Syria – time to lead Mr President

Two years on since the uprising against the mainly Alawite military dictatorship, who brutally tried to suppress protests for democratic reform, the consensus now is something must be done about Syria.

The problem now is reaching a consensus on what should be done.

No pressure, only 93,000 people have been killed to get this far, with the tipping point being 150 people killed by the use of chemical weapons for President Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry wants to air strike Syria now, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey makes the case for an entrance and exit strategy first – not to mention hundreds of sorties to reduce the capabilities of Syria to retaliate.

The commander-in-chief informs us however that the Syrian Air defence system is not that good. I hoped that with the election behind him, Obama would be more robust. It has taken a long time coming. Air strikes and cruise missiles would bring tremendous and immediate relief to the Syrian Free Army under Colonel Reyad Musa Al Asaad.

Instead gun running is what is on offer. Covert operations, time to set up, no guarantee whether it would reach the Syrian Free Army or instead those revolutionaries who have publicly executed a 15 year old coffee shop assistant for making a joke that he would, no offence, not even give the Prophet credit for a brew.

We have waited two years to act, and into the bloody civil war Islamic Jihadists have come from far and wide, Hezbollah are on the scene, and Sunni Shiite international politics have set in and hardened. No intervention in Syria? Everyone else has been intervening.

By the G8 leaving it so late to intervene, those that never wanted an intervention in the first place are saying it is now even more difficult. Interventionists warned the body count was going to get worse, the conflict would be another battlefield to train and radicalise people to political jihad. That chemical weapons would be unsecured, and in a bloody civil conflict where both sides fear extermination by the other effective chain of command, let alone respect for the Geneva Convention, would deteriorate.

Those that want the United Nations involved forget the vetos of China, never keen on internal affairs being intervened with even if for humanitarian reasons, and Russia the official arms supplier to Assad and strategically linked to his regime.

In a previous article I suggested this immediate action before air/cruise missile strikes.

Tell the international community to have a no fly zone to prevent attacks on refugee camps and safeguard humanitarian aid routes and safe havens – see above link. Think Kosovo.

Use diplomatic efforts for this and to help with negotiations on the ground to resolve civil war or the international community will take further steps.

Set targets, clear goals, redlines, consequences and stick to them.

With this in place, as quickly as possible, an international conference may be more likely to bear fruit. It would show international efforts were serious, and were being done for humanitarian reasons. The next stage (if we are not there already) with no cease fire reached at this conference would be strikes on Assad’s capability to launch further chemical attacks and air sorties. Assets should be put in place for such a response now before the conference. Diplomacy is only as good as the stick you are prepared to wield.

The Syrian Free Army have signed numerous undertakings in support of a peaceful transition. If Assad offered to move, then they would have to stand down. Assurances and guarantees would have to be in place to prevent reprisals and a return to bloodshed. Assad’s future could be a sticking point, but his future is very much retirement.

This may give a chance for a negotiated peace. We either seize it now or take the risk of what Dempsey fears will happen with our involvement; a slippery slope by events on the ground with no exit in sight as a proxy between foreign powers wages on.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

In the perverse sense of the word

Mehdi Hasan has got back to me on using the word “Perversely”. To recap the issue in a previous blog post regarding how Ingrid Loyau-Kennett acted at Woolwich:

“Perversely, it was the non-Muslim cub scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Qur’anic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam, like every other faith, doesn’t permit the killing of innocents.”

I have asked him via twitter what could possibly be perverse about a non Muslim going to help someone she thought was injured in the road, and verbally challenging the attackers? He may be wanting to contrast her actions with the killers. That is not what perversely means. Rather it sounds like a Freudian slip that Ingrid Loyau-Kennett showed heroism and compassion without needing to be a Muslim – how out of character for a non-believer, how perverse.

In case you think I am being too hard read what Hasan had to say in 2009:

“We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”

Here is his reply:

Words matter, as anyone that has debated the meaning of religious texts may confirm. As Hasan likes to tell us we do not understand the meaning of the Koran or Hadith as he does maybe we can agree words do mean what the English dictionary says.

Synonyms for perversely: unusually, abnormally, peculiarly, strangely, uncommonly

None of these words help out Hasan.

Either he is using bad english, and the editors of “The Huffington Post” and “The Daily Telegraph” are also using bad english, or he really means that perversely, a non Muslim club scout leader was acting in accordance with Koranic principles. That somehow the Koran has moral principles that it is perverse for non Muslims to follow and Muslims not to follow. This was not challenged by anyone before it was printed.

It needs calling on if he means what he says. People outside of a particular faith act with moral courage because morality is not the exclusive monopoly of one particular holy text.

That matters because the godly are forever telling us without their God to watch over you, and hold you to account in an after life, you cannot ever be as moral as they may be.

Most atheist bloggers will tell you when it comes to a discussion of morality this comes up. It really does need challenging when ever that claim is asserted. Otherwise you are classed as less moral as a non Muslim, an animal as Hasan points out bending rules for desire.

I had already conceded, as you can see in the above extract, to say Hasan probably meant look at the contrast between the behaviour of the killers and the scout leader. The killers were not acting in accordance with Islam. He should have quoted McCain:

“Our enemies have as their cause the spread of a political-religious empire based on a perverted interpretation of Islam that substitutes a lust for violence for a love of peace.” (John McCain)

There is a man that knows about perversity.

Still, you may say this is all pedantic. In which case there is no answer, except that we are perverse, using the word with no comprehension of the principle.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

David Silverman – Golden man for Secularism and Feminism

I met David Silverman as he was walking towards the hotel where the Atheist Alliance 2007 conference was being hosted, while I caught some air. I had no idea who he was, or that he would become the President of American Atheists. What I did know was that rather than having his towel on him, he was wearing a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy T-Shirt. As regular readers know Hitchhikers was the catalyst to my leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a child.

I introduced myself by saying “Anyone who is a fan of Douglas Adams is a friend of mine”. We both were getting things ready for the conference. He mentioned the article he wrote, which I had read, where he interviewed Douglas.

A few reasons mentioning this. One, it is towel day this Saturday May 25 2013 where fans of Douglas will have their towels on them, and possibly a laundered dressing gown to impress people, as Trillion tells Arthur in Hitchhikers.

The other is that today on twitter, he has shown an ability as President to show genuine leadership for secularism and feminism. Better than a certain President Zaphod Beeblebrox I could mention.

The timeline for the conversation can be read here, as it stands now.

He has shown exactly what we all wanted Ronald Lindsay to have done unequivocally at Women in Secularism 2. Show backbone, and upfront leadership standing with women as allies at the trolls out there who intimidate, ridicule, and harass women in the feminist movement. Clearly he welcomes critical measured responses. Victimisation of others is unacceptable.

PZ Myers from this has decided on lifelong membership of American Atheists as a result. I am so impressed I urge my American readers to support David as best they can. He has shown himself to be, whether on Twitter or writing a dignified piece on the 9/11 cross as worthy of the position he holds.

I hope our paths cross again someday.

American Atheist Website

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Rebecca is an atheist … Even during Oklahoma disaster

Often people make reference to faith at times of natural disaster, see Hemant for that. There is a predisposition also that faith gets people through a tragedy, especially when we use the same language.

I do not how else Matt Frei, who long term readers know is one of my favourite Brit journalists based in the USA, quotes and uses Rebecca mentioned in my previous blog for his article “Big weather fuels big faith in Oklahoma“

“We are so blessed”, Rebecca told me as she was clutching her two-year-old son Anders. He was shoeless and dressed in a girl’s outfit.

It happened to be in the back of her car when she decided to quit the bathtub she had chosen for shelter, get in her car and make a run for it. When she returned to her house after the storm only a concrete slab was left.

A stranger’s car she had never seen before was on top of what used to be her bed and the bath tub was crushed and filled with debris. “We would have died, for sure”, she said with a smile on her face, ” had we stayed.”

As mentioned earlier on this blog Rebecca is an atheist as reported unexpectedly on CNN when Wolf Blitzer expected she would want to give thanks to The Lord for her family’s survival. She handled herself honestly and with dignity.

Have told Matt via twitter of the error. Maybe next time you are here in the UK Matt you can buy me lunch.

Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief

UPDATE: 24/5/13 Channel 4 deleted my comment correcting. Please use the link to ask them to correct article.

UPDATE 26/5/13 Matt Frei says that the article does not state she is an atheist or religious in a tweet to me. He does not concede given the article title that it is using her story for saying faith is big in the Bible Belt. That is misleading to readers, and does not acknowledge atheists go through this too, and in Rebecca’s case with great aplomb.

There is an effort to raise funds directly for Rebecca which you can donate to here.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Tornados in Oklahoma, hot air and calm

There is with natural disasters a tendency by some to flippantly blame others for somehow having the ability to influence the supernatural’s fury on us via weather events.

Fred Phelps Jr, the son of Westboro’s 83-year-old leader, tweeted: “OK Thunder’s Durant flips God by praising fag Collins. God smashed OK [Oklahoma]. You do the math. #GodH8sFags #FagsDoomNations #FearGod #GodH8sU” Pink News

I only draw your attention to the ramblings of an imbecile whose compassion is absent presumed missing, replaced by a burning righteous indignation that would allow the fires of hell to be carbon neutral – as a sharp contrast to this very short video clip kindly shared by @Wondiebee of a survivor of the Oklahoma tornados.

She was grace and tolerance personified.

Unfortunately tolerance, let alone acceptance, is not something Phelps Junior understands. My hope is he lives to one day realise that his homophobia made him the biggest asshole out there and that the Lord’s light really does not shine out of it.

All the best to those affected by the tornados in Oklahoma.

Please give what you can.

Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief

Follow on Blog: Rebecca is an atheist during and after disaster

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

CFI Women in Secularism opening remarks controversy

My twitter timeline shows a divide on whether Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) or Ronald Lindsay (President and CEO Center for Inquiry) are in the right regarding his speech. I was not there, but this may give you background to what people are saying. Of course the published responses may lead to a different view if we had been there.

In Washington DC The Center For Inquiry (CFI) has just hosted Women In Secularism 2 which finishes today. My twitter feed suggests great speakers, and panels on topics worth discussing for the $250 ticket cost of attendance. However, the opening remarks by CFI Ronald Lindsey left a bitter after taste at the event that kept some delegates chatting in PZ Myers room till the early hours. PZ explains:

the head of CFI, Ron Lindsay, chose to use the opening talk of the conference to basically chastise the attendees and instruct them in how to behave, and I’ve had more than one person tell me that they were irate that their introduction to an event that they paid a considerable sum of money was to be greeted by a talk that pandered to people who hated the event, and were volubly complaining on the internet throughout the day about it. The impression they had was that the organization was unhappy to be sponsoring this conference.

Rebecca Watson wrote her thoughts about the “shut up and listen” attitude where sometimes it is important to listen to the experience and expertise someone can give you than sound off your own gut feeling. You can read them here – it is a measured critique that does not go into ad hominem about Lindsey’s opening remark talk.

By contrast Ronald Lindsay response does not deal with those issues in feminism, like how transsexuals are treated in the movement, which Watson makes clear together with how feminist activists have been victimised into silence. He instead writes not on those substantive issues but his feelings:

But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)

The picture he paints of Rebecca is as a North Korean propagandist against white males talking about feminism, perhaps using twitter to get the feminist police onto him. Her article deserved not just more tact, but a recognition of the problems the feminist movement faces. Lindsay links to it in his article but makes no reference in his rebuke of her.

This is the extract from Lindsay’s talk on privilege and shut up and listen:

This brings me to the concept of privilege, a concept much in use these days. Let me emphasize at the outset that I think it’s a concept that has some validity and utility; it’s also a concept that can be misused, misused as a way to try to silence critics. In what way does it have validity? I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there are socially embedded advantages that men have over women, in a very general sense. These advantages manifest in various ways, such as the persistent pay gap between men and women. Also, I’m not a believer in a priori arguments, but I will say that given the thousands of years that women were subordinated to men, it would be absolutely amazing if in the space of several decades all the social advantages that men had were promptly and completely eradicated. Legislation can be very effective for securing rights, but changing deeply engrained patterns of behavior can take some time.

That said, I am concerned the concept of privilege may be misapplied in some instances. First, some people think it has dispositive explanatory power in all situations, so, if for example, in a particular situation there are fewer women than men in a given managerial position, and intentional discrimination is ruled out, well, then privilege must be at work. But that’s not true; there may be other explanations. The concept of privilege can do some explanatory work at a general level, but in particular, individualized situations, other factors may be more significant. To bring this point home let’s consider an example of another broad generalization which is unquestionably true, namely that people with college degrees earn more over their lifetime than those who have only high school diplomas. As I said, as a general matter, this is unquestionably true as statistics have shown this to be the case. Nonetheless in any particular case, when comparing two individuals, one with a high school degree and one with a college degree, the generalization may not hold.

But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and … poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think the concept of privilege is useful; in fact it is too useful to have it ossified and turned into a dogma.

By the way, with respect to the “Shut up and listen” meme, I hope it’s clear that it’s the “shut up” part that troubles me, not the “listen” part. Listening is good. People do have different life experiences, and many women have had experiences and perspectives from which men can and should learn. But having had certain experiences does not automatically turn one into an authority to whom others must defer. Listen, listen carefully, but where appropriate, question and engage.

By my reckoning assuming 15 words a line the above is over 600 odd words on the subject of privilege and how it relates to debate within feminism. Rebecca means both those things and not just those 200 words Ronald thinks. To quote Rebecca:

To summarize, Lindsay spends a good deal of time arguing against the idea that feminism as a movement has no significant internal disagreements, an absurd idea I have never actually heard expressed by any feminists, but I suppose Lindsay and I travel in different circles. Lindsay doesn’t mention who exactly has argued this point so I can’t check to see why on Earth they’d think something so obviously contradictory to reality. It seems impossible to me that a person could be involved in modern day feminism in any way without noticing the lively and occasionally contentious debates among feminists about topics like intersectionality, particularly with regards to the fringe radical feminists who hold openly transphobic beliefs.

How should a CEO have responded? An article saying he wants to get to know the problems feminists have experienced with transgender issues and how secular organisations can stop the victimisation of women in the public sphere when debating. Then actually you say this but I meant that.

But no, he responded with scorn and anger publicly.

He is going to need a thicker skin in the job, and I am unimpressed with how he has handled himself in print given the serious points Watson raised. Rather than offer a private talk he wrote an enflaming response and now is trying to douse the flames he caused in the first place because of a critique.

UPDATE: 22/5/2013 I fully support the Secular Woman statement

Related Blog: The Critical Thinker Gives No One A Free Ride

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

The Guilt of Nakoula Basseley (Innocence of Muslims)

If you want to suggest that your first amendment rights are under fire because of islam, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has become the unexpected pin up for free speech. Odd, given the content of his lamentable film Innocence Of Muslims is not the reason for him serving a year in prison. Plus the suggestion that he is culpable for the violence of others, or should pay a price for blasphemy, is more ludicrous than the acting.

Rather he was previously convicted of bank fraud committed to the tune of just under a million dollars. Part of his probation agreement meant not using aliases plus not use computers for transactions nor access the Internet without clear permission of the Probation Office. On all counts this was something he failed to do in making the film, including using an alias while raising finance for the project.

More on that can be found here.

Unfortunately, just as Tommy Robinson (EDL leader) was made out to be a political prisoner despite being sentenced for clearly breaking the law, people have made out Nakoula is one too:

The article sited above, written by Rich Lowry can be read here.

That article opens:

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.

You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.

Maybe not, but the high profile video drew attention to him breaking the probation order on him.

As Attorney Ken White in the first article sited remarked:

Is Nakoula in federal prison because he made the “Innocence of Muslims” video? Superficially, perhaps, in the sense that his behavior may have escaped detection if he hadn’t become famous. It’s even possible that someone in the Obama Administration tipped off — or pressured — the Probation Office about his conduct. (If that’s what happened, there ought to be a Congressional investigation.) But Nakoula’s conduct is the sort that would absolutely be pursued if detected by his Probation Office and would routinely result in a revocation of supervised release and a return to federal prison. People saying otherwise don’t know what they are talking about or don’t care, or both.

As they say in Hollywood, never let facts get in the way of the narrative you want.

Related Blogs: Sam Harris and first amendment rights to criticise Islam

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

God is Magical Thinking on Climate Change

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse takes on climate change deniers that claim God will magically solve everything:

Time to Wake Up: Magical Thinking on Climate Change

As delivered on the Senate floor
Wednesday, May 8, 2013:

Mr. President, as I’m sure you suspect, I am back on the Floor again to urge that we awaken to what carbon pollution is doing to our planet, to our oceans, to our seasons, to our storms.

And I wonder, “Why is it that we are so comfortable asleep, when the warnings are so many and so real?” What could beguile us away from wakefulness and duty? I was recently at a Senate meeting where I heard a member of our Senate community say, “God won’t allow us to ruin our planet.” God won’t allow us to ruin our planet. Maybe that’s why we do nothing: we are comfortable that God somehow won’t allow us to ruin our planet. That seems such an extraordinary notion that I thought I would reflect on it in my remarks this week.

First of all, the statement refers to God: it is couched in religious terms. But is it really an expression of religious inquiry? I think not. It is less an expression of religious thinking than it is of magical thinking. The statement that God won’t allow us to ruin our planet sweeps aside ethics, responsibilities, consequences, duties, even awareness. It comforts us with the anodyne assumption that—no matter what we do—some undefined presence will, through some undefined measure, make things right, clean up our mess. That is seeking magical deliverance from our troubles, not divine guidance through our troubles.

So is God really here just to tidy up after our sins and follies, to immunize us from their consequence? If that is true, why does the Bible say in Galatians 6:7, “Do not be deceived . . . whatever one sows, that will he also reap”? If God is just a tidy-up-after-us God, why does the Book of Job 4:8 warn that “those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same”? If God is not a god of consequences, why does Luke 6:38 tell us, “For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you,” and Proverbs 22:8 tell us, “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity”?

Jeremiah 17:10 says, “I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” So it seems that we should not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or sit in the seat of scoffers, and then expect there will be no bitter fruit of our deeds, no consequence. We are warned in the Bible not to plow iniquity, not to eat the fruit of lies; where in the Bible are we assured of safety if we do? I see no assurances of that. The Bible says at1 Samuel 2:3 “the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed,” and that at 2 Thessalonians 1:6 “God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict.” Those who “sow the wind,” the Bible says, “they shall reap the whirlwind.”

And look at our own American history. If God is just here to tidy up after our sins and follies, how could Abraham Lincoln say this about our bloody Civil War to free and redeem us from the sin of slavery? Here’s what Lincoln said about that war: “Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said: ‘The judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.’” That was Abraham Lincoln. Blood, drawn by the sword, in equal measure to that drawn by the lash, as the true and righteous judgment of the Lord—that doesn’t sound like a God of amnesty.

Go to the very beginning. If we live in a state of God-given general amnesty from consequences, why were Adam and Eve expelled from Eden for their sin? Why was Cain sent into the wilderness, condemned to wander, for the crime against his brother? If it is your assertion that God’s love has no measure of tough love, wander a bit through the Old Testament before getting too married to that idea. And if the Old Testament is too bloodthirsty for you, look at Revelations 11:18: “And thy wrath is come, and the time . . . that thou . . . shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” Destroy them which destroy the earth.

If we believe in an all-powerful God, we must then believe that God gave us this Earth, and we must in turn believe that God gave us its laws of gravity, of chemistry, of physics. We must also believe that God gave us our human powers of intellect and reason. He gives us these powers so that we his children can learn and understand Earth’s natural laws, which he also gave us. So that, as His children, we can use that understanding of Earth’s natural laws to build and create and prosper on His Earth. And hasn’t that in fact been the path of human progress? We learn these natural laws, and we apply them, to build and create, and we prosper.

So why then, when we ignore His plain natural laws, when we ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn by our God-given intellect and reason, why then would God, the tidy-up God, drop in and spare us? Why would He allow an innocent child to burn its hand when it touches the hot stove, but protect us from this lesson? Why would He allow a badly engineered bridge or building to fall, killing innocent people, but protect us from this mistake? Why would He allow cholera to kill in epidemics, until we figure out that the well water is contaminated? The Earth’s natural laws and our capacity to divine them are God’s great gift to us, allowing us to learn, and build great things, and cure disease. But God’s gift to us of a planet with natural laws and natural order has, as an integral part of that gift, consequences. Consequences when we get that law and order wrong. The child’s hand burns; the bridge falls; the disease spreads. If it didn’t matter whether we got it right or wrong, there’d be no value to God’s creation of that natural law and order in the first place.

So, is that then to be our answer to polluting our atmosphere with carbon by the megaton and changing our climate and changing our seas? Is it to be our answer to that that God would not allow us to ruin our planet?

We are to continue to pollute our Earth, with literally megatons each year of carbon, heating up our atmosphere, acidifying our seas, knowing full well by His natural laws what the consequences are, and instead of correcting our own behavior, we’re going to bet on a miracle? That’s the plan?

Excuse me, but that’s not really the American way. President Kennedy described the American way as he ended his inaugural address connecting our work to God’s: “. . . let us go forth,” he said, “to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

That is the order of things. We are here to do God’s work; He is not to do ours. How arrogant, how very far from humility, would be the self-satisfied, smug assurance that God, a tidy-up-after-us god, will come and clean up our mess; that on this Earth God’s work need not be our own.

Remember the story of the man trapped in his house during a huge flood. A faithful man, he trusted God to save him. As the waters began to rise in his house, his neighbor offered him a ride to safety. And he said, “I am waiting for God to save me,” so the neighbor got in his pick-up truck and drove away. As the water rose, the man climbed to the second floor of his house. And a boat came by his window with people who were heading for safe ground. They threw a rope and they yelled at the man to climb out and come with them. He told them “No, I trust in God to save me.” They shook their heads and they moved on. The floodwaters kept rising, and the man clambered to his roof. A helicopter flew by and a voice came over the loudspeaker offering to lower a ladder to the man and let him climb up, and fly to safety. The man waived the helicopter away, shouting back that he counted on God to save him. So the helicopter left. Well, eventually the floodwaters swept over the roof and the man was drowned. When the man reached heaven, he had some questions for God. “God,” he asked, “didn’t I trust in you to save me? Why did you let me drown?” God answered, “I sent you a pick-up truck, I sent you a boat, I sent you a helicopter. You refused my help.” Just as God sent the pick-up truck, the boat, and the helicopter to the drowning man, He has sent us everything we need to solve this carbon pollution problem. We just refuse. We just refuse. Some of us even deny that the floodwaters are rising.

Mr. President, as I’ve indicated in previous speeches, climate denial is bad science, indeed it’s such bad science it falls into the category of falsehood. Climate denial is bad economics, ignoring that in a proper marketplace the costs of carbon pollution should be factored into the price of carbon. Climate denial is bad policy in any number of areas: bad national security policy, bad environmental policy, bad foreign policy, bad economic policy.

Though I’m a Senator not a preacher, from everything I’ve learned and believe, it seems to me that climate denial is also bad religion, and bad morals. Hopes for a nanny God, who will with a miracle grant us amnesty from our folly, that’s not aligned with either history or text of the Bible.

We need to face up to the fact that there is only one leg on which climate denial stands: money. The polluters give and spend money to create false doubt. The polluters give and spend money to buy political influence. The polluters give and spend money to keep polluting. That’s it. That’s it. Not truth, not science, not economics, not safety, not policy, and certainly not religion, nor morality. Nothing supports climate denial. Nothing except money. But in Congress, in this temple, money rules; so here I stand, in one of the last places on Earth that is still a haven to climate denial. In our arrogance, we here in Congress think that we can somehow ignore or trump Earth’s natural laws, laws of chemistry, laws of physics, laws of science, with our own political lawmaking, with our own political influence. But we’re fools to think that. The laws of chemistry and the laws of physics neither know, nor care, what we say or do here. So we need to wake up. We need to walk not in the counsel of the wicked, nor sit in the seat of scoffers, but with due humility awaken to our duty and get to work. Because here on Earth, God’s work must truly be our own.

Thank you very much, I yield the floor.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Boston Bombers, Social Media, and Jihadism

With 24 hour news speculation fills air time before confirmed reports come in. Social media is worse, however the sheer scope means following the right people you may get corrections/clarifications before mainstream media do so – and be ahead of the curve in reports flooding in. It is also a chance for people to politicise and make the most absurd renderings out of the carnage.

We had the rants that all Muslims should be killed aka Erik Rush later claiming he was being sarcastic. We know better given he thinks the constitution is allowing Islam to conquer the United States, and immigration reform being put off as people suggest Muslims should be stopped from entering at the border. The typical hard right wing reaction missing these brothers had become citizens. Worse, Russia had expressed concern about one of the brother’s connection to Chechnya Jihadists. The FBI made no links to terrorist groups though his Russian youtube playlists and links had plenty to be concerned about.

Then there was concern on social media that the younger brother was not read his Miranda rights. Despite the public safety exemption being legal, and not unconstitutional. That the police are now hunting a 12 strong sleeper cell suggests that critical time sensitive information needed to be retrieved. [Daily Mirror]

Still one would hope freethinkers would not fall into the hyperbole that appears on social media, recognising that these young men born in Chechnya, living in the USA last ten years. We need the time to piece together how this happened. For me Richard Dawkins spoke well when he said we need to study what made Dzhokhar prepared to carry out such attacks so we can prevent others doing – the death penalty would be self defeating to the public future safety of finding this out from him.

Unfortunately today my twitter timeline revealed we are not immune from crass generalisations:

Whilst the article itself has quotes clarifying not all Muslims are supporters of terrorists (but “most terrorists are Muslim”) the tweet itself falls short of not inflaming tensions that mainstream media are trying to avoid. Comments are taking that tweet and articles quoted to task:

Indeed we can remember the IRA and who was funding them to remember that terrorism is not just Islamic. My school by an army stables practised bomb and fire drills – the difference being we ran further and had to take bags with us (this confused teachers as fire national guidelines said kids should leave their bags; military said this would slow down a bomb search). Being in a town centre when a bomb alarm goes off not knowing which direction is safe to go in is not the family outing you want, and my heart bled when it happened in Manchester 1996. Thatcher being laid to rest this week was a reminder that the IRA nearly did that with the Brighton hotel bomb nearly 30 years ago. Nail bombs on train station platforms. Are memories so short?

Clearly whether the brothers were indoctrinated and groomed by Jihadists or of own accord support Caucasian Chechnyan terror groups which led to committing a domestic act of terror, time will reveal. Till then take the speculation with a healthy degree of skepticism as the hard data comes in and is evaluated.

The Boston bombing is being used as a sounding drum for some people’s pet hates. Let us march to a different beat. Foremost Boston you are in our thoughts as we remembered you at the start of the London Marathon here in the UK.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

State Religion or Liberty of Citizens?

There is a move afoot in North Carolina to opt out of the federal constitution on matters of religion – and generally for states to bypass anything The President of the United States was re-elected on, that they do not like. Here is why it matters:

The North Carolina state constitution disqualifies those who do not believe in God from public office. The provision has been unenforcible since the 1961 Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, which prohibited such bans. [Source]

Whilst there is a rational argument to be had on Statehood V Federal, the latest manoeuvres by Republicans is tit for tat over starting meetings with a Christian prayer at Rowan County. A political civil war is happening – we are going beyond polarised politics to slash and burn raids on principles that were once considered the greatness of the American Nation for others to aspire too.

With an official religion would public office depend on which God, which doctrines, view of the holy sacrament, and your “view” on the age of the earth? Or shall we cling to the democratic principle that what matters is who the people elect, in a transparent manner, and held accountable for their conduct while in office. Rather than a personal belief regarding the cosmos and other dimensions before they even have their name on the ballot?

Oh land of sweet liberty allow citizens of a free republic to think matters of conscience for themselves without the tyranny of the state dictating the rights and wrongs. This does not require concealed weapons to fight off in North Carolina.

A piece of parchment, called the constitution, is enough and as good for the political spectrum.

As ever, Mr Jefferson: build up that wall. A free people require nothing less.

UPDATE 4/4/2013: state religion in North Carolina dead in the water

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78