DPS director. "Pat, we need to enforce the law."

"Yes, sir, I'll call Sheriff Flournoy immediately."

That was it. No bluster. No histrionics. The governor had stepped up to the plate and the Chicken Ranch was effectively closed. He didn't take any pleasure in it. I think it saddened him. Certainly he hadn't run for governor of Texas to shut down a whore house. He just followed his favorite dictum: "Just do right and risk the consequences."

I was very proud of him that day. I still am.

There were consequences, as we knew there would be. A lot of the Capitol press corps poked fun at him. Texas Monthly acted as if he had committed a sin. And several years down the road, Larry L. King, in his hilarious Broadway musical, "The Best Little Whore House in Texas," portrayed him as an indecisive buffoon.

If any of it bothered him, he didn't show it. He was a class act and I believe history will remember him as an outstanding governor and a man of character, principle.

In the Burt & Dolly movie based on the play, Gov. Briscoe was played by the brilliant character actor, Charles Durning.

###

Beer, Prejudice, and Politics

Eric, over at Barataria, writes about beer. I’m certain Eric didn’t know that beer is one of my favorite subjects… but it is, and Eric’s use of analogy created a “teachable moment” for ole Mule Breath. His message is about more than just beer... he uses the godly elixir as a means to make a point about diplomacy.

Eric posits that the ancient Sumerians were the first to discover the benefits of beer. He further suggests that some of that tribe, perhaps preferring the nomadic lifestyle to the sedentary required for farming, argued against putting in the grain crops that would be required as a base for the brew. Putting in crops meant staying in one spot until the crops could mature and be harvested. So perhaps there were differences of opinions resulting in arguments... until there was beer.

The more astute of you are probably seeing the direction Eric was travelling with this line of thought. It brings up a topic that I have not yet discussed on this blog, and reading Eric’s message made me understand why. To this point the foofarah in Cambridge between distinguished Professor Henry Lewis “Skip” Gates, and decorated police Sergeant James Crowley has been something about which I really would rather not speak, but Eric’s brief, simple discussion of beer brought it out.

My aversion to this discussion is rooted in the suspicion that the guy I wanted to be right… wasn’t. Dr. Gates likely mishandled the situation and carried it to ridiculous length, causing what should have been an inconsequential local dispute to escalate to a world media event. I can excuse him to some small degree, because the city in which this dust up happened, Cambridge, has a long, checkered history of racial tension, and the police department has had several high profile cases in which it was shown officers overreacted and overreached. A follower of the Harvard Crimson would know I speak the truth.

So, when the story first broke, my reaction was Reaganesque; There they go again.

It didn’t take long for me to realize that I had jumped to conclusions unsupported by fact. Even the photo of Dr. Gates being taken from the house in handcuffs showed him with a highly agitated expression, his mouth open wide as if shouting. It disappointed me to learn that Gates was likely the bad guy here. But I'm a big boy. I can overcome disapointment.

Mistakes were made. It looks like Professor Gates made the first by assuming a racial aspect to Sgt. Crowley’s investigation of a citizen call. Perhaps Sgt. Crowley isn’t racially 100% balanced, who knows, and who amongst us is, but his actions that day did not indicate any great degree of racism. Gates was wrong to make that assumption. I was wrong to make that assumption.

The next mistake was, however, Sgt. Crowley’s. The arrest should not have happened. Sgt. Crowley allowed the cop in him to override the reasonable man he is reputed to be. If Prof. Gates was being unruly, placing him in restraints was a good option, but carrying through with the arrest was a mistake. (At least he didn't Taze him)

Then it was my time to make a mistake. Almost immediately upon hearing of the event I assumed the worst of the police. This is my bias and I do not apologize for it. I have my reasons, and those are fact… not conjecture. From personal experience I expect cops to behave badly when confronting certain populations, and blacks fall into that assumption. My mistake in this case will likely not change my overall point of view. I have always admitted that the cops I dislike are part of a small element, and I've seen great stride toward improvement over recent years. Still, when something like this happens I expect to to worst. My mistake in this instance.

Now comes President Obama, giving every right wingnut all the reason in the world to point and shout, “See! We told you so.” And now Mr. Obama is the racist that idiots like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe have long predicted. Good job Mr. President. But good recovery as well.

So, back to the beer… and to the “teachable moment” that has been discussed by both Dr. Gates and President Obama. Far from inflaming racial tensions, Sgt. Crowley’s mistake may serve as the path to a bridge, if one can ever be found, Mr. Obama is wise enough to follow that path. Inviting the boys over to the White House for a beer was a means to make amends for bad choices and perhaps get things rolling in the direction of improved understanding. This could be a first step, and Sgt. Crowley may end up being the hero. I hope so.

“When this whole thing got way overblown in the media, the only sensible and civilized thing to do was to sit down and have a beer about it. Amazing things can happen when people give themselves up to the idea that no matter what your dispute is, downing a pint of your fave foam with someone is an act of contrition, brotherhood, or at the very least tolerance. We’re all just people, and we might agree to disagree on many things – but we can all enjoy a cold one.

In the end, the event was just another White House photo-op in many ways. But what it said to everyone is that there are ways of getting past all the terrible ghosts that have been haunting us since this nation first declared its independence.

We may not all agree on everything, but that’s not important. We’re all people. We know enough to be civil and decent to each other. If it takes some time over a few beers to make that clear, then it’s time well spent. In fact, there’s no better use of time than to spend it getting to know someone you have a serious disagreement with because they might just change your mind on a thing or two. I’ll bet a lot of Sumerians were convinced of that after all that grain produced something as cool as beer.

Indeed I think they probably were, Eric. Thanks for a good message.
~~

RECOMMENDED READING: Prof. Gates, Cambridge and Racial Politics, CBSNews.com
~~