Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Weird Science on the Religious Right

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted August 11, 2005.


Seven of the greatest hits (or misses) of conservative Christian 'science' show just how little fact goes into these beliefs, and how much damage they can cause.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Stan Cox

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it." This familiar bumper sticker slogan appears to sum up the Religious Right's decision-making process on matters of heated public debate.

But when policies involving human biology and behavior are being hammered out, faith alone isn't always sufficient to win over voters and decision-makers. At such times, a bit of scientific evidence comes in handy, and some of the Religious Right's operatives aren't too choosy about where they get it.

Consider the following seven claims, the quality of the scientific evidence that supports them and the potential consequences, were they to be widely accepted:

"Condoms are full of holes"

That's according to Concerned Women For America and many other right-wing groups. How big are those holes? Big enough that an HIV particle or even a sperm can easily wander through, if you believe this scary diagram from abortionfacts.com:

condom holes

Organizations that advertise gaping holes of 5 microns (.0002 inch) or more in condoms often turn out to be misapplying data from a 1993 paper by scientist C.M. Roland. Possibly confused by the title of the journal in which Roland published his work -- Rubber World -- they fail to note that his experiments were done with latex gloves, not condoms.

On the other hand, a 1998 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report noted that when 1-micron holes were intentionally drilled in condom latex, a sensitive test could detect them, but the same test could find no holes in undrilled condoms. That indicated that condoms have no holes bigger than 1 micron, unless researchers poke the holes themselves. And in a 50-micron-thick condom, even a 1-micron-wide hole is really a narrow tunnel that would have little chance of reaching through the entire thickness, let alone allowing HIV particles through.

The overall conclusion of the FDA study: "All the latex films representing a wide range of formulations and ages were effective barriers to transmission of the small virus. Thus, permeation through quite thin, stretched samples with this very sensitive test was not found."

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fact sheet on condoms states that "Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens." And, of course, a far larger sperm cell has no chance of escape.

That information is buried in the midst of a previously informative CDC document that was largely gutted under the Bush Administration. While noting, correctly, that condoms are not 100 percent effective, the current fact sheet no longer contains information on proper use of condoms.

Condom failure is actually overwhelmingly due to mistakes or accidents during their use, not manufacture or testing, so the fact sheet now put out by the CDC, and influenced by the Religious Right, may be making unwanted pregnancy and HIV infection more likely, not less so.

A footnote: Concerned Women for America's "full of holes" claim was based on a press release by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. That obscure group came under fire this summer in Congress for the Bush administration's 4Parents.gov website, which it produced. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. and 145 nongovernmental organizations condemned the site for misleading teenagers about condoms and other sexual issues.

"Phonics is the only effective way to teach reading"

Have you ever wondered why right-wing Christian parents and educators are so intent on promoting phonics (a method of teaching reading that stresses basic symbol-sound relationships) and so abhor "whole language" learning (in which children learn words by reading them in context)?

The answer you'll get from phonics advocates is simply that it works, as indicated by better test scores (at least when the tests include questions on phonics!). But there appears to be consensus among researchers outside the Religious Right that the most effective approach is a broad, integrated one that incorporates some phonics training and a lot of reading.

The most pertinent research I've seen on the Christian phonics fixation (by the way, why do those last two words begin with different letters?) was done by Mark Thogmartin. Here are excerpts of some of the reasons he heard from phonics enthusiasts, as he listed them in a 1997 issue of Home Education magazine:

  • "More holistic approaches to reading instruction are more child-centered and seem to assert the inherent goodness of the child, which is opposed to the basic Christian doctrine of a sinful nature derived from the fall of Adam."
  • "A phonics approach to reading instruction, with its usual dependence on drill and rote memorization, is more compatible with the rigidly disciplined environment of most Christian schools."
  • "Often, theorists who believe in a more holistic, meaning-centered reading instruction philosophy have ... suggested that a child's ability to extract the meaning from print is the primary objective of reading any passage. This may sound almost blasphemous to Christians who believe in the literal, verbal inspiration of scripture."

Digg!

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What I don't understand
Posted by: Just Some Dude on Aug 11, 2005 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is something I don't get. If a higher power is going to micromange this planet to create each and very being on it then why won't this higher power micro manage this planet so that children will no longer be kidnapped and killed? Or innocent people will no longer be killed by suicide bombers?

Is this higher power just up in heaven playing Sim City or something? I just don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: smidget2k4
» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: cordas
» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: Rungle
» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: ghoster
» The Book of Job Posted by: errandchild
» RE: The Book of Job Posted by: nakis
» RE: FSM truth Posted by: Markos
» RE: The Book of Job Posted by: Rungle
» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: LaVieja
» RE: What I don't understand Posted by: Jordon
Polaris
Posted by: Polaris on Aug 11, 2005 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very fact that this article has to be published to highlight what's going on the US, shows how strange the country has become. The rest of the civilised world looks on with amazement and pity. It kind of dovetails into the theory that the US is not a stable country and may split along religious and/or political lines in the next century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Polaris Posted by: utatke
» RE: Polaris Posted by: mkeeling@jam.rr.com
» RE: Polaris Posted by: flip
» Thank You Posted by: errandchild
Two Sides
Posted by: michele0726 on Aug 11, 2005 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything human exists on a continuum or bell-shaped curve. That is that there are two extremes of approximately 20 percent and the rest fall into the middle 80 percent. This is true of IQ, height, weight, etc. The question of whether science is correct or religion fits into this as well. There are about 10 percent of people who think science is absolutely correct and about 10 percent who think that religion is absolutely correct. The rest of us fit into the 80 percent who think that there is some merit to both. Among this group we usually go back and forth without thinking either side has all of the answers. To me the main difference is if the idea of questioning and searching for truth is encouraged or not. It seems that science is about questioning and exploring, and that many within the religion arena also encourage this. However, there are factions on both sides that seem to expect that no questions will be tolerated. To focus too much energy on the extremes is to lose the point. In my opinion everyone is supposed to find the answers for themselves. I like having this option for exploration and it is always interesting to read the various opinions expressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two Sides Posted by: D78
» Actually Three sides Posted by: jwg
» RE: Actually Three sides Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Actually Three sides Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Actually Three sides Posted by: davewuxi
» not a pentagram-part 2 Posted by: bornxeyed
» Thank you Bornxeyed! Posted by: crz53
» RE: Actually Three sides Posted by: aswgt@ix.netcom.com
» RE: Two Sides Posted by: FeynmanTwain
» RE: Two Sides Posted by: flip
» RE: Two Sides Posted by: FeynmanTwain
» RE: Two Sides Posted by: LaVieja
» RE: Two Sides Posted by: davewuxi
More on ID
Posted by: OldRedleg2 on Aug 11, 2005 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is another good article regarding ID (it is titled Inferior Design) at American Prospect Online that all should read.

http://www.prospect.org/web/index.ww linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's nothing wrong with phonics
Posted by: bettsoff on Aug 11, 2005 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For minds that learn by systemizing, phonics is vastly easier to grasp than whole-language instruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How DID 98% of Our DNA Get Into the Chimpanzee
Posted by: jkgoebel on Aug 11, 2005 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are not closely related to them, and other primates, how is it that we use them for testing drugs? I don't notice many fundamentalists refusing drugs tested on primates. Nor do I notice them avoiding medical treatments based upon the "incorrect" theory of evolution. Wouldn't that make genetics pretty bogus? It would seem more consistent for them to go back to driving out demons to cure illness. I wonder if the drug companies that fund the Republicans would be enthusiastic about that...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Contradiction Really Bothers Me
Posted by: diof09 on Aug 11, 2005 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've gone to a fundamentalist church and I'm puzzled. The pastor talks on and on about how wonderful Heaven is for the saved, and yet when someone gets ill no matter how aged they are or how "Heaven" really might be a relief for that person, they gather in these big circles where everyone lays hands on the sick and prays for every scientific, high-tech intervention to prevent that person's death. No one seems to think that is at all odd. I guess it hasn't occurred to them that if they have their way with Originalism or Intelligent Design or whatever, all we may have left are the prayer groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing is easier
Posted by: osisbs on Aug 11, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing is easier that blowing huge holes in evolutionary theory. See? Just did it. I called it a theory and nobody even objected.
Nothing is easier than blowing huge holes in creation theory.
Nothing is harder than staring at a spider building a web and explaining how it is doing this.
Enjoy your lives, relish the mystery of the planet, be in complete awe each and every day of what goes on around you and celebrate the miracle of life. Don't spend all your time trying to prove or disprove simplistic answers to complex questions. Darwinism and Creation Science are completely inadequate explanations and wastes of your time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nothing is easier Posted by: D78
» RE: Nothing is easier Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: Nothing is easier Posted by: osisbs
» YOU ARE PARTLY CORRECT Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: YOU ARE PARTLY CORRECT Posted by: osisbs
» What it is! Posted by: bornxeyed
» humans starve for truth and knowledge Posted by: kj_jazzgirl13
» RE: Nothing is easier Posted by: watersister
Passports
Posted by: osisbs on Aug 11, 2005 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US probably has the lowest per-capita percentage of passport holders in the developed world. We're sort of a cultural Galapagos when you think about it. Culturally, we are marrying our sisters and that's never a healthy thing.
Why is the Dodo extinct? Because it lived in isolation, became fat and happy not flying and was eventually overtaken by foreign invaders. We keep electing them, so we're well on our way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Passports Posted by: diof09
» RE: Passports Posted by: osisbs
» RE: Passports Posted by: pacto
The Irony of Darwinian Thought
Posted by: mateosquared on Aug 11, 2005 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it ironic that those who believe in Darwinian science are as closed minded towards other ideas, they claim is the fault of those who believe in intelligent design or creationism. How dense could one be to completely believe that a mere mortal with limited scientific knowledge could create a scientific revolution that is based on a personal bias towards any other types of science. Darwin was not as intelligent as any other scientist is today, yet many "scientific", "intelligent" minds flock to his science because of their fear of any other option. It is inherently human to be afraid of change, so that would explain why those who do not have the security of a true God to hold their beliefs in are so afraid of looking at anything that would wreak havoc on their narrow views of Darwinism. Think past how narrow-minded and shallow your current views are look at the big picture instead of claiming that a birds beak changed shape and size because of evolution and not the fact that the bird had to adapt to survive. We all have to adapt, but does that mean we evolve? Could it be the same?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» Darwinian Thought 101 Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: errandchild
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» Mateo save your breath Posted by: rodrigo_c
» RE: Mateo save your breath Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: Mateo save your breath Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: oregonhempqueen
» Darwin studied divinity Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: cannon_fodder
» RE: The Irony of Darwinian Thought Posted by: mateosquared
» Do you exist? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: The Irony Posted by: bornxeyed
It's all about the women...
Posted by: rebeers01 on Aug 11, 2005 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, how so many of these fundamentalist 'truths' are concerned with women's bodies and their reproductive functions?

Considering how 70% of anti-abortion activists are male, perhaps this shouldn't be surprising.

If we ('we' being fundamentalist, radical righters) couldn't control women's bodies and subsequently, women's lives, how would we continue making more little children of the Christian corn to increase our political and social power?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's all about the women... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: It's all about the women... Posted by: monkeybrig
Losing Faith
Posted by: Riverside on Aug 11, 2005 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps many reject the theory of evolution because they have been told that accepting evolution comprises a denial of religious faith. These warnings are often accompanied by threats of eternal damnation and a fiery afterlife. This is simply tragic because there are not many who would willingly abandon their religious faith. Most of us do not have the courage of Galileo who defied his church to continue his research in astrophysics. It would seem religious organizations need to overcome their fear of losing their flocks to science and the scientists need to expand their emphasis on the compatibility of science and religion in helping us better understand both our beginnings and our destiny. The resulting peace of mind and soul would be just awsome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Losing Faith Posted by: pomes
» RE: Losing Faith Posted by: FeynmanTwain
» RE: Losing Faith Posted by: LaVieja
Smelling the Roses
Posted by: mcubert on Aug 11, 2005 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The previous entry about enjoying nature and not questioning how or why it happens is a curious one. Let's examine it. What would happen if, for instance, nobody ever cared to wonder HOW or WHY the sun moves around the earth? Or what lighting is? Or why it rains? I'll tell you. We'd all be living in an age without medicine, without the computer sitting in front of you, without the comfy house you live in and the comfy lives you lead. Don't be so quick to discount everything you don't understand as 'too complex to understand'. There are people that know it, or are trying to figure it out. And one day, people like you will benefit from it. Science is a very cool thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smelling the Roses Posted by: keverett
» RE: Smelling the Roses Posted by: Envi
How about their claims to "cure" homosexuality???
Posted by: salt&paprika on Aug 11, 2005 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't see mentioned one of the religious right's biggest scams, the so-called "Reparative Therapy" movement, which claims to "cure" homosexuals from their "affliction." For more background I highly recommend the book "Anything But Straight," Wayne Besen's cutting expose of the "ex-gay" movement.

The Right's pseudo-science reminds me of the similar fraud perpetrated in the Stalin-era Soviet Union by a would-be geneticist named Lysenko, who claimed that acquired traits could be passed onto future generations. It was nothing but ideology masquerading as science, and it helped hobble Russian biological research until it was finally denounced not long after Stalin's death. It all sounds so dreadfully familiar with what is going on today...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Onward Christian Soldiers –– To The Past!!"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 11, 2005 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch the charm dangling before your eyes...you are getting sleepy now...all right, now I want you to go back in your mind, back through the Nazi book-burnings, and then back through the Roman Inquisition (remembering what you see there)...back farther, through that worthless Renaissance, back to where the world was flat, and the moon and stars revolved around it...back through the Medieval Inquisition (note that too)...even farther back, to the days of Rome, when the Great Library at Alexandria was sacked and burned, back to where the public knew almost nothing of the world they lived in, cared not to know, and where people were crucified and tortured for almost any offense, especially the offense of knowledge. There, THERE! On the horizon! There is the world we seek! An America for the Christian conservatives!! All hail the new-Old World!! All revel in the bliss of ignorance!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Cool post. Posted by: WhatNow?
all phonics, all the time.
Posted by: tabaumann on Aug 11, 2005 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, there's something wrong with "all phonics, all the time." My sister and I learned to read by reading, with phonics, grammer and spelling on the side (I'm still not a very good speller, but hey, that's me). We are voracious readers, reading for pleasure and information constantly. My other siblings (much younger) got phonics, phonics, phonics rammed down their throats. Yes, they learned to read, but they don't. Not unless they have to: they think of reading as work and aggravation, and get their information and entertainment from TV.

Reading is a fairly new endeavor for human beings, but stories go back thousands of years. Get them hooked on the stories first, then work out the mechanics. Yes, some kids will need lots of phonics, but others won't. Good teachers use whatever works, unless they're forced to use specific "programs" that don't take individual differences into account.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: all phonics, all the time. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: all phonics, all the time. Posted by: Lincoln fan
theory of evolution holds no water
Posted by: cobrajet on Aug 11, 2005 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THe theory of evolution has been proven "scientifically" to have too many holes to be a a true proven theory. Search on this site for other stories on ID. ID says that a body was created in its form to exists in its form, and could not have existed if any parts of it were changed, or evolved. OK, true a birds beak can change, but this is minor adaption.
Are you saying that man can eveolve from a lower life form, life invertebrae, and then slowly over a million years grow a spine ? That cannot happen, as a body cannot function if its parts are changing. That would be saying that I can start growing a new head, jsut to evolve.. but the body has no use for a 2nd head, so it would be wasting its energy on this. The body strives to keep the basic functions working, not trying to create new functions... this theory of eveolution is right from the Sci-FI channel, fantasy-land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No light bulbs yet
Posted by: Crazy H on Aug 11, 2005 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In six thousand years of claiming that they know the ultimate answers, Christians (Jews) have been unable to build a single lightbulb based on biblical teachings. It took the scientific method to get there.

The Bible states over and over again that the sun goes around the Earth. Galileo was persecuted for stating the opposite. You'd think god would know how the universe works, now wouldn't you?

Buried in the old testament are instructions on how to cure diseases by sacrificing animals. Early experimenters in healing techiniques other than prayer & sacrifice were burned at the stake as witches. You'd think god would know about germs, now wouldn't you?

In the 1950's, churches were protesting the advent of the space program because rockets would poke holes in heaven and annoy the angels. A half century earlier, they'd been busily claiming the same about airplanes. Why didn't god take the time to point out that heaven was just a little bit higher than the rockets were flying?

Whenever science and the church have collided, the church has fought back - fatally whenever they could get away with it. They've lost in each and every case.

And they still haven't built that lightbulb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: nakis
» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: osisbs
» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: mkeeling@jam.rr.com
» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: dankm
» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: No light bulbs yet Posted by: LaVieja
pregnancy prevents cancer
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 11, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the comment made in this article that sort of sums up the underlying motives of the entire christian view is the quote about "for breast cancer prevention....MARRIED women should not postpone pregnancy." What about UNmarried women? Are not their bodies the same???

It is well known in the Science community that if a teenage girl under 17 years of age, gives birth and breastfeeds...she has almost no chance of EVER getting breast cancer.

This fact has not been much commented on by either feminists or the christian right... for obvious reasons.

One noted feminist did say in regards to this..."we need to base our life choices on more than satistics". In other words, we know this is true but would not promote it...as we want women to have careers, not early teenage pregancies.

The Christian Right would say something like... to enourage unmarried teenage girls to have sex and babies would be a sin.

Nature and or God clearly intended Women to have babies early...their teenage years. Downs Syndrome is also very rare in the babies of very young mothers....and the risk increases every year as the mothers age...

The right wants women married first. The left wants women to have careers and money first. The government wants women spending money and paying taxes.
None of this is based on truth or preventing breast cancer.
It is all politics on all sides....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

April Fools?
Posted by: nakis on Aug 11, 2005 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading down the list of positions it reads like some sort of April Fools article. Like George Bush supporting the environmental health of our nation. Alternet had such articles on 04/01.
I am amazed at the lengths to which the religious right will outright lie to the masses. Time and time again I have read of religious right groups spreading lies and when caught recant their lie, apoligize but its after the damage was done. And the apology never spreads to more than a 10th of the people who've come to believe the lie. They know this. They count on this. As it is with the current presidential administration they are dedicated to doing whatever it takes, right or wrong to achieve their misguided goals.
That's not the America I learned about in the Constitution. That's not the Christian nation I learned about from reading the teachings of Jesus.
Maybe I'm the one who is messed up.
I guess freedom is only supposed to be for some and the privelidged.
That the love of the Creator only extends to whomever happens to agree with some personally adhered doctrine.
It just gets me that these weren't the rules intended by the ones who started these things.
The Constitution supported the rights and freedoms for all.
The Gospels were about a new way of love and tolerance for everyone.

Sorry for ending with the whining. It just bothers me that people somehow take the best things created for humanity and somehow get twisted up and cause harm with them.
I'm just more and more coming to believe that this world is not meant for peace and mutual support for a better life unless the vast majority sacrifice their ego centered mentality and deliberately choose on a moment to moment basis tolerance for every other human being.
Fat chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: April Fools? Posted by: DMX
We Are GOD
Posted by: DMX on Aug 11, 2005 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine, all our thoughts and actions are simply reprocessed sunlight and regurgitated earth, and a smattering of starlight which happened to fall on our lonely planet. Our lovely planet.

For me, the presence of myselves (me, my resident bacteria, and my solar system residence) and the universe around and within me is God.

Existence is mystery.

Attempting to explain the mystery is attempting to explain God, which I do with relish and reverence when I am not busy being myself.

The Incas were on to something.
Darwin was on to something.
We are onto something.
Forever exploring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We Are GOD Posted by: outsidea
» RE: We Are GOD Posted by: mkeeling@jam.rr.com
» RE: We Are GOD Posted by: dankm
» RE: We Are GOD Posted by: nakis
» RE: We Are GOD Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Once again....
Posted by: kittynboi on Aug 11, 2005 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am glad to see Alternet publishing something like this. Seeing the left embrace science and discarding the prejudice and homophobia innate in spirituality is very welcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once again.... Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: Once again.... Posted by: nakis
Onward Cristian Predators
Posted by: pjrsullivan on Aug 11, 2005 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christianity is nothing more than a blood cannibal cult, which reflects our cannibal society. Our founding fathers were active human predators, the slaughter against the Africans was so that the good Christian folk could have someone pick their cotton, and also have some tender meat to ride later in the night.

All that ever comes out of their mouths is what is in their heads; Shit, shit and more shit.

The Hebrew word for the definition of "The good things God will do for you is, 'Shittuf."

Their true God is other peoples property, and the righteous bunch of death sqauds they and their Sheeny Zionist partners in crime operate.

The reason we pay part of their freight in this old crown colony is because the preachers provide a vital political function to our criminal misrulers and that function is to "Foster mindless behavior." It make the slobs easier to jerk around.

We give tax free status to the criminal classes favorites and this constitutes a forced taking of labor. Slavery is another word for this. America is still a slave nation and this is why it so threatens the world with weapons of mass destruction.

Slavery is the internal equivalent of war, this is why America so loves the prison camps and the death sqauds. The Zionists, another desert dwelling cannibal group is formed into a tight Alliance with their fellow human predators, though they both desire to destroy one another because of their genocidal behavior. These are behaviors that arise from the harsh desert ecology, and they are being transplanted in to the modern world.

War is the external manifestation of human predation In its relations with external entities. Our criminal class is preying on us, and on the world. Christians are raised to be stupid so that they can breed up another generation of cannon fodder kids. When our criminal leaders roam the world seeking people to murder our Christians can prattle on about it being "In Gods hands," or God works in mysterious ways.

God loves stupid people; he would have to because he made so many of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Onward Cristian Predators Posted by: OldRedleg2
» RE: Onward Cristian Predators Posted by: OldRedleg2