This is too funny not to repost here. (via Pharyngula)

(YouTube page is here.)

The latest edition of the Skeptics’ Circle is up at Mike’s Weekly Skeptic Rant. This time it is guest-hosted by cdesign proponentist Ben Stein.

The article I like best is “Evolution Not Responsible for Hitler” at Skeptico. This whole “evolution isn’t real because it led to Hitler’s atrocities” argument put forth by the creationists is amazingly flimsy. I can’t believe that it is the argument du jour from these people. Skeptico rightly knocks it down, writing (in part):

Even if it were true that wouldn’t mean evolution was wrong. The argument is just a fallacious appeal to consequences: the truth of something does not depend on the consequences of it being true; the truth of something depends on whether it is actually true or not. Nuclear weapons are terrible things, but that doesn’t mean that E does not equal M C squared. Even if Hitler was inspired by evolution, that wouldn’t mean evolution was wrong.

After you’ve read that, go on over to the Skeptics’ Circle and read some other great articles.

Today we finish our examination of the cartoons published on the website of Hal Lindsey. Lindsey was all the rage in the 1970s with his books and movies about Bible prophecy. He’s still around today (at age 78), peddling his special brand of rage.

Lindsey thinks that we’re in the End Times, and all major current events were predicted in the Bible. He expects Jesus to return any moment now, so you probably don’t need to bother feeding the dog tonight. I’m sure he’ll be raptured up with you in two or three hours.

In part 1, we looked at how these cartoons portrayed politics and church/state separation. In part 2, we looked at what they think of secularists. Today, we will look at how the cartoons depict Bible prophecy.

It’s All About Israel

Jesus isn’t coming back until the “restoration of the Jews”. Christian Zionists such as Lindsey believe that the establishment of Israel in 1948 fulfills that prophecy. Now that that’s taken care of, all we have to do is dot a few “i”s and cross a few “t”s. You know, simple things such as rebuilding the Jerusalem temple and starting World War III.

The state of Israel is central to all of this happening, so we (the United States) cannot allow anything to happen to Israel before these events occur. It isn’t clear to me why this is the job of the United States, especially since Hal Lindsey himself has said that the U.S. is not mentioned in the Bible (I wonder why that is?), so we will not be a major player in the events of the End Times.

This cartoon tells us that we need to expand the so-called War on Terror beyond protecting GW Bush’s daddy from a Saddam Hussein assassination attempt. We must set the security needs of the United States aside and spend our money and soldiers’ lives on the security needs of Israel. Jesus would want it that way.

G.O.P. = God’s Own Party

Here you see that every Muslim alive today is part of Satan’s plan to conquer God’s creation. The only people standing in their way are our brave troops in Iraq. The Democrats are trying to save themselves by surrendering America, freedom, and Jesus to the Islamic hordes. Ahh, but that is a fool’s bargain! As you can see, the Democrats’ path leads to destruction.

One of many things I find distressing about this attitude is that it leaves absolutely no room for compromise or attempts at finding a peaceful solution. To the Christian Zionists, it’s as if world history is on rails. We’re zipping through events toward everyone’s eventual destruction, and that’s the way it is supposed to be! This headlong rush to Apocalypse is good and desirable.

We’re God’s Right Hand

The Biblical quotation on this shows that Lindsey’s Christian Zionists believe that God is using us to carry out his wrath against those who would destroy Israel. That means everything we do in the Middle East is righteous. Well, certainly the destruction and mayhem that the U.S. has wrought upon Iraq and its populace is consistent with the behavior of the Old Testament God, where he would destroy entire towns because of a perceived slight.

I Can’t Wait!

Finally, this is what they want. It’s what they pray for and have wet dreams about. They want everything to get so far out of hand in the Middle East that it triggers WWIII. Look at how this cartoon glorifies that event.

Many people argue that radical Christian fundamentalists are not as dangerous as radical Muslim fundamentalists. The worst that Christian fundamentalists have done in the last 20 years is kill the occasional abortion doctor or torture a gay guy and then tie him to a fence post to die. That’s nothing compared to killing 3000 people in one day.

Or is it?

The radical Muslims usually kill a few dozen people at a time. Even the 3000 dead of September 11 is a relatively small number. What do these Muslims think they will gain? Six dozen virgins for themselves, plus a little bit of fame as a martyr. That’s all.

The Christian Zionists are actively trying to induce World War III. If they ever manage to pull it off, it will mean billions of people dead. Their reward will be the return of Jesus Christ, the destruction of Satan, the banishment to hell of everybody they don’t like, the resurrection of everybody they do like, and total heavenly bliss for themselves.

The Christian Zionists are playing for much bigger stakes than the radical Muslims. The destruction will be far greater, and they have the political influence in Washington to nudge us closer and closer to their dream.

Radical Christians are (potentially at least) much more dangerous than radical Muslims.

Fundamentalist Christians are quick to claim that the United States was founded on Christian principles. For one piece of evidence, they point to the Declaration of Independence. The very first sentence of our founding document states, in part:

…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

The very next sentence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hot damn! God is mentioned in the first sentence and then again in the second! That settles it!

The problem here is that the god is completely undefined. Intentionally so, because that defers to the personal beliefs of each citizen. The founders were not about to set forth in this document a declaration of what the citizens believed or should believe.

If they had meant the Christian God, they would have said “the Christian God”. Instead, they wrote “their Creator” and “Nature’s God”. “Their Creator” is the creator of the individual’s choice—the creator within that individual’s personally-held beliefs.

The phrase “Nature’s God” certainly doesn’t sound like Yahweh to me. It actually sounds pagan. How do we know they weren’t referring to an Earth deity? In fact, for all we know, they were referring to the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Well Since You Mentioned It…

The fundamentalist Christians have entered the Declaration of Independence into evidence. That means it’s fair game to further examine this document for clues. In fact, let’s take another look at that second sentence, specifically:

…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

“Unalienable Rights”. That’s an interesting concept. Where did it come from? The phrase is more commonly referred to as “inalienable rights”, about which Wikipedia says:

The idea that certain rights are inalienable was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.” [emphasis added]

That’s right. This most basic of concepts, declared as “self-evident” in our founding document, is based on Islamic law!

Let’s read a little further in that same Wikipedia paragraph:

These ideas may have influenced John Locke’s concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.

There you have the direct line of descent. From Islamic law to John Locke to the Declaration of Independence. It can’t be any clearer.

The next paragraph elaborates:

In 17th-century England, philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being “life, liberty, and estate (or property)”, and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract.

In an early draft of the Declaration, Jefferson originally wrote “life, liberty, and property”. This was a direct incorporation of John Locke’s writings. Jefferson expanded the concept in the final draft into “the pursuit of happiness”, but its roots are unmistakable.

Therefore, by using the fundies’ very own logic of citing the Declaration of Independence as proof, we are forced to conclude that America isn’t a Christian country, it’s a Muslim country!

But wait! There’s more!

Many American Laws are Based on Islamic Law

America’s Islamic heritage is far greater than a few concepts mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Much of American law has been derived from English common law. Much of English common law has been derived from Islamic law.

The Wikipedia entry on Sharia has numerous examples. Here are just a few:

It has been suggested that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders during the Crusades.

According to Professor John Makdisi, the “royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif.”… These influences have led some scholars to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for “the common law as an integrated whole”. [emphasis added]

The section on English common law concludes with:

Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator.

The article then lists numerous additional concepts that American common law grabbed from Islam. Here’s a big one:

Similarities between Islamic law and the common law of the United States have also been noted, particularly in regards to Constitutional law.

Want more? How about the effect of Islamic law on property law? Or civil law? (See the wikipedia article for long lists of both.)

Need even more proof? How about one of our most cherished of all principles:

Another influence of Islamic law on the civil law tradition was the presumption of innocence, which was introduced to Europe by Louis IX of France soon after he returned from Palestine during the Crusades. Prior to this, European legal procedure consisted of either trial by combat or trial by ordeal. In contrast, Islamic law was based on the presumption of innocence from its beginning…. [emphasis added]

Conclusion

Is America based upon Christian principles? There are probably some enshrined within our foundation. But as I have clearly shown, much of America’s founding is based upon, and owes a debt of gratitude to, the enlightened civilizations of the Muslims.

A Christian country? Maybe in parts. A Muslim country? Yes, very much so.

The Blog Against Theocracy is happening now! Go on over to the listings and find yourself some excellent articles on church/state separation.

I sometimes get the impression that Objectivists make up a larger percentage of the atheist population than the general population. I’m not an Objectivist myself; I’m too liberal to agree with much of it.

Since the philosophy has such visibility, it’s worth learning a bit about. Ebonmuse over at Daylight Atheism has written an excellent analysis of Objectivism, “Three Objections to Objectivism”.

Ebonmuse writes:

This post will detail three of my primary objections to Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, as it’s expressed in [The Virtue of Selfishness] and her other works. Combined, I believe they demonstrate that Rand’s system of thought either contains fatal self-contradictions, or else would be destructive to the welfare of any society that was to adopt it.

I found the article to be highly informative. Be sure to read the comments afterward. There’s a good discussion of the article and the issues raised.

(I’ve turned off comments for this post. I’m merely pointing you to a good article. Please discuss Objectivism there.)

Jack Klugman has made two TV commercials for First Freedom First.

Video 1 is on Sound Science:

Video 2 is on End of Life Care:

You probably remember the flap last September when Kathy Griffin won an Emmy for her cable-TV reality show, Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List. The award was presented at the Creative Arts Emmy awards. The program was taped and scheduled for broadcast the following week on the E! cable network. She pissed off a lot of fundies with her acceptance speech:

Now, a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. He didn’t help me a bit. If it was up to him, Cesar Milan would be up here with that damn dog. So all I can say is suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now!

This caused enough of a stink that E! was forced to cut her acceptance speech out of the broadcast.

Last night, I came upon a rerun on Bravo of a standup comedy show that Griffin taped not long after this incident. She discusses the event and its aftermath. I thought it was quite funny. I managed to find the program on YouTube. The bit is split over these two parts.

Part 1:

Part 2:

(YouTube pages are here and here.)