“Nothing in the Bible encourages us to treat Muslims or any other religious group with this kind of contempt.”

“He [Terry Jones] should read the Bible a little more carefully, and spread the message of love and tolerance”

“The Koran encourages violence, but there is nothing in the Bible that encourages murder.”

Oh, really?

I would think if a person believed the Bible was the “Word of God”, they would have actually have read it. There was a time that I believed the Bible was the “Word of God”, and I read it through at least 3 times. Even then, I knew the above quotes did not represent much of what the Bible contained. I rationalized many of those items away, but the fact is, my rationalizations were unjustified.

The Bible most certainly does encourage violence – particularly against those who do not have the same beliefs in the Judaic God. Jesus himself, as much as we have idealized his peaceful quotes, was not above approving of the use of violence.

Mosaic Law is where we received the revered 10 commandments. However, this law was also full of trite “crimes” worthy of capital punishment – much of the punishment to be carried out with death by stoning. (note that all Biblical versus are quoted from the New International Version or NIV).

Capital crimes included:

• Committing adultery, Leviticus 20:10
• A girl not being a virgin on her wedding night (note: this death is proscribed by stoning at her parents’ doorstep), Deuteronomy  22:20-21
• Being homosexual, Leviticus 20:13
• Cursing your mother or father, Leviticus 20:9

There are many more. These are but sampling. Worshiping any other God (intolerance of other beliefs) is also cause for death sentences.

Death sentences for being of another religion:

• Sacrifice to any other god, Exodus 22:20
• Enticement by a loved one to worship another God means you must be the one to initiate their stoning to death: Deuteronomy 13:6-10
• Not seeking God, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
• Any town with more than one person seeking another God must be destroyed, Deuteronomy 13:12-17

This does not even cover the fact that many were ordered by God to destroy complete towns, including all inhabitants. The most notable is Jericho (Joshua 6:20-21 ), but also other cities (Joshua 8:1-29 , Judges 18:5-28 , 1 Samuel 15:2-3 ) Note that this last one was “punishment”, which included execution of “children and infants”. The punishment was because the city waylayed Israel as they came out of Egypt. However, this “punishment” was about 200 years after the alleged crime. I guess those “children and infants” were guilty for their great-great grandfather’s “crimes”.

Even Jesus is not without violence. At the last supper, he orders his apostles to “sell your cloak and buy one [a sword]” (Luke 22:36 ). Many say he was being allegorical, yet he did not rebuke his followers when they produced 2 swords in the next passage. Nor did he tell them to get rid of the swords when they used one of those swords to cut off a servant’s ear (Luke 22:50 ).

Peter, too, caused the death of two people, merely because they withheld some money from the sale of their own property from him (Acts 5:1-11). That is hardly the model “love and tolerance” that the above poster says the Bible contains.

I am not here to say Christianity is an evil religion or belief. However, I am here to say that Christians who do not know the contents of their own scriptures are being foolish. Christianity matured and renounced the fire-and-brimstone condemnations, and evolved into a more peaceful belief. That is not because their scriptures lack extreme violence for even the most petty of things, but because as they have grown spiritually, they have learned that such things are not helpful to humans as a whole. But at least know where your beliefs originated from.

This brings us back to the Qur’an. Islamic belief advocates as much violence in their holy scriptures as does the Bible. Radical elements of Islam attempt to carry out the literal implementation of those violent passages.  However, can you imagine the violence that would occur should Christians carry out just the few passages I highlighted above?

There is no difference between radical Islam, Christianity or Judaism. The only difference in the faiths overall is the maturation of their followers. Consequently, if Islam is inherently evil, then so is Christianity and Judaism.

Moderate Muslims need to be encouraged, since they are following a well known path. The radical Muslims need to be condemned and dealt with just like any other radical element.  But there really is little difference between the Qur’an and the Bible. The Bible and the Qur’an are merely twin sons of different fathers.

My Dearest Pastor Terry Jones,

First, I wish to thank you for your excellent service. Your blind ambitions have done more to advance my cause then could have been hoped for.

Second, congratulations on keeping “International Burn a Koran Day” alive.

Following up on Terry's inane book, "Islam is of the Devil", is his new title.

You did not cave into pressure from those fools who would put love, peace and human harmony ahead of hatred and bigotry. I am particularly impressed that you would resist pressure from the commanding general of coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, who stated emphatically that your decision would result in the deaths of coalition troops. Your message trumps the petty lives of those pawns they call soldiers

Third, I am overjoyed by your partnership with Westboro Baptist Church. I have worked hard to link up your churches, and am so pleased to see you both publicly condemning to hell all who do not agree with your message. Perhaps we can get you to partake in Westboro’s celebrations of the deaths of US military personnel. I particularly like Westboro’s “Thank God for dead soldiers” signs that were displayed at soldier’s funerals. What a great partnership. Such possibilities.

Finally, a personal note. In my dealings with man, I have learned that never is a man so wrong as when he is convinced that he is so right. You my dear Pastor Jones are so solidly convinced of how right you are. Do not doubt your path or your faith. Don’t think things through. Just believe in how right you are. The more you are convinced of that, the greater your service to me.

Your Lord and Master,

Satan
Father of Lies

However, the claims of a climatic tipping point led me to investigate further. I am an electrical engineer. I know that if positive feedback systems are not designed properly, they can fail catastrophically. Such systems are unstable. I found it difficult to believe that our atmospheric system was so unstable that there would be a “tipping point” of no return.

So, I investigated. I learned how the greenhouse gas theory worked; that CO2 would pass through the sun’s short wave radiation, but it would be opaque to the earth’s own long wave radiation – thus trapping energy. I discovered that even doubling or tripling the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere alone could not raise the theoretical temperature of the earth to the heights being warned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); that required positive feedback of water vapor which would provide most of the temperature increases. I learned the names of the major scientists warning of anthropogenic global warming (AGW): Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Dr. Phil Jones. I found out that there exists three primary surface temperature data sets: CRU, GISS and NCDC, and that here exist two satellite data sets: UAH and RSS – that are used to calculate global average temperature.

I also learned that the science is not settled, and there exist prestigious researchers who believe AGW theory is either over blown, or is fatally flawed: Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. I discovered that the positive feedback of water vapor is but a theory; different studies have inferred both positive and negative feedback and there is no conclusive proof this theory holds up. I found out that the three surface temperature data bases have 90% to 95% overlap of raw data, so the data between them is not truly independent, and that this data gets “adjusted” by the various entities who report the data. I learned that most of the expected dramatic temperature increases and consequences of those increases are derived from computer models – not from empirical evidence. As a firmware engineer, I am well aware that computer models are only as good as the assumptions they are programmed with.

Most of all, I learned that the absolute certainty and scientific unanimity of belief in AGW was a myth – AGW is a theory and observational data can and does contradict that theory.

Besides the scientific uncertainties came the behavioral ones. While skeptical AGW web sites, such as Watt’s Up With That, allows the free discourse of opinion, pro AGW web sites, such as realclimate do not. The opinions and scientific papers of the researchers who have skeptical leanings seemed to be marginalized. Then came the confirmation: climategate. The subject of climategate merits its own post. However, the leaked emails from climategate showed conclusively that the top pro-AGW climate scientists were colluding to assure that dissenting voices were not heard – either in the media or in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

My faith in the scientists who are pushing the pro-AGW agenda is seriously eroded. At this point, I believe that the available evidence shows that climate change IS happening – but it is not to the extent that we have been led to believe, and the cause of that change is natural variation. Climate change will ALWAYS happen: the very nature of the earth assures that. But the emissions of CO2 by man made causes are very unlikely to be the primary cause of future climate variations.

For the previous year+, I have been away from my blog. For personal and professional reasons, I have been unable to post updates, and spread my unsolicited opinions to the world. A world denied my ranting and raving.

That time is now over.

I have spent the past time investigating two issues that I have personal interest in: Climate change and spirituality.

Climate change is covered by many bloggers, and I will highlight some of the ones I most admire in future posts. Suffice it to say that the previous 2 months has seen startling events within the scientific community of climatologists. The details of these events are covered far better by people much more knowledgeable than me – but I will still post my thoughts on those events.

Spiritual subjects are not something I have posted on this blog before. I may reserve my thoughts on those subjects for another blog thread – or I may post them here. I have not decided yet.

Influenced by other bloggers whom I admire, I will no longer be posting under a pseudonym, and will instead use my real name in my blog. Regardless, I am announcing my return to the blog community, and I hope that both of my regular readers welcome my return.

I feel America’s leaders have lied to us; either through gross incompetence or sheer deceit. I am leaning towards the latter. I thought President Bush spoke the truth when he said Saddam Hussein represented a real threat to the Middle East and Western civilization. I believed Colin Powell’s remarks to the UN about the strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction (and I think Powell believed them when he said them). I believed it was a necessary evil to use military force in Iraq – even if it would distract from the on-going efforts in Afghanistan. How idiotic of me.

Had Israel not destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the 1980s, then history may have been different. However, they did. We did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, as politicians today try to re-write the reasons for the invasion. We nominally did it for security reasons. I now believe it was for a single reason: Oil. How could I have been duped so?

We squandered the good will of our citizens, the international community, and the resources in fighting the real battle against terrorism. All for what gain? Could I have been any more stupid?

I cringed at the so-called “Patriot Act”, because of how it impinged civil liberties – yet I did not actively oppose it. I thought it necessary in the wake of September 11 and our need for counter-terrorism. What I fool I have been.

The words of The Who resonate with me: “I get on my knees and I pray, we won’t get fooled again“.

I watched the Watergate hearings on television when I was young. Then, there was an aura of innocence lost. If the president could be so deceitful, what hope was there for integrity in any political process?

The feeling I have today is strangely reminiscent of that era.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Well, I think it has to do with the issues themselves. Moderates are, by definition, those who hold some conservative and some liberal beliefs. For example, I consider myself a moderate. On specific issues though, you could try to pigeon hole me into one extreme or the other. I believe the “war on drugs” is a waste, we should invest more in drug treatment and not in incarcerating users, I think we should invest in alternative energy solutions, and I believe in conservation. On the flip side of the coin, I look at abortion and can’t help but think the fetus gets the raw end of the deal of the body-rights issue, I believe in an armed citizenry, and I’m not convinced that “greenhouse gases” from humans cause “global warming”.

Now, another person may hold opposite views that I do (and I’m sure MANY do). Yet, this person too, could be labeled a moderate. Liberals and conservatives have a platform; but we moderates do not. I believe having a platform unites, but at the expense of critical thinking.

So, what are we to do? In my humble opinion, we should continue to debate. Talk about the issues. Keep an open mind. That’s the only way we can come up with new ideas, and bring innovation into the process.

The one’s who get the press SAY they debate the issues. Bullshit. All the Rush’s and the Gore’s do is mouth rhetoric, and their followers nod their heads – and the press reports on it. We, the majority, can refocus the spotlight, if we talk about our differences, and discover how we can bridge the gap between our varying beliefs.

Discuss. To that end, I will try to make sense of some of my ramblings, and commit those irrelevant ramblings to electronic ink. I would invite you to criticize, debate, and analyze my thinking. I will do the same with others’ posts.

Hopefully, all involved can grow just a bit wiser.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Especially when it comes to racial extremists. We are all aware of the white supremacists and the idiots who march around in sheets. But there exist extremists on the other side of the aisle too. First, let’s talk about the anti-everyone-who-does-not-share-my-inbred-genes groups.

Many people do not realize that white extremists still exist. They still march, still shout, still spew hatred, still try to intimidate. This news story tells of these bigots trying to stage a “rally” in Athens, Alabama last year. According to this news account, the people of the city made a stand against them. I hope that is accurate.

Most of these groups have been rightfully marginalized, and no longer have political clout or the grass roots sympathies they once did. That does not mean we can drop our vigilance of them – it just means that their effectiveness has been muted.

Which brings us to our second group – the black extremist.

In my area, the “International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement”, or Uhurus, has a significant presence. You may never have heard of them. However, they are often quoted in news stories relating to race issues in my area. The politicians here try to appease them, although such efforts are generally rebuffed. And this is why I consider the black extremists more dangerous than the white extremists: these groups are not marginalized, and have the ear of the media and politicians.

In the Uhuru’s own words, they believe every black person in prison is a “prisoner of war” and must be freed. They call the police an “occupying army”, who are stealing resources from African Americans. They state public education amounts to “criminalization of African children” and call for an “end to the white nationalists anti-African curriculum that is being used.” They also call special education “a system of mind control, tracking African children into failure and prisons.” They accuse the public health care system of genocide against African Americans. They call Barack Obama “WHITE POWER IN BLACK FACE“. The list goes on.

The Uhuru followers have been implicated in two riots in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. And yet, instead of being treated like the terrorists they are, they are quoted by the media, and coddled by politicians who have no spine. In fact, my own work site restricts access to the white supremacist sites, yet allows access to the Uhuru sites.

You will gain nothing trying to appease terrorists.

We need to get past worrying about being called a “racist”, when in fact we are pointing out terrorists. Whether those terrorists are white, black or brown does not matter. Whether they call themselves Ku Klux Klan, Uhuru or Al Queda does not matter. We need to treat them all the same.

How’s that for equality for you?

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

South Korea and China (as well as other countries) have a tradition of eating cat and dog. While I personally find such an idea repulsive, I can respect that different cultures have traditions that outsiders find reprehensible. Many citizens of India for example, find American habits of eating cow unfathomable.

I am a dog person, and love canines (my beagle is sitting next to me as I type this). However, I will not take issue with these peoples’ habit of eating dog meat itself. It is the manner of keeping, and especially of butchering, of some of these animals that I take offense at.

Some people who eat dog believe that the more adrenaline the animal has in its system when it dies, the more tasty the meat, and the more health benefits one gets by ingesting the meat. To accomplish this, the dog (or cat) is brutally tortured before its death.

I was not aware of the practice of hanging a dog until it died, and just how brutal and drawn-out these deaths are. The following video shows examples of these practices. WARNING: This video is very graphic. I, personally, have only been able to watch about half of it, before I can take no more.

I am writing this article, not just to raise awareness, but also to encourage readers to petition South Korean diplomatic missions. The butchering and eating of dogs is illegal in South Korea – but these laws are commonly ignored. International pressure and rising internal protests are starting to have an effect. This next video, if you ignore the goofy play-acting, shows this rising effect.

If you do contact Korean representatives on this issue, remember: be respectful! MOST Koreans do not practice or approve of this brutality, and it is already illegal to do this in Korea. Enforcement is the key.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The posts describe the earth as dying, or in need of saving. I took issue with these posts, writing a comment, that in part said:

“[We can] neither save nor kill the earth (or the environment, for that matter).

“Mankind’s existence on this world is but an eye-blink, geologically speaking. No matter what we do to this earth, life will continue. We may destroy our own kind, and we may destroy other species. But, after we are gone, other species will evolve, and the earth will have forgotten about our brief presence. Hundreds of millions of years of life preceded us, and hundreds of millions of years of life will succeed us – regardless of what we do now.

“If we cannot destroy the earth, we cannot save it either. Therefore, what are we actually trying to save with environmentalism? “

Making such broad claims of “saving the earth” smacks of smug, self-righteous, false-altruism. When someone says they want to “save the earth”, they imply that anyone who disagrees with them wants to destroy it. Such hyperbole is not helpful. A common consensus would be much easier to achieve when the real goals are spelled out. Otherwise, we may just as well be arguing over religion.

The author of the second blog I listed, responded with a well thought out response. In it, he stated a sentiment I can agree with; that the goals of environmentalism include the conservation of resources.

I would ask though: Conserve for whom? Ourselves. Future generations. Other species. After all, nature really doesn’t give a damn if we destroy an ecosystem; over time it will be replaced – but it’s impact on us humans can be devastating.

We should embrace environmentalism, not because the earth is in peril, but because it is the right thing to do – for ourselves.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Two blogs have caught my attention lately, that highlight a common theme – wasting energy purely for the sake of the waste. The first is a blog commentary about Rush Limbaugh’s intentional use of a gas-inefficient vehicle over long distances. He did this to “stick it to the environmentalists”. The second is in a similar vein – a blog entry in response to a commentator urging public buildings to reduce air conditioning. In order to flaunt his ability to waste energy, the blogger turned his thermostat down to 65 degrees Fahrenheit – even though he is not there to enjoy it.

Nominally, Rush and the blogger are the one bearing the “cost” of their actions. If they have the money, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do this – even if it is wasteful? Even though gas is $4.00 per gallon, these guys decided to use this expensive commodity, and pay for it themselves; right? But, what are the *real* costs?

How many marines are you willing to let die in the middle east, so Rush can drive his 12 mile-per-gallon behemoth? How many soldiers should lose their legs, arms, eyesight or portions of their brains, so bloggers can turn thermostats to 65 degrees – just to prove a point? Because these are the *real* costs.

We import more than a third of the energy we use (includes all raw energy we consume, like that used to generate electricity). More than one-fifth of the imports come from the Persian Gulf.  Significant imports also come from Nigeria and Venezuela. Do you think we would be fighting in Iraq if not for oil? If we are on a humanitarian mission there, then why do we not also fight in Rawanda? How about Zimbabwe? Cuba?

We, the people, have already funded terrorists via Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Emirates. We have built the nuclear facilities in Iran. We ponied up the money for bin Ladin and his 9/11 band. All paid for by America’s oil obsession.

Why have we seen success disarming a nuclear North Korea (who’s leader is as much a whack job as anyone), but have no luck with Iran?

It is only a matter of time before we are involved in other wars on other continents. Nigeria is a corruption mess, that is becoming more and more important as an oil exporter to the United States. We are funding Hugo Chavez’s anti-American stance (and raising his role from petty-wacko dictator to regional trouble maker), by purchasing Venezuela’s oil. How long before troops are in Africa and South America, losing life and limb, so we can rest assured Rush can waste freely, and bloggers can freeze their abodes to prove their point?

At what price?

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance