Archive for ‘Philosophy’

July 15th, 2009

The Family a.k.a. the Christian mafia

Has anyone else been slightly blown away by the recent revelations about “The Family”, another secret organization for the wealthy and powerful White cabal in D.C.?

Just when we thought “Good old boy” clubs had become passé, just when we thought we’d seen the last of former Skull and Bones members holding positions of power and influence, here comes “The Family”.

As the Republican Party implodes, the public is becoming aware of a secretive Christian society known as the Family or the Fellowship. The group was founded in 1935 in opposition to FDR’s New Deal and its adherents subscribe to a far right Christian fundamentalist and free market ideology. A minister named Abraham Vereide founded the Family after having a vision in which God visited him in the person of the head of the United States Steel Corporation (no, I’m not making this up). The Family has a connection to house on C Street in Washington, D.C., known simply as C Street. Officially registered as a church, the building serves as a meeting place and residence for conservative politicians.

Few members of the fellowship talk about the group’s mission. The organization organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast that is attended by the president, members of Congress, and diplomats from around the world. Earlier this year, Obama presented his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the event. According to Jeff Sharlet who wrote a book about the group, the Family’s philosophy is based on “a sort of trickle-down fundamentalism,” that believes that the wealthy and powerful, if they “can get their hearts right with God … will dispense blessings to those underneath them.” True believers in market orthodoxy, Family members think that God’s will operates directly through Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.”

The Family’s current leader Doug Coe is secretive but enjoys considerable political influence as a spiritual adviser. When South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, himself a visitor and a kind of honorary alumni at C Street, compared his political difficulties involving his affair with an Argentine woman to those of biblical King David, the South Carolina politician was falling back on a central figure in Family theology. You could “almost hear Doug Coe’s voice” coming out of Sanford, Sharlet remarks.

C Street’s stately red brick, $1.1 million building is subsidized by secretive religious organizations and is located a mere stone’s throw away from the Capitol. Lawmakers who live there include Reps. Zach Wamp (R-TN); Bart Stupak (D-MI);Jim DeMint (R-SC); Mike Doyle (D-PA); and Sens. John Ensign (R-NV), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Sam Brownback (R-KS). The lawmakers, all Christians, live in private rooms upstairs and pay an incredibly low rent — a paltry $600 — to live at C Street.

When they’re not philandering and violating their own professed Christian morality, C Street members push for the projection of U.S. power abroad. As Obama went to Port of Spain, Trinidad for the Summit of the Americas in April, Ensign who criticized the president for shaking Hugo Chávez’s hand. (Source-http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/2016)

According to the Washington Post the house is owned by Youth With a Mission D.C. Youth With a Mission is one of the most extensive Christian fundamentalist para-church organizations on Earth, and YWAM founder leader Loren Cunningham has publicly outlined a vision for Christian world-control.

In a 2008 promotional video, “Reclaiming 7 Mountains of Culture”, Loren Cunningham describes a vision he shared along with the late Campus Crusade For Christ founder Bill Bright and late Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer, in which Christian fundamentalists could achieve world domination by taking over key sectors of society such as business, government, media, and education.

Francis Schaeffer is widely credited as one of the most influential theologians of the 20th Century Christian right. Among the myriad ministries of Bill Bright’s behemoth Campus Crusade For Christ is the Washington D.C. ministry Christian Embassy that targets Pentagon leaders for evangelizing.

The C Street House is run by a secretive Washington ministry known as The Family, or The Fellowship. Over the past year and a half, The Family has gradually come to public attention, mainly due to journalist and Harpers editor Jeff Sharlet’s ground breaking book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. The Family runs the yearly National Prayer Breakfast and maintains a network of Capital Hill prayer groups which have enjoyed the participation of both top GOP but also top Democratic Party Congress and Senate members.
As Cunningham introduces Reclaim 7 Mountains of Culture, “It was August, 1975… and the Lord had given me, that day a list of things that I had never thought about before. He said, ‘This is the way to reach America, and nations, for God.’ ”

The video continues with a narrator who declares, “In every city of the world, an unseen battle rages for dominion over God’s creation and the souls of people. This battle is fought on seven strategic fronts, looming like mountains over the culture, that shape and influence its destiny. Over the years, the church slowly retreated from its place of influence on these mountains, leaving a void now filled with darkness. When we lose our influence, we lose the culture and when we lose the culture we fail to advance the kingdom of God. And now, a generation stands in desperate need. It’s time to fight for them and take back these mountains of influence.” (Source-http://www.open.salon.com/blog/tre_gibbs/2009/07/11/c-street_house_and_the_family_-_america_needs_to_see_this)

…what makes it a little bit different than other Christian conservative organizations, two things, you said that it’s secretive. Indeed the leader of the group describes, he says, the more invisible you can make your organization, the more influence it will have. And the other things is the nature of the influence they want to have.

The family began, it’s the oldest Christian conservative organization in Washington and it goes back seventy years. And the founder believed that god gave him a new revelation saying that Christianity had gotten it wrong for two thousand years and that what most people think of as Christianity, as being about, you know, helping the weak and the poor and the meek and the down and out, he believes god came to him one night in April in 1935 and said what Christianity should really be about is building more power for the already powerful. And that these powerful men who were chosen by god can then if they want to dispense blessings to the rest of us, through a kind of trickle-down fundamentalism. (Source-http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-christian-conservatisms)

Think of C-Street as a TWO-WAY half-way house — except all of the house residents and visitors hold positions of tremendous elected power.
Some of the residents and visitors are RECEOVERING addicts, like former long-time cocaine addict Zach Wamp.
Others are heading into or dealing with CURRENT addictions, like sex addicts John Ensign and Mark Sanford.
And either way, the ultra-secretive house sponsor (who praises Hitler, Mao, and Stalin as role models) get free access with, and leverage over, these former and new addicts.
Nice set-up — that is, if you are a powerful politician who needs a place to live, who is willing to swear to secrecy, and who is willing to pretend not to see evil. (Source-http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/07/wamp_defends_c_street_house_as.php)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

May 27th, 2009

not a fact but a fancy

Atheists are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a crime they cannot commit…

G W Foote

G W Foote

When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirises the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the existence of any such being….

We attack not a person but a belief, not a binge but an idea, not a fact but a fancy.

G W Foote, “Who are the Blasphemers?” in Flowers of Freethought

April 14th, 2009

Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

No one has ever overcome every human weakness, it’s simply not possible. Perfection isn’t even a concrete concept. Theists themselves admit they don’t become perfect because of their belief, they don’t become saints.

So what difference has religious belief made to human behavior? It introduced the idea that some of our common behaviors were bad, evil, an affront to its god. It introduced guilt and shame. Religions make being a human a bad thing.envelope-small

Religions invent superhuman gods as personifications of what we wish we could be; everlasting, error free, beyond reproach, spotless and pure. Religion preys on our ability to sense our imperfections, our awareness of our stumbles and falls throughout life. Theism has to knock its followers down first so it can claim the win when it helps them back up again. All us humans are essentially the same, imperfect and subject to forces both natural and social beyond our control. All religious belief does is offer a refuge from the feelings of guilt and imperfection religious belief itself created.

Religious belief poisons minds, then offers an antidote that doesn’t cure the symptoms but only promises that the poison won’t kill you, not really dead.

April 4th, 2009

Open Mindedness Explained

I’ve tried many times to explain the concepts summed up in this video. Predictably, trying to reason with the unreasonable is usually unproductive. Perhaps this video will get through to someone who needs to grasp this situation.

January 16th, 2009

Something to think freely about

P.Z. Myers and Daniel C. Dennett, in The Reality Club over at edge.org (H. Allen Orr for the defense), have penned rebuttals to Orr’s review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.You really should click over and read the whole interchange. Myers and Dennett are not at a loss for words, so it’s quite a lengthy though wonderfully erudite exchange of opinion.

By far I enjoyed the following, written by Myers, the most of any single paragraph or two.

Dawkins goes so far as to accuse those who conflate Einstein’s abstraction with the the kind of personal god worshipped by hundreds of millions of people of “intellectual high treason.” I don’t quite agree with that, but it certainly is intellectual foolishness. I like Orr’s work, I usually greatly enjoy his reviews, but in this case he is, perhaps unconsciously rather than deliberately, confusing the pantheistic cosmic force he is unnecessarily defending from Dawkins’ argument with the righteous anthropomorphic Supreme Being that is actually refuted.

p.z. myers

p.z. myers

And yes, I know it is the nature of religion that everyone who believes will automatically state that their god isn’t the complicated caricature of the Bible or the Torah or the Koran and will retreat to the safety of the Ineffable (but Simple) Pantheistic/Deistic God until the challenge from the atheist subsides. Once the critic is safely out of earshot, though, then they will pray to the fickle deity for the new raise or that their favorite football team will win, and they will wonder if the cruel Old Testament God will torture them for eternity for transgressions against antique laws of propriety. Until that atheist glances their way again  …  then once more, they will describe God as an abstraction, as Love, as something so nebulous that it is safely removed from any specific attack. It’s familiar territory. Get into an argument with someone over Christianity or Islam or any of the dominant monotheistic faiths, and you’ll see them flicker back and forth between the abstract and the real god of their religion — their only defense is to present a moving target.

I belong to a forum where debating religion is encouraged. What Myers describes is precisely how 95% of debates with theists go.

January 8th, 2009

Atheism or Agnosticism

There’s a great deal of confusion when it comes to defining ourselves as either atheists or agnostics. I frequently hear a person say, “Since I can’t honestly say that gods absolutely do not exist, I guess I’m an agnostic.” Yet they’ll readily confess that they have no belief in specific gods like the Christian or Muslim god.

They’re confused because too often we allow theists to define atheism according to their belief in absolutes. Since they absolutely believe their particular god exists, they assume that atheists must be just as absolute in their denial of the possibility of gods. They fail to appreciate that the only reason atheists don’t accept the arguments put forth by theists is because none of them are supported with any credible evidence. All they have to offer is faith, belief without substantive reason. Atheism doesn’t pretend to know that gods absolutely do not exist. We’re simply honest enough to admit the possibility of any god, let alone a specific god, existing as described by its followers is so improbable as to be statistically insignificant.

When it comes to definitions, I prefer to go with the reasoning put forth by the person who invented a word. ‘Agnostic’ was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869.

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis”–had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion …

[Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]sir_thomas_henry_huxley

He also wrote,

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

[" Agnosticism," 1889]

Atheism is, I think, rather clearly the lack of belief in gods, period. Since I lack a belief in gods, I can reasonably describe myself as an atheist. Yet in the pursuit of knowledge I employ and endorse agnosticism and skepticism. So I’m an agnostic in the quest for knowledge, but an atheist when it comes to belief in gods. I’m also an aNellyist when it comes to belief in the Loch Ness Monster and an aYetiist when it comes to belief in Big Foot.

June 20th, 2008

My group thinks, therefore we are

It’s unfortunate that many people prefer to let their religion or their nationalism or any sort of group think community (any group, including rationalist and humanist groups) tell them what to think.

Neither I nor atheism is a religion. I do not think that my particular point of view is superior to anyone else’s nor is it going to apply to anyone else. It has developed, evolved, over the course of my life in response to the experiences I’ve had. I am aware that I hold several contradictory opinions. I make no apology for them.

Telling others they should think as I do is as anathema to me telling them what they can and can’t think. None of us has the right to tell another what to think. We explain our point of view as best we can and leave it for them to ponder it or ignore.

I’ve had other atheists insinuate, and in one case come right out and say, that I’m not atheist enough. Their attitude is that there’s a right way and a wrong way to be atheistic. How absurd. I could disbelieve in gods but believe that stuffed teddy bears were alive and be an atheist. That’s one of the things that separates atheism from theism, the lack of a standard statement of belief. There’s no atheistic dogma to which we all pledge our allegiance.

Some atheists contend that a philosophy of life that doesn’t include gods alone is insufficient reason to be an atheist. A true atheist must also believe that Jesus was an allegory based on preceding models. A true atheist must also believe that it’s significant whether or not Hitler was a Catholic (and that it mattered to him). If you don’t present an argument every time you see a theist mention that Hitler was an atheist you’re not really “one of us”. And you have to mention that Einstein was at best a deist as were the founding fathers. I’m sure I’m missing a few other examples of the articles of the unfaith.

It wouldn’t matter a bit if it were discovered that Adolph was a raving atheist. It wouldn’t matter in the least if Alfred was an Orthodox Catholic. I don’t consider myself an ambassador for the non-existent Christ. It’s an interesting historical mystery, but in the overall scheme of things it matters not if Jesus was a guy who got the best postmortem PR of any man in history or if he was nothing more than another god-man story based on earlier mythology. My rejection of the arguments theology offers has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed or not. Was Moses real or myth? Who cares?

Do you see my point? Even atheism can turn into a system similar to theism if it starts to add point after point of commonality to the bare-bones definition of an atheist. Those who attempt to do this are being unreasonable. Atheism is the product of being able to think for yourself. I can say with near certainty that no one comes to the conclusion that they don’t believe in gods until they reach a point where they change their own minds about theology. They have started to think for themselves and are learning how to ignore the voices coming at them from every side trying to tell them what to think. It’s not easy and the rewards dubious. I recommend it, but with reservations.

Think for yourself. And I’m just saying that. You have to decide whether or not you’ll pay attention and give it some thought.

signature

June 17th, 2008

Puppy Killer

<originally posted as a reply in this forum thread at Volconvo. com regarding a Marine accused of killing a puppy. I thought the preceding comment, which mentioned trained killers and innocent civilians, was inconsistent in my experience.>

In defense of those of us who have served in the military, I feel a need to object to this bit of hyperbole.

Yes, soldiers are trained to kill. They are also taught how to injure without killing and how to disengage from a situation without injury to anyone. They’re also taught first aid skills so they can tend to those who are injured, even if they’re the enemy.

Soldiers are taught how to recognize the enemy and to only direct fire at them, but when insurgents disguise themselves as citizens and use children and other innocent civilians as defensive shields, they increase the risk that our soldiers will kill innocents. Is that the soldiers fault or are the insurgents to blame? Soldiers in the field are never taught or lead to think that killing civilians is approved. It happens all too frequently in this current conflict, but in the vast majority of cases where it does I have no doubt that it was both accidental and deeply regretted by the soldiers responsible. Collateral damage is to be avoided whenever possible, and minimized when it isn’t. Anyone who enjoys killing others is an anomaly, whether civilian or military. They are malformed humans. They contribute nothing to the advancement of our species.

Now this guy sounds like one of those guys. And those guys are a threat to their own species. It’s not uncommon among animals for a small percentage to “loose it”, to turn on their pack mates without apparent regard. It’s perhaps the ultimate betrayal of trust in a group, the greatest threat another can face, the threat of death.

It’s the pleasure taken in the killing of anything that offends me. It also offends me that the military appears more upset over the publicity than the actual offense.

Perhaps if our perception of death were different our reaction to those who enjoy killing their own would also be other than it is. But that’s not the case. In general our species fears death; it’s the great unknown, the trip everyone makes and no one (we personally know in the flesh, which in the end is all that really counts) ever returns from, an absolute change from what we know and are comfortable with to another state, be it nothingness, judgment or virgins. At the very heart of the matter is that death means the end of this personality I’ve come to know so very well (if I’m delusional I still would think that I know myself well, though subjectively and oblivious to the persona I project to others). I know of no religion, new age group or stoned guru who suggests that after death life just picks right back up and we carry on as if nothing happened. Everyone agrees that the thing I’ve been calling [I]me [/I]for my whole life will in large part or its entirety cease to exist. I’ll either be something or someone else with no memory of this life, or I’ll be nothing. Either way, I won’t be the me I am at this moment.

And there’s no escaping it.

You can’t hide from it, you can’t elude it, you can’t buy it off, you can’t impress it with your talents and you can’t ignore it.

It’s slightly worse for non-believers. Death sucks. If what I strongly suspect happens after death is proven out, this ride will be over. I got my quarter’s worth. No second rides. Get off now, let the other kids have a chance. I happen to be a selfish little bastard. I think I deserve a few rides. Too bad. Wish all you want. Make up stories to make yourself feel better about it. None of it matters. You’re still going to die. Your cells will decide when and from what. Blindly, according to natural laws they aren’t even aware of. Your cells don’t care what happens to you or me. They’ll go on.

Anyway, people who glorify death, celebrate death, cause death with pleasure scare atheists. They threaten the only life I get.

Jack Carlson

June 10th, 2008

Why are we here?

Trying to extract meaning or purpose from nature is what philosophy is all about.

meaning of life

Trying to impose meaning or purpose on nature is what theology is all about.

May 24th, 2008

Thou shalt not question thy faith

Theism of any stripe is a pernicious threat to thought and enlightenment. It subjugates its followers by making doubt a sin and ignorance an asset. It lives in fear of being exposed to logic and common sense. It attempts to hide from exposure. It creates mysteries to camouflage its shallowness.

Jack Eber Carlson