The problem with propaganda is that it's rarely truth. Unfortunately, it's often Truth. So I will gnash my teeth and stomp my feet and remember that Freedom of Speech isn't predicated on common sense. But I wonder if I started spreading such propaganda on my social feeds, not just my opinion but information saying that there was a war and it was my job to make sure that religious people were converted, I wonder just how long it would before my friend list dwindled to a small few. Seems slightly unbalanced for a group decrying how maligned they are.
And on a shallower note--Wow! That was some cheesy ass, heavy handed, over the top video. Really? The dramatic music, the costumes, the battle scenes? I need to be saved from the video.

Fat Pastor Happy Holidays

But riling up the crazies with false information makes me crazy. So here ya go...here's the latest:

Don't buy the patriotic PEPSI CAN coming out with pictures of the empire state building. and the pledge of allegiance on them. Pepsi LEFT OUT Two little WORDS on the pledge "UNDER GOD" Pepsi said they did not want to offend any one. so if we don't buy them they wont be offended when they don't receive our money!!!!! that has the...words "...... ...In God we trust" on it!!! ...... how fast can you re post this??

Thing is that it is just a version of an email that went around years ago and it is blatantly not true. In 2001, Dr Pepper put a picture of the Statue of Liberty on their cans with the words "One Nation...Indivisible" over it. No pledge. No omissions. That was it. It was meant as a sign of solidarity after 9/11. But jump around and scream and pretend that we are attacking your religious rights while you attack the first amendment.

Oh, and please look up your history:
The Pledge was originally written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. The original pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
It wasn't until 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, that the words "under god" were added. It was added to separate us from godless communists. There are some interesting bits of information here regarding the history of the pledge.

When I say it, on the few occasions that I do, I leave out the words under god. They make me uncomfortable at the very least and while I don't protest or ask others to do the same, I at least think a little bit of history would go a long way. I am not waging a War!On!Christians! In fact, they waged the war. But it was recent and not a battle fought by the Founding Fathers. Check the dates. Have a look.

um, like freedom of speech? Yeah, let's squash that shit right now before god gets angry.

A Romp Through Theories on Origins of Life --NY Times article

* Recommend
* Twitter
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Single Page
*
Reprints
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Mixx
o MySpace
o Permalink
o

TEMPE, Ariz. — We’re not in the Garden of Eden anymore.
Enlarge This Image
Elwood H. Smith

RSS Feed
RSS Get Science News From The New York Times »

Darwin speculated that life began in a warm pond on the primordial Earth. Lately other scientists have suggested that the magic joining of molecules that could go on replicating might have happened in an undersea hot spring, on another planet or inside an asteroid. Some astronomers wonder if it could be happening right now underneath the ice of Europa or in the methane seas of Titan.

Two dozen chemists, geologists, biologists, planetary scientists and physicists gathered here recently to ponder where and what Eden might have been. Over a long weekend they plastered the screen in their conference room with intricate chemical diagrams through which electrons bounced in a series of interactions like marbles rattling up and down and over bridges through one of those child’s toys, transferring energy, taking care of the business of nascent life. The names of elements and molecules tripped off chemists’ tongues as if they were the eccentric relatives who show up at Thanksgiving every year.

They charted the fall of meteorites and the rise of oxygen on the early Earth and evidence in old rocks that life was here as long as 3.5 billion years ago. The planet is only a billion years older, but estimates vary on when it became habitable.

In front of a 2,400-member audience one night they debated the definition of life — “anything highly statistically improbable, but in a particular direction,” in the words of Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist at Oxford. Or, they wondered if it could be defined at all in the absence of a second example to the Earth’s biosphere — a web of interdependence all based on DNA.

Hence the quest for extraterrestrial examples is more than a sentimental use of NASA’s dollars. “Let’s go look for it,” said Chris McKay, a planetary scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, Calif., who is involved with the Mars Science Laboratory, which will be launched in November.

The rapid appearance of complex life in some accounts — “like Athena springing from the head of Zeus,” in the words of Dr. McKay — has rekindled interest recently in a theory fancied by Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the double helix, that life originated elsewhere and floated here through space. These days the favorite candidate for such an extraterrestrial cradle is Mars, which was once a water world. Perhaps, some think, its microbes hitched a ride to Earth on asteroids — unless, of course, the microbes went the other way and what’s to be found on Mars are the dead remains of long-lost cousins of Earth.

“We’ve crashed more space probes on Mars than anywhere else — it’s that interesting,” Dr. McKay said.

The conference was sponsored by the Origins Project at Arizona State University in an effort to get people together who don’t normally talk to each other, said Lawrence Krauss, a physicist who helped organize the meeting.

Talk is indeed hard across disciplines and geological ages. John Sutherland, a biochemist at Cambridge University in England, said geologists and astronomers were more interested in talking and speculating about the origin of life than chemists were, even though it is basically a problem of “nitty-gritty chemistry.”

The reason, he explained, is that “chemists know how hard it is.”

The modern version of the Garden of Eden goes by the name of RNA world, after the molecule ribonucleic acid, which plays Robin to DNA’s Batman today, but is now thought have preceded it on the biological scene. RNA is more versatile, being able not only to store information, like DNA, but also to use that information to catalyze reactions, a job now performed by proteins. That solved a sort of chicken-and-egg problem about which ability came first into the world. The answer is that RNA could be both.

“If you want to think of it that way, life is a very simple process,” said Sidney Altman, who shared a Nobel Prize in 1989 for showing that RNA had these dual abilities. “It uses energy, it sustains itself and it replicates.”

One lesson of the meeting was how finicky are the chemical reactions needed for carrying out these simple-sounding functions. “There might be a reason why amino acids and nucleotides are the way they are,” Dr. Krauss said.

What looks complicated to us might not look so complicated to a piece of a carbon molecule awaiting integration into life’s dance. “Complexity is in the eye of the beholder,” said Dr. Sutherland, who after 10 years of trying different recipes succeeded in synthesizing one of the four nucleotides that make up RNA in a jar in his lab.

With the right mixture and conditions, complicated-looking molecules can assemble themselves without help. “When everything is in the pot,” he said, “the chemistry to make RNA is easier.”

Dr. Sutherland’s results were hailed as a triumph for the RNA world idea, but there is much work to be done, said Steve Benner, who constructs artificial DNA at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, in Florida. Nobody knows whether Dr. Sutherland’s recipe would work on the early Earth, he said. Moreover, even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.
RSS Feed
RSS Get Science News From The New York Times »

“Other than that,” Dr. Benner said, “the RNA world is a great idea for origin of life.”

Some others, including astronomers and geologists, have another view of biological inevitability. Life is a natural consequence of geology, said Everett Shock, a geophysicist at Arizona State. “Most of what life is doing is using chemical energy,” Dr. Shock said, and that energy is available in places like undersea volcanic vents where life, he calculated, acts as a catalyst to dissipate heat from the Earth. In what he called “a sweet deal,” life releases energy rather than consuming it, making it easy from a thermodynamic standpoint.

“Biosynthesis is profitable — it has to be; they live there,” said Dr. Shock, referring to microbes in undersea vents.

Some scientists say we won’t really understand life until we can make it ourselves.

On the last day of the conference, J. Craig Venter, the genome decoding entrepreneur and president of the J. Craig Venter Institute, described his adventures trying to create an organism with a computer for a parent.

Using mail-order snippets of DNA, Dr. Venter and his colleagues stitched together the million-letter genetic code of a bacterium of a goat parasite last year and inserted it into another bacterium’s cell, where it took over, churning out blue-stained copies of itself. Dr. Venter advertised his genome as the wave of future migration to the stars. Send a kit of chemicals and a digitized genome across space.

“We’ll create panspermia if it didn’t already exist,” he said.

The new genome included what Dr. Venter called a watermark. Along with the names of the researchers were three quotations, from the author James Joyce; Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the building of the atomic bomb; and the Caltech physicist Richard Feynman: “What I cannot build, I do not understand.”

When the news came out, last year, Dr. Venter said, the James Joyce estate called up and threatened to sue, claiming that Joyce’s copyright had been violated. To date there has been no lawsuit.

Then Caltech called up and complained that Dr. Venter’s genome was misquoting Feynman. The institute sent a photograph of an old blackboard on which Feynman had written, “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”

And so his genome is now in the process of acquiring its first, non-Darwinian mutation.

cross posted at Ya Gotta Believe

Back to Firefly--watch Jaynestown. Watch the interactions between River and Shepherd Book. Watch those interactions paralleled with the misguided worship of a "hero" by people who just need something to cling to when they are forced to live in an oppressive situation--when they are desperate for hope they will believe what they want in the face of evidence to the contrary.
If you are looking for good/evil certainly you can take away examples from Joss' work but it isn't always as black and white as it would appear and it isn't always the heroes that are good or the villians that are evil. This show is not a show that lends itself as a shining example of Christian ethics, beliefs and morality. Some things are sacred. Firefly is one of those things.
/rant

Link to the original articles (as referenced in Whedonesque) given in extended entry.

If you are interested please let me know. As always, the comments are open to any respectful discourse.

And yet? I keep reading it. I read more and more until I can't stop wanting to scream--until I am so upset that people can willingly close their minds and listen to this without questioning or looking beyond the limited and skewed information that is being presented. I am not even asking that people change their belief systems or world view. That's not the point at all. What I do wish however is that they would question such subjective information, question, learn and think for themselves. At the end of that, if they still believe what they believe then they are stronger for it. Me? I cannot look at the information presented and say "I know it makes no sense but I choose to believe it anyway."
I choose to look further than surface information. The appearance of something does not make it so.

If you have a need to bang your head against something this morning here is the blog.

I am going to take a break. My head hurts from vigorous head-shaking, eye-rolling and general banging against the proverbial wall.

The real reason was to see a friend who was playing in the band this morning. Their family is very, very dear to me. In addition, I've always promised that if the boys were interested, I would take them. I won't make up their minds for them. They can choose. It isn't like choosing to be a Yankee fan--that will get you banned and disowned--this, this I can almost understand. Almost.

It was much as I expected as far as the contemporary worship went. I wasn't surprised by the logistics of it all. I have to admit though that I was feeling awkward and out of my element. I couldn't relax, couldn't stop feeling like I was the square peg, couldn't stop twitching at my meditation bracelets and picking at invisible fuzz on my shirt. The boys were good. They were just a little restless but enjoyed the music. But see, here's the thing: I enjoyed the idea of the music. It was played well. I enjoyed it on that level. I loved watching my friend play. But somehow, I couldn't get past the lyrics. There was a part of me that would have liked to sing but not to worship, only because I love music. I get something out of harmonies and rhythms that as I looked around I realized that other people get out of the lyrics. It felt hypocritical to sing. In a traditional church I sing. I know the hymns and they are, well, traditional. There's something about the history, the composers, the choral structure that allows me to sing and participate without feeling that I am being hypocritical. So, while I enjoyed the talent and the music, there was no singing for me.

It was very contemporary which for me was both interesting and unsettling. I'm an atheist. I can, however, see a draw in the tradition and social aspects of religion. I can see how one might take comfort in a community of like minded people. It makes sense to me. And in that way, I can see how even a contemporary service allows for that kind of interaction. For me, stripped of tradition, I am left with only the theology and that is problematic.

The pastor was engaging and entertaining. I didn't find my mind wandering even once during the sermon. I did however, experience a near panic attack early on--my eyes darting over to the door, wondering if I could use the boys as an excuse to bolt. But the boys were on their best behavior and I would not influence them. So I took my meditation beads and one after the other passed them between anxious fingers until I had settled back down. I looked for a common thread instead of focusing on how different we were. It is difficult to find. It is difficult, but it is indeed there. The difference is not whether or not we are moral or whether or not we want to live a life that is worthwhile and meaningful. The difference comes in how we choose to focus our intent.

I tried. I tried to listen and understand but it is not who I am. It apparently is also not who my boys are either. I am sure that I have influenced them. It is inevitable. But they were respectful and curious and I was proud of them.

I am willing to admit that there are things that I will never be able to explain in this world--that there are things that no one can explain--and to me that's acceptable. It's even awe inspiring. The difference is that I don't assign that awe to a god. It isn't a flaw in my character. It is what I believe. Interestingly, my friend said that he didn't think I could be converted because I had no beliefs to convert. That isn't true. It is not a lack of belief, it is not a lack of a moral compass that makes me an atheist. I believe differently than he does, than most of my family does. I have faith in people, in the people I love, but do not need to and will not hand over the control of my life to a mythology that seems not to apply to me. I am who I choose to be. It is a mantra that I use often when meditating. I have free will. I have a choice. And I am who I choose to be. It isn't easy to take that kind of control and more often than not I fail. But I still try.

Two good things came out of this morning--at least two good things, maybe more. I got to share something that is very special with a family that I respect and love almost as much as my own family. I got to see a major part of their life and understand them a bit better. Because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't respect the kind of commitment that they have to their faith and to that community. I envy them that on some level. I respect the way that they live their faith. I would love to sit and talk with them and find the common ground. I know that it is there. The other thing is that, in some way, the service only reinforced my own beliefs. Once I felt less like a stranger and more like an observer, I was comfortable because I knew who I was. It took a very long time to get to this point in my life but it is a good place.

Am I going back? That's up to the boys. For them, I would go. For me? It was good to share that and to experience a part of something that I usually am on the outside looking in at. I know that it is not for me but knowing that allowed me to appreciate this morning in a way I could not have done not so long ago. So yes, I went to church and I didn't wear a sign that said atheist and no one tried to convert me. We just shared a little of who we are and I'm glad for that

We thought it would be nice to get our tree from there.

Here's the catch. As I drove by yesterday, eyeing up the trees and seeing which one might want to spend the season in my living room, I saw a large sign out by the road.

"Keep Christ in Christmas"

We'll skip over my rants and tirades and the fact that the tree is the least Christian symbol of the season. I have no problem whatsoever with them having that sign out. That's what they believe, whether or not I support it, not a problem. But....you knew there was a but....do I want to buy my tree there? Am I going to back up what I believe and go somewhere else? Do I ignore it because we want to support them or support their right to their beliefs but skidaddle on over to the less in your face tree stand?

I'm thinking we go elsewhere. Quietly. No nonsense, no judging, just elsewhere for our yuletide decorations.

After waiting the required amount of time expected at any municipal office, I was helped by a somewhat stereotypically grouchy receptionist who, after stamping, printing and copying the duplicate and triplicate forms, wished me a blessed day.

Hrumph.

Before I go on my little tirade, yes, I know she probably meant it kindly, and yadda, yadda, yadda, but bear with me for a bit, 'k?

Let's say for a second that the wall had been full of many versions of Buddha--laughing Buddha, sitting Buddha, etc. Or maybe, many versions of the Star of David--a glittery one, a metal one, a beaded one, one made out of macaroni and gold spray paint--would that have been ok? Would people have been ok with the Muslim symbols? Pagan symbols? No. I think it would have sent them, clutching their crosses, and running.
Am I wrong? Would you have felt uncomfortable with an over the top display of a religion that differs so greatly from yours in a municipal building?

What makes them think that I am ok with the 28 crosses? What makes that appropriate for a government building? It isn't. Pure and simple. That clearly promotes that religion. And I'm not talking subtle nuance or traditions that have been long established. I'm not talking about a simple cross or picture on a personal desk. I'm talking a full-out, crazy, cross lady--a stark, raving, mad, cross collector loose at the Trenton Water Works. I don't want to be blessed, thanks. And I sure as hell don't need my water blessed. I just need you to stop screwing up the accounts.

It is completely an inappropriate place for that kind of a personal display. Believe whatever you want to but there's no need for the decoupage deity behind the counter at the water works. And you know what? You can even wish me a blessed day if that floats your boat. I probably wouldn't have minded if it hadn't felt like I was at the Inquisition. Can atheists partake in the municipal water? Just curious.

cross posted at Ya Gotta Believe

Gah.