Blood on Whose Hands?

For the past several days, I have been told that, as a member of the NRA, I “have blood on my hands”, and that I should, in fact, be killed for “wanting to arm teachers.”  That stricter gun control was the only possible answer to the recent violent attacks.  Let’s examine these ideas:

Chicago, Illinois has the strictest gun control laws in the nation.  Bar none.  If gun control worked, why are there an average of 41 homicides per month in Chicago alone?  According to the Brady Campaign, “Connecticut has strong gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of most guns without background checks and reduce risks to children”, and is ranked as fifth-safest State in the nation.  So how did a school shooting happen there?

All States which have introduced right-to-carry laws have seen a reduction in crime.  More tellingly, Israel (!) has had zero school shootings since they began keeping armed staff in their schools, while the UK has seen a 40% increase in violent crime and almost 100% increase in homicides since forcibly disarming its citizens (sorry, “subjects”).  Why is this?  Because criminals, by definition, want something easy.  If there is a chance that any given person on the street could injure or kill them, they are less likely to risk an engagement.  It is the same reason that school shootings have seen such an increase since we started designating “gun-free zones”—they are easy pickings.  Even the armed security at Virginia proved nearly useless, believing that the shooter had been apprehended after killing two people.  How many lives could have been saved if the professors—hell, if the students had not been debarred from the basic human right of self-defense?

Which brings me to my next point: I am not in favor of “arming teachers”.  This came up on Facebook recently—I don’t think that people who are uncomfortable with firearms should be required to carry them, nor do I think that those who do should be required to engage in every situation.  But the more decent people who are free immediately to engage a murderer with equal force, the fewer lives will be lost overall.  And since one of the founding principles of our nation is that the basic human right to self-defense “shall not be infringed”, this should be a non-issue.

The only people with blood on their hands in this debate are the monsters who actually commit murder—regardless of the implement  they choose for their killing (box knives on a jet, for instance).  But if we are going to create a guilt-by-association for their enablers, that guilt falls on the Brady Campaign and others who would paint targets on our children.  Not those of us who would do what is necessary to protect them.

Outrage

The American Left (laughably called “liberals”, but more accurately known as “Progressivists”) has spent the greater part of the last century attacking every vehicle of belief in our society.  They have done horrible work in undermining our heroes, our patriotism, every religion (and Christianity in particular), and even the family itself.  These are the people who teach in our schools.  These are the people who run our news media.  These are the people who currently sit in the highest offices in our land.  They have left the children of the United States of America damnably little to believe in–not by proving that belief has no value, but simply by making it unfashionable.

And these are the people who pretend outrage when our children act in accordance with the nihilism they have been raised in.  Pretend, so that they may force more of our people into the slavery of their failed socialist utopia.  Pretend, so that they can demonize any who disagree with them.  Pretend, to steal our rights, our property and our heritage.

Well, I believe that I am outraged.

Penn, Science and Religion

“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.” –Penn Jillette, author of God, No.

I should begin this by stating that I generally have a lot of respect for Mr. Jillette, and I think he’s done a lot of good for the concept of critical thinking, which is sorely lacking in modern America.  That being said, his determination not to believe in things sometimes blinds him to things that actually do work, but are either poorly-understood, or difficult to adequately communicate.  Like most libertarians, he sometimes says things which I find profoundly true, and sometimes things which I find mind-bogglingly wrong.  In this case, while nothing in the above claim is factually incorrect, the entirety of it is deeply erroneous and disingenuous.

1. Mr. Jillette starts out wrong by playing into the very modern idea of some sort of conflict between “science” and “religion”.  This is based on an absolute abuse of epistemology.  “Science” is a method(s) of studying physical phenomena.  Religion has nothing to do with physical phenomena.  Mythology certainly makes physical claims which are contrary to history, but to assert that as an error is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of mythology–and in any case, mythology (stories) are not religion (practice).

2. Religion is not “nonsense” unless one examines it with an inappropriate criterion (such as predictive power).  Under such circumstance, science is also nonsense.  For example, there is no compelling scientific argument to do any good thing.  Absent a higher moral force, the only compelling argument is not to get caught.  

3. The overall claim that the total erasure of religion would delete it, but the total erasure of “science” would only cause the process to begin again, is false for several reasons, primarily because both “science” (by which I assume he means knowledge derived by use of the scientific method) and “religion” (by which I assume he means any number of beliefs about knowledge which cannot be approached scientifically) are based on models. 

     A. While physical investigation into the universe would likely begin again after the eradication of “science”, there is no guarantee that the same models would be derived.  Nor are our models finalized; the one certainty of scientific models is that they will eventually be found false and replaced.  (If you think quantum mechanics is safe in way phlogiston was not, remember that it is completely incompatible with general relativity).  It is (remotely) possible that our scientific knowledge to date is based on a deep initial error, or (more likely) that there is an end-state of physical knowledge which could be arrived at by generating a completely different set of models than we currently use.

     B. Mythology is a symbolic representation of universal psychological truths.  Specific religions adapt these truths into cultural-normal practices (marriage ceremonies, funeral rites, etc.).  That these practices were universal 10,000 years ago strongly implies that they will continue to be universal 10,000 years from now. The truths get adapted to cultural specifics, but that hardly makes them “some other nonsense” any more than the luminiferous aether was “some other nonsense” than quantum mechanics.  Physics has evolved, but it’s still physics.

     C. Also universal are shamanism (the initiation of individuals into a “spirit world”) and mysticism (the experience of dissolution of the subject/object relationship).  Regardless of one’s feelings about extra-physical reality, the universality of these experiences and practices strongly indicates that something very real is happening (even if it is misinterpreted by the participants), and it will contintue to happen in the absence of currently-evolved belief systems.

“Social Gospel”

Before I begin this entry, I must mention that, while I was considering what to say, I passed an inmate on the telephone…  teaching his child the Lord’s Prayer.

Today is 21 Dec, 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar.  Reflecting on the end of the world, I have chosen for today’s topic the so-called “social gospel”, and its close ally, “black liberation theology”.  I have touched on this topic before, in discussing Barack Obama’s long-time membership in “reverend” Jeremiah Wright’s “church”.  (I put these words in quotation marks because their use in conjunction with this man cannot be considered anything but fascetious.)  This post is also inspired by the recent publication of two books: the so-called “Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals” and the offensively-titled (and written) “Queen James Bible”.  I’m not going to bother calling out each of these sources individually in this post (although if you’d like to hear my thoughts on any of them, just let me know).  Rather, I will deal with the “social gospel” eo ipso. 

The “social gospel” is largely, and unfortunately, the child of the Roman Catholic Church.  More unfortunately, it has a strong following  in my own adopted Episcopal Communion.  The reason that this is unfortunate is because I truly want to respect these two communities, but acceptance of the “social gospel” is predicated on a deep misunderstanding–or worse, abuse–of the actual Christian Scriptures.  Christian salvation is not achieved by mundane works, nor can it be achieved by one person on behalf of another.  Salvation is a purely personal experience of the individual and God.  That is why Christianity, unlike Islam, cannot forcibly convert others.

One online commenter told me that I should “read a bit more of the Bible than just the letters of Paul. The minor prophets, the Magnificat of Mary, the sermon on the mount. God is not a corporate libertarian.”  Notwithstanding the fact that God is also not not “a corporate libertarian”–or that “corporate libertarian” is actually gibberish–let us look at the sources claimed by this person in defense of the “social gospel”.  “The minor prophets”, in toto, are too large to deal with in a blog entry.  However, in the Magnificat (aka, “The Song of Mary”) we find:

     “He hath filled the hungry with good things : and the rich he hath sent empty away”

I must assume that this verse is most representative of the “social gospel” adherents’ views.  Note, however, that HE (that is, G-D) does these things.  Even if this were somehow mangled into instructions for the supplicant to feed the hungry, there is no possible interpretation which includes taking wealth from its owner–especially when taken in consideration with the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), that we should not steal nor desire that which belongs to another.  Desiring to give it to a third party is irrelevant; it is not ours to give.  Nor can the passage about sending the rich empty away be interpreted as a command for Christians to confiscate the rich’s possessions, for similar reason.  Socialism in all its forms, whether Fascist or Communist in nature, is inimical to Christianity (and Judaism) for similar reason: it is all about taking what someone else has earned, and is either motivated by, or motivates, the desire to take what other people have earned.

The reference to the Sermon on the Mount probably refers to another passage that I’ve had tossed my direction by supporter of the “social gospel”, from Matthew 6:

     19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[v] consume and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust[w] consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

While this is certainly direction for the supplicant to follow, the direction is for the supplicant not to keep a certain thing.  There is no direction to take those things from others, which would again be a violation of the Commandments.

By coincidence, the best resource I have found on understanding the “social Gospel” and why it is inimical to Christianity (much more detailed than this post) is by the Church I left years ago: the Presbyterians.  Here is a link their excellent article on the subject:

http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Journals/6-1%20Feb-1999/Battle%20-%20Social%20Gospel.pdf

Non-Criminal Rampages

An actual conversation I had on Facebook (verbage may not be exact):

———

Him:  The only way we can prevent more tragedies like this is to completely ban guns!

Me: Well, we’ve already banned MURDER, but that didn’t seem to help.  But I’m sure one more law will fix everything; criminals are all about obeying the law.

Him:  We’re not talking about criminals!  We’re talking about non-criminals going on rampages!

Me:  Going on a homicidal rampage actually IS a crime…

———-

The gun-control lobby gets smarter and more rational every day.

Thoughts on Water-Walking…

I was thinking today about my Confirmation into the Episcopal Communion in 2010.  The reading that the Bishop gave during the service was Matthew 14:22-33, the episode of the Messiah walking on water.  I was struck at the time, and continue to be struck, by how very differently the Bishop and I read that passage.

To the Bishop, you see, the focus was on the following passage:

     32 When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Peter had doubted, the Messiah saved him and returned him to the boat.  “And that,”  said the Bishop, “is Christianity in a nutshell.  We are all in one boat together.”

I had a very different take-away message.  For me the, the focus of this episode is here:

     28 Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out      of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus.

Even though he failed (being human), even though he had only a “little faith”—the only one in the boat that had any faith at all, got out.

A Thought Experiment

Imagine that Mr. Aoi, a former community college teacher of Arbitrary Taxonomy, has just written a book (“The Color-Blind Paintingmaker”) alleging that the color “red” does not exist. Rather, it is a culturally-reinforced mass delusion, probably (according to Mr. Aoi) originating in man’s primitive desire to glorify warfare and violent sexual conquest by romanticizing blood, making it seem somehow more “exciting”. The color “red” is no more real than the color “octarine” or the “sound of one hand clapping”. The so-called “color-blind” are actually evolutionarily superior by virtue of having been born with sufficient intelligence and native reason not to fall victim to the psychologically-conditioned charade of kokkinism (belief in “red”).

Notably:

-There is no real consensus on what the color “red” is supposed to be. When asked to define “red” to an akokkinist (one who believes there is no “red”), kokkinists always fall back on analogy, technical jargon or vague terminology rather than specific and concrete language. Moreover, there are many kinds of red; “crimson”, “scarlet”, “magenta” et al. Why should one red be considered the “true” red, when all are equally imaginary? If anything, monokokkinism (belief in red as a concept) is a bigger fraud than polykokkinism (belief in many specific reds).

-Many people throughout history and around the world may have claimed to have seen this color “red”, but since this is all testimony in support of a mass delusion, the testimony itself is by definition irrational. Basing an argument on such testimony is nothing more than allowing argumentum ad populam to prop up the delusional conditioning.

-Light in the wavelength of 630 to 700 nanometers has been designated by the kokkinist mainstream as “red”; however, this was decided with the a priori kokkinistic assumption that a color “red” existed. Those infra-orange wavelengths are correctly identified as “inner-green” (to differentiate from the “outer-green” band between yellow and blue). It should be noted that the emerging science of neuro-kokkinology has demonstrated that the human occipital lobe may be hardwired to react differently to inner-green than to outer-green; the evolutionary advantage of this is widely debated among akokkinists, but it clearly demonstrates that “red” is simply an hallucination.

-“Red” pigment being blended with yellow to make orange is ridiculous; the pigment being used is quite clearly green. Obviously, the production of orange rather than yellow-green in the mixing of certain pigments is due to the physical properties of the inner-green versus outer-green pigments themselves, not some imaginary color worn by gift-giving Christmas elves.

-In “color-blindness tests”, the testers know what the answers are supposed to be. Obviously, they (either unconsciously or in active collusion with the kokkinist majority) give clues to those tested; those who accept such clues and answer “correctly” are rewarded with potentially superior or more exciting public job opportunities—thus reinforcing and perpetuating the cycle. In fact, an utterly failed stage magician is making quite a name for himself in akokkinist circles by offering a million dollars to anyone who can use a “color-blindness test” to objectively prove that red actually exists (with the tiny proviso that he himself gets to control the exact conditions under which the test is administered, AND that he must not be able to reach the same result through the use of thoroughly-prepared stage magic).

Can you prove that the color red does exist, or will you join Mr. Aoi’s “Free Seers Society” (akokkinists only)? They don’t want freedom OF decoration, they want freedom FROM decoration!