Remember that definition of “fascism” I provided in my last post: The new GOP buzzword: Fascism ?

Fascism: “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”

I’d mentioned how the current neo-cons exhibit all those qualities including racism… what a coinkydink! Just today there’s this news item: Republican Senator Conrad Burns says at a fund raiser, faceless enemy of terrorists who “drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night.”

Wow.

And of course there was Republican Senator George Allen’s calling of a photographer of Middle Eastern descent a “Macaca” (a type of monkey and a general racist slur.)

These are representatives of the people controlling all three branches of our government. Nice, huh? Wonder why you don’t hear stuff like this coming out of the mouths of the Democratic or Libertarian parties. I wonder.

The irony and mid/disinformation is astounding:

CNN.com - The new GOP buzzword: Fascism - Aug 30, 2006
From the article:

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, in a tough re-election fight, drew parallels on Monday between World War II and the current war against “Islamic fascism,” saying they both require fighting a common foe in multiple countries. It’s a phrase Santorum has been using for months.

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday took it a step further in a speech to an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, accusing critics of the administration’s Iraq and anti-terrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.”

Rediculous and disgusting. Horribly ironic for two reasons, that any high school student who paid attention in class could inform you on:

(1) Early in WWII, in the mid-to-late ’30s, who were the Hitler appeasers? It wasn’t liberals, wasn’t progressives, wasn’t anarchists, wasn’t Communists, it was corporate conservatives! The very type of people the current administration are!

When Hitler was sending his Weremacht across eastern Europe, the corporatists supported Hitler as they believed he would be able to open back up commercial possibilities with post-Bolshevik Revolution Russian states. It wasn’t until Hitler revealed himself as wanting to take over ALL of Europe that the conservative corporatists decided he wasn’t going to be that good of an ally.

(2) Fascism: “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” Sound familiar?

The current Administration has been working hard since 9/11 to grab more and more power for the President. How many times have they claimed some removal of liberty, some undermining of check-and-balance, was a right of the President due to war powers? They are trying hard to marry corporate interests with government control. They claim, or at least treat with predjudice, anyone who disagrees with the Administration as traitors and unpatriotic. They rule with a “mandate” using concepts of divine right and arrogant religiosity despite the will of the people they’re supposed to be representing. They make blanket staements regarding Muslems, some of their lesser neo-cons making outright racist remarks. They use fear-mongering to justify increased government control and removal of freedoms and liberties.

Rumsfeld: “Hey Kettle, I’m Pot. You’re black!”

Just read an article on Debunking Christianity that discusses the ironically relativist nature of Christianity, specifically in the nature of taking vows or not: Are Marriage Vows Immoral? And thought I’d quote this from the article. Cute.

Naturalist: As there is no way for us to determine absolute morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Christian: Ah—but we have Absolute Morality!
Naturalist: Grounded in what?
Christian: God.
Naturalist: And what is God’s morality?
Christian: As there is no way for us to determine God’s morality, we must determine it as best we can with what we have.
Naturalist: And this is different from me….how?

Of course, for more Christian relativism than you can handle or would want to, visit my: Absolutely Relative (the theme continues)

CNN.com - Rep. Harris: Church-state separation ‘a lie’ - Aug 28, 2006

Oh my god! Oh. My. God. This woman is insane. Mainly for reasons other than what she recently said, but nonetheless….

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is “a lie” and God and the nation’s founding fathers did not intend the country be “a nation of secular laws.” ….

Separation of church and state is “a lie we have been told,” Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is “wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”

I swear, no one should ever be allowed to run for any public office without going through a course on Constitutional history! A jr. high school student should (should) be able to tell you that when the Founding Fathers were forming the new form of government, they came from a European history of royal rulership by divine right and nearly unanimously agreed that this new American government would have a secular government where the leaders are decided upon by the people! By the people, for the people, OF the people!

Guess what? There is no reference whatsoever in the Constitution regarding God or even divine providence in the establishment of government or law!

Besides the final outcome of the Constitutional Congress, that being The Constitution, as proof that the Founding Fathers intended a secular government and a representative leadership decided upon by the people and not divine right, we have hundreds of documents from the debates during the formation of the Constitution! And in the debates and the personal journals of the noteables are found the evidence that the Founding Fathers were pulling from their education and knowledge of Greek and Roman politics and various other non-religious based examples of government to form the American system.

There is no, NO, basis for any belief that the origin of the U.S. government was anything other than completely secular. And politcal ploys to appeal to the religious by expousing bold-faced lies and preying on the ignorance of the poorly educated just pisses me off. God! I need to get a passport.

Two Hearted Ale

From: Bell’s Brewery, Inc / Eccentric Café & Beergarden in Michigan, United States
Style: American IPA
overall: 3.3
appearance: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | mouthfeel: 3 | drinkability: 4

A: A bright golden color. See through, rich amber. The head was surprisingly thick and solid. Biteable even. Leaves a very nice lacing.

S: Slightly fruity smell, but just slightly. Nice.

T: When cold, it has that crisp bitterness that masks any subtlety.
It has an odd, fishy aftertaste that reminds me of lake water… but that’s probably because of the bottle label. Unfortunately as it warms up it gets noticeably sour. Like warm, old orange juice. (personal experience. Don’t ask.)

M: Crisp, significant carbonation. A slight greasy feel that goes away quickly.

Not bad. No danger of it becoming my favorite beer, but certainly wouldn’t turn one down if offered. I like it better cold, unlike most darker beers, and ales in general for that matter. Cold and out of the bottle instead of in a glass, it’s actually very good.
And for that I bump drinkability from 3.5 to 4.

[ serving type: bottle ]

[ see my review ]

Had my 2nd class for the semester last night (only taking two classes a semester.) “ENG 600 Problems and Methods of Research in English”. Wow! This is going to be a great class!

The instructor I actually know from the Springfield Astronomical Society and was pleasantly surprised to find out he was the professor. The class focuses heavily on the profession of English academics and, as the title more than implies, how to go about research in English literature.

Well, I could go on at length about the course, but will instead just leave it at saying I’m really going to enjoy it. Unlike my “Early English Lit” class I have again today, which is basically just a semester long course on Mystery Plays.

Don’t know if I’d mentioned this yet, but I started grad school this semester, 11 years after earning my English and Theatre BA’s. It’s always been my dream to earn a doctorate and a couple of masters, and now I’m finally back on track.

This first masters is going to be in English, in the Creative Writing track. But I’m going to focus, mainly in my doctorate however, on Occidental (Briton and Saxon and Celt mainly) linguistics development. That is, the development of Old English and Norse/Icelandic, Gaelic, and Welsh. Sort of on my way to becoming the next J.R.R. Tolkien. Heh, if I do before I die as much as Tolien did before he was 25, I’ll be happy.

I’m not sure what my second master’s will be in, probably in philosophy or religion. I’m also planning at some point to get a BS in Astronomy, if I can force my brain to deal with the math I should have learned in high school. *grin*

Anyway, my first class was yesterday: “ENG 598: Early English Language and Literature.” Well, the instructor seems cool, and the class is going to be OK I think, but so far it looks like it’s all going to be what I learned extensively in an undergrad “Theatre History I” class that was as rigorous as a graduate class. That might make the class easier, or boring, I don’t know yet. We’ll see.

Tonight is “ENG 600: Problems and Methods in Researching.” Three hour night class with three pretty large books. But flipping through the books, some very challenging material! Looks like this will be a fun and mind-consuming class. We’ll find out more by tonight.

Let me be more specific in regards to yesterday’s post: Validate and Move On; Moving Past Religion. I’m all over trying to prove the failure and myth of religion, as it’s really self-evident and I’m tired of beating my head against the walls of others’ chosen self-delusion based on mountains of fallacies and congnitive biases.

But I’m going to still blog about religion when its failure or examples of hatred or ignorance get my ire going.

Today, it’s over a post over at Debunking Christianity, entitled:

Now What, Christian?

It’s a poignant personal testimony of someone who was once in the Christian ministry and learned that faith can fail. That arguing from emotion fails. That apologetics doesn’t have all the answers.

Some of the parts to his testimony really struck me, like the fallback, or usually default, position of using fear to scare people to God. And worse, something I’ve heard other Christians say: “I hope the Lord causes something bad to happen to him so he will turn to God.”

How valid, loving, merciful, reasoned, is a religion, is a faith, where its advocates encourage the attitude that it is good if harm comes to a fellow human being, if the end result is that they win another convert? How empty and cruel is such a faith that it desires converts by having them turn to God out of desperation?

Every cult, every mindwashing organization, prefers its converts to come to them empty, in need, in desperation, so they can fill it with their dogma. I’m reminded of my earlier post: Turning to God, Will It Happen?

Man, I really really hope when I get his age, I’ll still be as sharp….

The latest GeeksOn podcast has an interview with Forrest J Ackerman, the guy who, among countless other acomplishments, was the guy who coined the term “sci-fi.” He’s 90 years old, and while his voice is certainly weaker, and a bit slow, his mind is obviously still sharp and active! I hope I can stay that way when enter (and pass) my golden years.

It’s a fascinating interview with a guy who has been involved in science fiction for most of the 20th century, and even still. Great listening to his stories.

Excellent podcast episode!

Point of Inquiry » Blog Archive » Neil deGrasse Tyson - The Sky Is Not the Limit

In addition to a lot of discussion regarding the new proposals for what makes a “planet,” Tyson discusses a LOT regarding science education! About the importance of encouraging kids to explore their world, a natual experiementation.

Also, about the rediculousness of Intelligent Design. Part of which is the arrogant hubris ID encourages. At the core of ID is the idea that not only does the believer can not imagine there being a natural explanation for something, but that there will be no one ever in the entire future of mankind who will come up with an explanation.

And part of that arrogant lack of imagination is the fact that within that realm of encouraged ignorance is the cure for cancer, cure for Althzeimer’s, and we don’t need those people around deciding the direction (or lack of it) in scientific discovery.

Also he mentions that if the ID’er is going to go around reality finding things that are proof of Intelligent Design, then he has the right to go around making lists of things that are completely stupid designs. For example, we humans eat and breathe and speak through the same hole. This makes sure that some percentage of the human population will die from choking. That’s rediculously stupid engineering.

Just terribly sad. Very, very sad, and pathetic:

FOXNews.com - U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution - Evolution and Paleontology

Oh God I’m so over it.

Back in college theatre, after a run of a show all involved would come together for a post-mortem where we’d all discuss what worked and didn’t work. And invariablely more than once each post-mortem the discussion would latch onto some trivial matter that would have an inordinate amount of time spent beating it to death. Beyond death. I can’t believe how often we’d spend an hour discussion one piece of a production that could have ended after 5 minutes. And so the term “validate and move on” would be offered, sometimes with success.

It’s really time for me to validate and move on.

A recent post of mine had some very telling discussion: Apologetic Revisionism, contains a pretty full compliment of how religion (Christian specifically) is absurd and unreasonable and illogical. How its proponents use pseudo-intellectualism, archaic and faulty threads of logic, and ironically hypocritical concepts of absolutism based on relativism and myth worship based on the products of humanism.

I once tried to back out of arguing and debating religion before, but I got sucked back into it. I think this is it. There’s no reason to continue this debate. In my opinion, it’s over, and it’s beating a dead horse. There’s ample, more than ample, rediculously huge mountains of evidence that the Bible is not literal and inerrant. It’s myth, it’s cultural history, it’s a mess, it’s not a shining example of human writing much less what you’d expect from a perfect God trying to give us the rule-book for living. And from that all claims of absolute authority from a book fails.

The foundations of orthadox religion, orthadox Christianity, is illigocal, unreasonable, based on myth…. You know, I was planning on making a long summary of ways in which the Christian religion is invalid from the Bible to philisophical foundations to morality to history and comparisons with other ancient Fertile Crescent myths, but it’s all been done and I’m too sick and tired to go over it all again.

If anyone’s reading this, just click on the “Religion” subject button for postings of a religious nature. Most all of them will contain links to other sites expanding on the subject. Most of all, just read the book in question that the entire religion is built upon, the Bible, from cover to cover. If that book is supposed to be an inerrant and perfect book written (inspired by) a perfect God, then it should be perfectly clear and make perfect sense to anyone who reads it WITHOUT the help of an industry of book publishing helping people to understand why it’s filled with appearant immorality and attrocities and contradictions and absurdities and unfulfilled messianic prophesies. We shouldn’t need to be spending millions of dollars a year on books written by other humans to help make sense of a perfect book written by a perfect God who supposedly loves us and wants to help us, should we?

Anyway, my wife recently challenged me, again, as to why I feel so compelled to try to tell people they’re wrong about their religion. Why not live and let live. Well, sounds good, especially to a libertarian like me. But religion isn’t a harmless self-deception that affects no one else. At its very basis Christianity strives to convert the world. The goal of most orthadox Christians is to convert, and that alone is a fascist and immoral desire. But beyond that, many of the infinite interpretations of the religion have and do lead people to hate those who are different than them. Promote intolarance and bigotry. Sexism and even misogyny. Killing and bombing in the name of “The Prince of Peace.” Promotes an arrogant ideology that has lead our country’s leadership to self-righteous Crusade and self-destructive paths. It’s helping foster ignorance and absurd thinking significantly harming much of our children’s ability to function in the real world. To understand reality and science from magic and superstition and myth.

Belief in a religion is not harmless. It’s potentially dangerous and in my opinion, evil. Cruel, abusive, arrogant, and leading to the imperialization of America and its ultimate fall into ruin.

And so I have preached against it. Screamed into the maelstrom and beat my fists againsts the posts and any other literary allusion you want to inject.

But I’ve become sick and tired of spending the effort for no benefit except to raise my own ire, disappointment, and awe at the tenacity of the delusion. Maybe one day we’ll evolve past religion. But it certainly doesn’t look like in my lifetime. Even if end-time promoting death-worshipers of fundamental Christianity don’t assist in the accelerated destruction of the world.