Friday, August 17, 2007 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

by Max Blumenthal

Reposted from:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/59161/

Actor Stephen Baldwin, the youngest member of the famous Baldwin brothers, is no longer playing Pauly Shore's sidekick in comedy masterpieces like Biodome. He has a much more serious calling these days.

Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

"We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."

The Defense Department's Chaplain's Office, which oversees OSU's activities, has not responded to calls seeking comment.

"The constitution has been assaulted and brutalized," Mikey Weinstein, former Reagan Administration White House counsel, ex-Air Force judge advocate (JAG), and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told me. "Thanks to the influence of extreme Christian fundamentalism, the wall separating church and state is nothing but smoke and debris. And OSU is the IED that exploded the wall separating church and state in the Pentagon and throughout our military." Weinstein continued: "The fact that they would even consider taking their crusade to a Muslim country shows the threat to our national security and to the constitution and everyone that loves it."

On the surface, OSU appears as a traditional entertainment troupe that brings cheer to American troops around the globe. Founded by champion kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU performs comedy, acrobatic stunts and strongman displays. Its roster of entertainers includes a former WNBA star, the Flying Wallendas, a ventriloquist, and former boxing champ Evander Holyfield. "We make no bones about the fact that we are speaking directly to the soldiers of the greatest fighting force of in the world," OSU proclaims. "No 'mamsie pamsie' stuff here!"

But behind OSU's anodyne promises of wholesome fun for military families, the organization promotes an apocalyptic brand of evangelical Christianity to active duty US soldiers serving in Muslim-dominated regions of the Middle East. Displayed prominently on the "What We Believe" section of OSU's website is a passage from the Book of Revelations (Revelation 19:20; 20:10-15) that has become the bedrock of the Christian right's End Times theology: "The devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, and whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, shall be consigned to everlasting punishment in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

With the endorsement of the Defense Department, OSU is mailing "Freedom Packages" to soldiers serving in Iraq. These are not your grandfather's care packages, however. Besides pairs of white socks and boxes of baby wipes (included at the apparent suggestion of Iran-Contra felon Oliver North, according to OSU) OSU's care packages contain the controversial Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game. The game is inspired by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' bestselling pulp fiction series about a blood-soaked Battle of Armageddon pitting born-again Christians against anybody who does not adhere to their particular theology. In LaHaye's and Jenkins' books, the non-believers are ultimately condemned to "everlasting punishment" while the evangelicals are "raptured" up to heaven.

The
href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601764.html?referrer=emailarticle>Left Behind videogame is a real-time strategy game that makes players commanders of a virtual evangelical army in a post-apocalyptic landscape that looks strikingly like New York City after 9/11. With tanks, helicopters and a fearsome arsenal of automatic weapons at their disposal, Left Behind players wage a violent war against United Nations-like peacekeepers who, according to LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation, represent the armies of the Antichrist. Each time a

Left Behind player kills a UN soldier, their virtual character exclaims, "Praise the Lord!" To win the game, players must kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture. They also have the option of reversing roles and commanding the forces of the Antichrist. (Video preview here).

Producers of the Left Behind videogame were faced with a storm of controversy after Christian blogger Jonathan Hutson exposed its eliminationist overtones in a series of posts on the website Talk2Action. Statements by the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference on American Islamic Relations, the Christian Alliance for Progress, and others condemned the game and demanded that Walmart pull it from its shelves. Even Marvin Olasky, the evangelical publisher, intellectual author of "compassionate conservatism," and a force behind the George W. Bush Administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," denounced the Left Behind videogame. In a blog post on the website of his World Magazine, Olasky described the game's content as akin to "the way homicidal Muslims think." As a result of the fallout, Left Behind Games fired its senior VP and released three board members.

This controversy has not deterred OSU from encouraging US troops to play virtual rounds of kill or convert after a hard day of house-to-house searches and counterinsurgency warfare against Iraqi insurgents. What's more, OSU's "Freedom Packages" include a copy of evangelical pastor Jonathan McDowell's More Than A Carpenter -- a book advertised as "one of the most powerful evangelism tools worldwide" -- that is double-published in Arabic. Considering that only a handful of American troops speak Arabic, the book is ostensibly intended for proselytizing efforts among Iraqi civilians.

OSU has cultivated support from the Department of Defense for years. After a private October, 2005 meeting between OSU's Spinks and Defense Department officials, OSU was invited to perform inside the Pentagon. This week, Pentagon employees and active duty service members are expected to enjoy a breakfast with Spinks and Baldwin, followed by an OSU performance in which they will receive "spiritual encouragement via a Biblical message." The events will be held respectively in the Pentagon Executive Dining Room and the Pentagon Auditorium.

Spreading the Gospel to US troops is only one of many crusades Baldwin has waged in the name of the Lord. During 2006, Baldwin frequently stationed himself on the sidewalk outside a pornographic video store in New York. There, he photographed the license plates of people entering the store and threatened to publish an ad in a Nyack paper publicizing the names of those who patronized the store. "In my position, I just don't think I'm supposed to keep my faith to myself," Baldwin told a group of Texas Southern Baptists in 2004. "I'm just doing what the Lord's telling me to do."

Soon after his appearance at the Pentagon, Baldwin ships out to Iraq for OSU's "Military Crusade." With its cadre of celebrity entertainers pushing End Times theology, and the overt support of the Defense Department, OSU is hoping to transform Bush's surge into a battle of biblical proportions.

They just can't keep their faith to themselves.

Max Blumenthal is a Puffin Foundation writing fellow at the Nation Institute based in Washington, DC. Read his blog at maxblumenthal.com.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 17, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 52 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #64008 by room101 on August 17, 2007 at 9:14 am

We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades...

Uhhhhh, dumbasses, do you REALLY want to use the word "crusade" when dealing with this particular region of the world?

I might actually welcome an insurgent response in this case...

Other Comments by room101

2. Comment #64013 by Mister_X on August 17, 2007 at 9:32 am

Just great.

To Xtians fundes, Iraqis don't want us to be there. Besides this won't bring the second coming; I can guarantee that. Don't give me that you (Xtians) are doing god's work in fighting in Iraq. People would not normally do their boss' work when the boss isn't doing their job unless you are kissing up to please.

Other Comments by Mister_X

3. Comment #64014 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 9:34 am

Each time a Left Behind player kills a UN soldier, their virtual character exclaims, "Praise the Lord!" To win the game, players must kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture.

Alec, please smack your little brother upside the head.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

4. Comment #64018 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 10:04 am

They also have the option of reversing roles and commanding the forces of the Antichrist.

Not all bad news, then.

Just when I think stupidity has no more depths to plumb, this sort of thing crops up. Unebelievable.

They eventually (very sensibly) decided not to allow Prince Harry to serve in Iraq, perhaps for the same reasons that had apparently led soldiers to refer to him, in anticipation of his arrival, as 'The Ginger Bullet-Magnet'. Based on precisely the same reasoning, I would be quite happy to see the whole membership of the OSU standing on a street corner in Fallujah waving bibles and preaching fire and brimstone fundamental Christianity. I can't think of a more efficient way of getting rid of them.

Crazy. If this story is accurate, any politician who has lent any support to these people should be deeply ashamed, and has no place in a position of responsibility. It's dismaying and mind-boggling that such things are going on in the supposedly civilised post-Enlightment 21st century western world. A child would see the idiocy in this (at least, an unindoctrinated one would).

Other Comments by _J_

5. Comment #64019 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 10:07 am

To Xtians fundes, Iraqis don't want us to be there.

I do wish people would not come up with some over-simplistic statements. Whether or not Iraqis want foreign troops on their soil depends on which Iraqis you talk to and where they are. This is neither a statement for or against the current actions of US and UK troops - simply a fact.

An important part of rationality and reason is realising that things are complicated, and not reducing this complexity to simplistic slogans.

Other Comments by steve99

6. Comment #64022 by Philip1978 on August 17, 2007 at 10:11 am

Careful there Dr Benway, thats Satan making you say that...well according to Stephen Baldwin from his book The Unusual Suspects, I got this from http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/10/09/baldwin/

"The Unusual Suspect" features an open letter to Bono, lambasting him for lobbying for debt relief for developing countries instead of preaching the gospel on MTV. Bono must be in league with Satan, whom Baldwin spends a lot of time thinking about. "I am smart enough to know that Satan is alive and well today," he writes. "Satan has all kinds of power, and he is able to control the minds of anyone whose mind isn't controlled by God."

This guy is cultural adviser to Bush for crying out loud! What a looney!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

7. Comment #64025 by shemp333 on August 17, 2007 at 10:50 am

Hey all!

I'm over here in Iraq at this very moment as a contractor. I'll be on the look-out for this nut crusade and promise to be there to speak out against this madness. How can anything be more ridiculous than this. F*#@%ing unbelievable.

Other Comments by shemp333

8. Comment #64026 by Corylus on August 17, 2007 at 11:00 am

Just a minute!

In order to play a video game you need a computer/tv and an electricity supply. Just how many troops have access to these on a daily basis?

I'm thinking these f*&kwits really haven't thought this through. On so many levels.

I suspect the clean socks and the baby wipes will come in handy though.

Shemp333 stay safe :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

9. Comment #64027 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 11:03 am

Head down, Shemp. You're my favorite stooge. BTW, have you read this: Hearing on Iraq Reconstruction 2-15-07

Corylus, guys in Iraq have blogs, upload stuff to YouTube, watch 24, and so on. Generators and satellite, I reckon.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

10. Comment #64033 by konquererz on August 17, 2007 at 11:27 am

This is going to be very bad. Christians going over to Iraqi and actually saying its a "crusade" is as arrogant as it is ignorant! Things are about to get much worse for our troops I'm afraid. What evil the illusion of god has wrought.

Other Comments by konquererz

11. Comment #64035 by shemp333 on August 17, 2007 at 11:41 am

Generators are everywhere in the large bases. No soldier goes without electricity unless they are out on a mission. Downtown Baghdad is without electricity for Iraqis unless they have a generator. This is one of the huge complaints residential Iraqis have. Under Sadam, they did have power. Now they have it only 1 or 2 hours a day, if that, and that's at night. Imagine 130F heat and no AC or running water. As terrible as that is, as soon as they have gotten the power up in the past, some asshole bombs it. What can you do? Very sad.

Other Comments by shemp333

12. Comment #64040 by Rusty Shackleford on August 17, 2007 at 11:51 am

This article needs to be updated. The Dept. of Defense told ABC News on Wednesday that the craptastic "Left Behind" videogame will not be sent to troops in Iraq.

Word elsewhere is that the only reason this game was being "donated" to the troops is because, as a videogame, it sucks total ass and will never sell.

Other Comments by Rusty Shackleford

13. Comment #64043 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 11:59 am

Take care of yourself, shemp333!

There being so many astonishingly stupid things about this particular episode of dickheadedness, it seems beyond redundant to point out individual flaws in the logic of The Rapture - but I'm going to anyway. Here's one that's bugging me.

The idea, if I'm understanding this right, is that the world's 2 billion Christians have just vanished up to heaven, leaving only a token Tribulation (cute name for 'Massacre With Guns') Force to gently cajole the unbelievers into conversion. Right? Well, excuse me for being simplistic, but they should have a pretty damn easy time of it. The reason I don't believe in the Christian god - and I think I share this with the majority of atheists and agnostics - is that there's no indication that he exists. The reason so many different religions can flourish is that they're all as evidence-free as one another. Now, if a third of the world's population suddenly disappears, and it just happens to be all of the Christians, leaving only a few sanctimonious bastards with guns saying 'I told you so', personally I'd take that as a pretty good clue that there was something to this whole 'god' malarkey after all. It wouldn't take the strategic military genius of a 13 year old video-game player to convince me. I can make a fair bet that the Antichrist would have a fairly full-scale defection to the God Squad on his eeeevil hands. Four billion people would suddenly say 'Oh! Guess you were right! You win, Jesus!'

I think what is pissing me off here is the way it glaringly betrays once again the sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery of fundamental Christians. It's this flat refusal to accept that people can disagree with them purely because there is no bleeding evidence for god. Somehow they manage to convert the message into: 'I have rejected God because I am sinful and want to have things my own way. Yah boo sucks, God!'. The fact that the dire warning that they give in response involves giving a massive, global scale piece of evidence for god - the sudden teleportation of 2 billion Christians - and still think that we'd be hanging around, sticking our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes and pretending nothing had happened, is just infuriating. How can people so completely fail to understand what evidence means? How can they so utterly misunderstand simple arguments? How do they get through the day without being run over or burning their houses down? Just, just...argh!

[Deep breath.]

My apologies for the bad language. This has piqued my temper a little.

Other Comments by _J_

14. Comment #64045 by the great teapot on August 17, 2007 at 12:02 pm

"Imagine 135 F and no aircon."
I don't suppose many Iraqis have ever known airconditioning. Most of mankind managed for 100000 years without it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

15. Comment #64050 by Corylus on August 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm

_J_ said

My apologies for the bad language. This has piqued my temper a little.

You need to get yourself a swear box _J_

Mine keeps me in claret, which is a good thing, because I swear more when I'm pissed. (Arrh the cycle of addiction: a dreadful thing).

Dr Benway's has enough money in it, I suspect, for a case of Margaux and a trip to the Maldives...

Other Comments by Corylus

16. Comment #64051 by SRWB on August 17, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think what is pissing me off here is the way it glaringly betrays once again the sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery of fundamental Christians.

J, no need to apologize, but tell us how you really feel about this! :-)

How can people so completely fail to understand what evidence means? How can they so utterly misunderstand simple arguments?

It's not that they don't understand. The problem is this little issue called "faith" with which most were brainwashed since they were infants.

Other Comments by SRWB

17. Comment #64056 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Good point J.

I'm sure you've heard, "What would it take to convince you that God exists?"

Having been a believer, I know what's behind this question: the notion that the atheist rejects God, in spite of evidence for God. They say this in church over and over. Repeat an idea often enough, and everyone knows that everyone knows it's true.

The Christians who've asked me this behave as though they don't expect an answer. When I say that the rapture or second coming would be examples of good evidence, they go, "Hmm," and fall silent for several seconds.

I add that I'd settle for less. An up-close visit from an angel or Jesus which others could witness and corroborate would probably do it for me, although I'm not sure the rest of the world would be content with that. Videos can be faked, obviously.

The believer then asserts that he's had experiences that convince him of the reality of God. He means something vague, emotional, and difficult to describe.

So it goes.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

18. Comment #64059 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm

SRWB

It's not that they don't understand. The problem is this little issue called "faith" with which most were brainwashed since they were infants.

Yeah, you're right of course. But I'm not quite willing to see it all as complete victimhood to the big, bad impersonal entity that is religion. I see the fact that people can actually get through their daily lives using something approaching rational reasoning most of the time as suggesting that they are, to a greater or lesser degree in each case, complicit in their delusion.

We are not going to find ourselves with Theists Anonymous meetings in which people lament their inability to get over their 'disease' of religion. We see over and over again that people do have the power to think their way out of faith, if they can just be enabled to loosen it's grip enough to apply their faculties of reason to it. Ours (if I'm allowed to generalise a bit) is a message of personal empowerment, not of the impotence of people to deal with a bad dose of faith.

Which is why it's good to see Dawkins championing rational thought more broadly now. This is the message that needs to be conveyed: that it's sensible and correct to apply this sort of reasoning to all things that we believe in, from the time it takes to boil an egg to monsters under the bed. Indeed, that it's irresponsible not to take this approach to the big questions that affect our social behaviour.

This is so important, because the readiness to twist reason into unacknowledged unreason, or to dismiss it as irrelevant to faith, is something I've (and I'm sure most of us have) encountered over and over again with theists. Any attempt to discuss religion fairly and squarely is met with sidestepping, question-begging, wishful thinking and not a little resentment, all thrown up by the faith barrier. The message I've heard repeatedly been met with - and that Dawkins is hopefully helping to push back - is:

'Don't reason with me - pray to god'.

Or, to put it another way:

'Talk through the hands, 'cause the faith ain't listening'.

Other Comments by _J_

19. Comment #64060 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Dr Benway, 17

Yes, I agree - discussions often come down to this. You can spend a lot of time arguing about 'evidence' while it gradually dawns on you that your believer just isn't using the word 'evidence' in the same way that you are. Whilst I tend to mean something along the lines of 'something that is observable, measurable, and corroboratable [corroborable?]', they usually mean 'anything that makes me feel like god exists'. Which lets them say with a perfectly straight face that there's loads of evidence for god.

The long, long discussion that I've been having with David Robertson on his website had eventually narrowed in (if that's the right phrase, given what the posts have been like!) on this very matter. In the last post I've sent him, I've listed several examples of the sort of thing that would persuade me, and tried to explain the difference between these and the sort of thing the bible is full of at some length. My hope was to get him to think seriously about what, if any, evidence might be able to persuade him that god probably doesn't exist after all. (Whether this will ever come about, I wouldn't like to guess. The post was sent about four weeks ago and hasn't appeared yet. I guess David's a busy minister.)

Other Comments by _J_

20. Comment #64061 by Thor on August 17, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Well, yes, that's true enough for most believers. But personally, I find it quite fascinating to listen to some of the smarter fundamentalists thinkers, like e.g. Albert Mohler, who really construct a logically consistent alternative worldview to our naturalist/materialist conception of the world.

What it comes down two are two entirely contradictory axiomatic assumptions about this world:
Either the natural world as we perceive it and that we try to explore and explain with everything at our disposal is all there is, or there is some realm apart from it, that can only be accessed through something the religious call "divine revelation"
Both views are logically consistent but have at its core unprovable axioms. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, honestly, but at the deepest philosophical level I don't quite see how the assumption that this world and its natural laws are all there is and can be explained and understood by us is entirely falsifiable or verifiable, i.e. testable.

Other Comments by Thor

21. Comment #64064 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Thor:

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, honestly, but at the deepest philosophical level I don't quite see how the assumption that this world and its natural laws are all there is and can be explained and understood by us is entirely falsifiable or verifiable, i.e. testable.

Maybe everthing is:

a) matter and energy, nothing more
b) matter and energy and some other natural phenomenon not yet understood
c) an illusion or dream created by me/God/humankind/combo of beings
d) an illusion created by a mad scientist playing with my brain-in-a-vat
e) some other answer I'm not smart enough to imagine

It hardly matters which metaphysical position you prefer. All the above assume the same phenomenological world, which we study using the scientific method.

Don't let the sneaky theists trick you into thinking metaphysics changes the meaning or role of evidence.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

22. Comment #64066 by BAEOZ on August 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm

_J_

sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery

That about sums up faith in 6 words. Brilliant.

Dr. Benway:

Don't let the sneaky theists trick you into thinking metaphysics changes the meaning or role of evidence.

Right on Dr. They know what evidence is. They just try to push their favorite metaphysical wedge between any gaps they can find in our understanding so that god has a place....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

23. Comment #64074 by Thor on August 17, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Well put, Dr Benway.
However, while this may not be an apropriate place to dissect at length the metaphysical and epistmological foundations of our worldview, something that smart people have been arguing over for thousands of years, let me state again where I see a foundational axiom beyond which we cannot argue:

As you pointed out, metaphysical assumptions are not what really matters, what matters in this context is how we perceive and know that which exists, i.e. epistemology.
This concern was alsoc included in my original post, however, though I might have expressed it poorly. It's a rather complex and tricky matter, what with all the arguments about a priori knowledge, induction and Popper's falsifiability principle etc...

You can never entirely disconnect metasphyics/ontology from epistemology: they always intertwine. If you posit a supernatural realm that only connects to our world through some kind of divine intervention then accepting such strange ideas as revelation is entirely logically consistent.

Theists will never run out of phenomena in our world that we cannot yet explain through the eyes of science and there may even be some ultimately unanswerable questions (I am thinking of such head-scratcher as "Where do the laws of physics come from?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?").
Sure, their god will always be a "god of the gaps" and their religion will never make accurate predictions about THIS world, but that doesn't, in principle, take away from the logical consistency of their position.

Other Comments by Thor

24. Comment #64078 by shemp333 on August 17, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Great comments by all. I love this website! That's for the concern too, J. I have to say, J, I way agree with your thoughts on faith. Religion is such a waste with no basis in reality. I'll be alright here in Iraq. I carry the severed appendage of a rabbit to keep me safe. Breathe deeply and smell the sweet scent of sarcasm. Take care all!

Other Comments by shemp333

25. Comment #64094 by Johnny O on August 17, 2007 at 5:13 pm

But personally, I find it quite fascinating to listen to some of the smarter fundamentalists thinkers, like e.g. Albert Mohler, who really construct a logically consistent alternative worldview to our naturalist/materialist conception of the world.

I hit your link and went and spent the best part of half an hour looking on his website... And?? I saw nothing new on it, so I'm not sure what you mean by "smarter fundamentalists thinkers".

It's all the same old, "Not the God I believe in...", "Atheist fundamentalists...", "Don't understand Theology..." crap that these people always write.

This bit actually made me bite my tongue when I laughed out loud at it...

According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable

If that is an example of a "smarter fundamentalists thinker" I say bring it on, they must have IQ's not much higher than room temperature.

Other Comments by Johnny O

26. Comment #64095 by Johnny O on August 17, 2007 at 5:21 pm

And just to stay on subject might I suggest a way to get rid of this Operation Straight Up (OSU) lot?

Send them to do a show for the British Army. We'll soon have them buried somewhere out in the dessert. (With one 'S', so no spotted dick in sight lol)

What fucking disgrace

And bshemp333, keep your head down fella. Hope you get back without any injuries caused by bullets, bombs or crucifixes.

Other Comments by Johnny O

27. Comment #64096 by roach on August 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm

According to classical leprechaun belief, leprechauns are necessary beings; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such creatures as leprechauns; they exists in all possible worlds. But if leprechauns are necessary beings, if they exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that they exist, of course, is 1, and the probability that they do not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that they exist, their existence is maximally probable

Specious reasoning at it's finest (or worst)

Other Comments by roach

28. Comment #64098 by Duff on August 17, 2007 at 5:53 pm

When the troops hear these fine christian brethren are in Iraq on a "christian crusade", the excrement will impact the rotating ventilator. Those poor troops have enough to contend with without the muslim lovelies hearing the word "crusade".
If anyone is awake in the White House (not very likely) they would put a stop to this nonsense forthwith.

Other Comments by Duff

29. Comment #64100 by Theocrapcy on August 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Failed hack actor cocaine freak and booze hag finds Jesus and feels the need to impose it on others.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

30. Comment #64101 by ? on August 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Thor, Roach, Johnny O, etc.;

I looked up this Mohler character, too, and have to second the opinion that he is unimpressive--and I am a person who enjoys reading all sides of issues including conservative and/or religious writers IF they argue more or less intelligently for their views and actually address the issues at hand.

He, however, strikes me as something like Jimmy Swaggart in a better suit with a better vocabulary. There were never any arguements in the pieces I read, just simple attacks and declarations.

The biggest howler was the statement that homosexuality is essentially rooted in unbelief (^&%g@*&!!!!!!!) and that all modern ideologies were simply rationalizations of sexual immorality (what the %$*^@@!!!!) None of this was justified or argued for an any way. It is simply paranoid circular logic. If you're gay, you don't believe.

He brings up the fact that Paul had no concept that people could differ naturally in ther sexual orientation. For Paul, (as for many of the ancients, probably) people were all assumed to be heterosexual by nature, even if they sometimes had intercourse with people of their own sex. Of course, many in the Classical world believed that this was acceptable in certain circumstancs contra Paul.

But does he anaylze the evidence that some people are homosexual by nature and point out its empirical flaws? Does he give us any evidence or even logical arguments a al Aquainas that the ancient view (and Paul's moralistic modification of it) are supported by obersvable facts or even more logical?

Noooooo.....of course not because Bible quoting is almost all he can do.

Sorry to rant about him. Maybe I'm being unfair. I need to read a few of his more abstract theological articles before I write him off completely. But I was shocked at how bad the things I read were.

He must assume gays are sitting around laughing to themselves about how much they are hurting God---not really caring much about the sex mind you. Maybe he imagines that they are actually attracted to members of the other gender but stubbornly refuse to give into these desires....."Wow, that [member of the gender opposite me] is hot! NO! Must keep offending God because I hate him so much."

Other Comments by ?

31. Comment #64102 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Thor

I hear what you're saying (as they say) and I do understand your points, but I'm with Dr Benway on this.

Aware that I'm a little drunk and about to fall asleep (and thus likely to blunder into bear-traps), I'll nonetheless try three quick responses:

smarter fundamentalist thinkers, like e.g. Albert Mohler, who really construct a logically consistent alternative worldview to our naturalist/materialist conception of the world.

You don't have to be a fundamentalist, either. This is why theodicy arguments rarely pay off, except by piling up pressure on a theist's powers of rationalisation. Most long-lasting, successful religions have contrived a thoroughly rationalised worldview that is fully capable of dealing with every new datum you can throw at them. (Why did God let a giant squid eat a baby? Because he doesn't intervene in our affairs - we have free will and stuff happens. Why didn't the squid eat the other baby, too? Because god does intervene sometimes, in accordance with his own plans. Why did the man with the harpoon only kill the squid after its baby-eating rampage? See last two answers, plus god has his divine sense of justice and retribution, too. Why do restaurants serve squid, in spite of their being made entirely of rubber? This isn't valid a theological question, but possibly because god has a weird sense of humour. And so on.) But moving from the world we can observe ourselves to live in to this kind of internally consistent theology in the first place requires a 'leap of faith', as they say.

It's possible to say 'I'm not doing this metaphysical thing (except when I'm drunk (like now)) - I'm just sticking with "This works, so it's true" and letting the unproveable Big Questions ride until such a time as we might know more about them.' If we concentrate on the testables, challenges like 'It could all be made by a god, or 'Maybe you're imagining it all' can be answered with 'So what?'. We can all make stuff up. Unless it has an effect, it's not terrifically important. And if it does have an effect, we can test it out.

this may not be an appropriate place to dissect at length the metaphysical and epistmological foundations of our worldview [...]

It's been done before...

If you posit a supernatural realm that only connects to our world through some kind of divine intervention then accepting such strange ideas as revelation is entirely logically consistent.

That sounds to me a lot like 'If you make something up with no evidence at all, then accepting further made-up ideas is entirely logically consistent'. I'd just add to that '...and usually increasingly necessary, in order to make your made-up stuff fit with our ever-changing observation-based understanding of reality, which will continue to advance after the point when you started making things up.' This feeds back to my first point.

shemp333

Nice to hear back from you, and great that we're on a wavelength. Lots of respect for you - I don't know whether I'd have the guts to work where you do. Keep looking both ways - and please don't suddenly stop posting, alright?

Johnny O

Send them to do a show for the British Army. We'll soon have them buried somewhere out in the dessert.

Brilliant idea all round, and more so because I'd love to see someone buried in a dessert. Since no one has yet provided a recipe for Death By Scepticism, can I suggest a nice big Spotted Dick?

Other Comments by _J_

32. Comment #64112 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Thor, these metaphysical positions are all reasonable: materialism, naturalism, deism, idealism, brain-in-a-vat-ism.

Theism, or the notion that an interventionist creator God exists, is not reasonable. The onus is on the theist to produce credible evidence for God's interventions in the natural order. No one has done so yet. Belief without evidence isn't rational.

Deism = atheism, for all practical purposes. A God who doesn't intervene is indistinguishable from a God who doesn't exist.

Maybe I'll become a deist, just to throw the theists a curve ball.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

33. Comment #64121 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Thanks for the invite, Neil. I'm not a metaphysician either. I go there only to figure out how not to go there.

I predict we'll see this equivocation trick more frequently from the theists. One minute you're talking metaphysical God outside reality; next you're talking interventionist God there to give you a good feeling buzz, and to keep an eye on your sex life.

Change in the zeitgeist? Maybe a virus is making the rounds.

If you told the theist his wife was having an affair, would he ask for evidence, or would he say, "what do we actually mean by 'evidence'?"

Other Comments by Dr Benway

34. Comment #64122 by zenmite on August 17, 2007 at 8:44 pm

"I'm sure you've heard, "What would it take to convince you that God exists?"

I've been asked this question several times over the years as well.
My usual answer is: "A lobotomy."

Other Comments by zenmite

35. Comment #64133 by Thor on August 18, 2007 at 1:11 am

One more remark about Mohler: I didn't mean to say that he is somehow exceptionally convincing, far from that. He simply helped me to understand how these people think. It is all spelled out very clearly in his writing - I just hadn't encountered this open and unabashed talk in categories that are sp completely unfamiliar and alien to me before. To quote another religious radio talk show host, Dennis Prager (not a Southern Baptist but Jewish, therefore much less extreme, but also with many strange ideas): "I prefer clarity over agreement".

In case some of you are wondering now: I do like to listen to these religious types because some of them are quite good debaters and interviews - theology is obviously the perfect field to hone your skills for logical rationalization.
Yes, I disagree with them 9 ouf 10 cases, but I have learned much from their attention to detail and exact language - it helps me to better understand and, ultimately, to counter their arguments.

Dr Benway,
I agree with what you say about the equivocation regarding interventionism: that's where I seem to have been slightly inconsistent before.
Of course theists can claim anything they want about some supernatural realm that is not accessible to us (except, apparently, after we die - clever, that) since the truth value of these claims is utterly irrelevant.

But of course they really are concerned with THIS world, thus problems arise when they make theology-based claims, mostly in the realm of ethics but, unfortunately and to my continuing amazement, in large parts of the world they even make claims about physical reality of our universe.

Let me reiterate my basic point, though: theists do not accept our epistemology. Many of them simply say that evidence-based reasoning doesn't apply to god in the same way as it does in other areas.
Philosopher and theologians might be able and willing to conduct a debate even on this level, but this is where my powers of argument leave me. I only know and accept one way of knowing and understanding the world and if someone says "No, reason is not applicable here, god is not a testable hypothesis, he simply IS etc..." then I can only disagree - I cannot think of any way to seriously argue with this position.

Now I really feel bad for continuing this rather off-topic discussion.
Richard Dawkins has recently complained in one of the comment sections that everyone seems to gather there to spout off on any issue that comes to mind instead of perusing the forum section for longer debates on issues they are interested in.
While I understand his frustration to a certain degree, I believe that the only remedy would be a change in the design of the website. People will naturally convene at the most frequented and most recent article on the front page. It's human nature: we are often lazy and whimsical - blame god for the imperfect design :-)

Other Comments by Thor

36. Comment #64136 by BAEOZ on August 18, 2007 at 1:43 am

Many of them simply say that evidence-based reasoning doesn't apply to god in the same way as it does in other areas.

That seems to be their modus operandi.

"No, reason is not applicable here, god is not a testable hypothesis, he simply IS etc..." then I can only disagree - I cannot think of any way to seriously argue with this position.

This is where I ask; How do you know this? You can't know anything without a first hand example. Even arithmetic is not understood until you experience plurality and from this abstract number.
To know god exists, and accept revelation, bible, eschatology, what evidence do you have to connect the other world with this world? Without evidence, your belief is dishonest.
If they say revelation. How does your revelation warrant the standard of knowledge, whilst a schizoprenic's visions don't? How is it that other prophets of religions you don't follow are not truly prophetic when he has the same amount of evidence? Either all are, or all aren't. And assuming they all are, we have a contradiction, which makes them all wrong.
It may not convince a theist, but at least it's logically consistent (to me) and relies on knowledge we all share in this world.

Richard Dawkins has recently complained in one of the comment sections that everyone seems to gather there to spout off on any issue that comes to mind instead of perusing the forum section for longer debates on issues they are interested in.

I don't frequent the forums. I'm lazy and can't be bothered to read a long thread to see if they've gone over what I want to go over, and then hope someone who can be bothered debating with me is hanging around. That probably makes me lesser in Richard Dawkins' eyes, which is not a concern for me (nor him I imagine) and hopefully I won't get kicked off the site.
Peace.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

37. Comment #64140 by Thor on August 18, 2007 at 2:20 am

Neil S,
I have looked at the link you provided to the piece by Joel McDurmon.
My problem with skillfully crafted pieces of Christian apologetics like this is that I often cannot even read it without getting very angry and emotional about this incredible abjection of the human faculty of reason and rational thinking in favor of utterly delusional and self-defeating circular-logic sophistry - but getting so worked about it is a weakness that I haven't been able to conquer yet.

Also, I have neither the time, nor the experience, nor the patience to engage in an argument with someone whose mission in life (!!) it is to write pieces like that and play deceptive wordgames (by which I don't mean to imply that he is lying - well, he is, to himself) to undercut the principles of a naturalistic worldview.
Someone who does this quite well, however, is Richard Carrier , a young historian, who has published various articles at infidels.org, has written a book titled "Sense and Goodness Without God" about secular morality and naturalism and generally is quite a formidable debater in online discussion with theists.

Other Comments by Thor

38. Comment #64141 by Thor on August 18, 2007 at 2:54 am

BAEOZ,
your are right, of course. It's just that Chistianity has had 2000 years to develop their mind-games and pseudo-rationalizations - so they are, unfortunately, quite good at it.

But just to drive the point home: the piece that Neil S linked to above is really a perfect example of what we are talking about here - it makes my head explode:

The problem is this: Sam [Harris], like many atheists, has assumed that all factual claims are determined to be true of false in exactly the same way. This just simply is not the case, especially when we address the Unique Subject of God. Atheists often claim that there is no immediate physical evidence for the existence of God, and therefore God's existence cannot be proven, but this so far begs the question that did not so many atheists buy the argument and wear it as a badge, it would be pointless to refute it. The problem is, God is so far different from anything we experience by our natural senses, that to try to use only natural "evidentiary" data to pin Him down is as ridiculous as trying to find dark matter with a magnifying glass. God is not an element under the microscope. Rather, it is we who are under His microscope, and the most obvious evidence that He exists is not some sorted set of data that we can analyze, but the supreme clockwork of the universe and humanity, as well as the lights of human reason, logic, meaning, art, and everything else that transcends us on a cosmic scale, as well as the intimacies of human life that defy analysis with a single wink.

So here is the real logical dilemma for atheism when it comes to talking about "evidence" for the existence of God: if a God does exist, One Who created the universe, then it will not be a matter of finding evidence here and evidence there that can be weighed against other contrary evidences. It is simply not a matter of that kind of empirical probability. Rather, in a God-created universe, there can be nothing but evidence for the existence of God. Such a universe - and I believe this is such a universe - declares God's existence and His glory at every turn. It can do no other. Even evidence that is popularly considered to weigh against the existence of God, can be re-evaluated, and if God exists, must be. Likewise, data that heretofore have seemed to have no point or meaning at all, must be re-learned to point to the One Who has creates meaning. It was this type of thinking that, I believe, led Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method, to state, "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it." To this I would add that every ordinary work confirms it.

This is crazy talk. This is the stuff of brain-washing procedures.

I hope that makes clear what I meant to say above: there is no way of arguing with this. When somebody simply claims "God is special! The rules don't apply" then you can only tell him he is a poor fool who, sadly, seems to be misdirecting the considerable resources of his mind into deluding himself.

Other Comments by Thor

39. Comment #64174 by nworbynot on August 18, 2007 at 10:11 am

If their christian god is on the side of the Americans in this war, how come they are losing.

Other Comments by nworbynot

40. Comment #64175 by hasty toweling on August 18, 2007 at 10:16 am

It seems to me that the best way to argue against the nonsense quoted in the previous post is to note that it says nothing about Christianity that it doesn't say about Islam or Hinduism.

Other Comments by hasty toweling

41. Comment #64207 by Johnny O on August 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm

_J_,

I'm not at all sure what you mean by your pudding comment?? My previous post is perfectly spelled, (thanks to the wonders of the edit button).

As for the Spotted Dick, my doctor assures me that it will clear up in no time at all.

So please try to stay on subject and away from these trifling matters...

Other Comments by Johnny O

42. Comment #64227 by BAEOZ on August 18, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Thor, it's frustrating, but hasty toweling hit on the one of the points I was trying to make about how do you tell one revelation from another?
For example, an alternate worldview might be:

. Rather, in a fairy-created universe, there can be nothing but evidence for the existence of fairy. Such a universe - and I believe this is such a universe - declares fairy's existence and His glory at every turn. It can do no other. Even evidence that is popularly considered to weigh against the existence of fairy, can be re-evaluated, and if fairy exists, must be

Thus the fairy exists, and created this universe. I do love the sophistry, that if this was that type of universe that had a deity (no evidence for this, only an emotional need to justify), and if we re-evalute evidence that doesn't suit the hypothesis of the deity so that it now seems to support the hypothesis (complete intellectual dishonesty) and if he believes the deity exists (wishful thinking), then the deity must exist!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

43. Comment #64234 by Lil_Xunzian on August 18, 2007 at 7:26 pm

My best friend recently gave up Christianity after a couple of years intense reflection and (more recently) reading Bertrand Russell. At dinner, I asked her (now that she's not a Christian) to please explain to me (a lifelong atheist) what the appeal of Christianity is, because I could never figure it out. She didn't really give me much of an explanation, but at one point we agreed that "it's just like Santa." She admitted that the only reason she held on for so long is because "it does something for people." And of course, she's talking about belief in belief. On that note, I've noticed this trend in America. Most sufficiently educated, virtuous, and thoughtful people become atheists, nonreligious, or merely nominal Christians. Un(der)educated people, people who are batshit crazy, or some combination thereof choose religion, but they don't go for any of the denominations we've known and not loved since the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic response thereto; rather, they opt for the mega-church-going, bible literalist, end-of-times, batshit crazy evangelical christianity. The middle is disappearing and fast. Furthermore, we're not dealing with symmetrical developments either. America is soon going to be a place where the Stephen Baldwins outnumber the Sam Harrises 3 to 5. And since this is a democracy, the batshit crazy Baldwins win by default. Where's my country?

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

44. Comment #64239 by Veronique on August 18, 2007 at 9:46 pm

44. Comment #64234 by Lil_Xunzian

Calm down:-). I agree that your country isn't now what it used to be. It's heading toward Unlightenment. Look at the upside – your friend chose reason. Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Michel Onfray, AC Grayling and heaps of others have published books that will help people discard a faith in which they have been indoctrinated.

There's a battle on – reason vs superstition. Don't give up, just get out there in whatever way you can. It's a time to be brave. What was it that Kennedy said (in a different context)?

Your friend will, over time, be able to articulate why she/he was drawn to (indoctrinated) Christianity. From what I can gather from posters on this site, it's very complicated. Her/his response to you is a short straw, a simplistic way of encapsulating a very convoluted and emotional mindset into some commonly understood and acceptable explanation. She/he probably just agreed with you.

I, like you, have little if any understanding of what it 'feels' like to believe in something like the existence of a god that is insupportable because of its lack of evidence and its incredulous claims that defy common sense, let alone science.

The Christian evangelical movement has cleverly hijacked modern music (with its trance-like mass jumping reactions from an enthusiastic audience – do you know anything about 'doof' parties?). Have you watched the singers at these mega-churches? They are in trance. As are those who seek out doof dances, and who knows what they believe in? Many and varied, I would suspect.

I'll get hammered here. Music is one of the major unifying sensory experiences that allow people to assume that every one is engaged in the same reaction. They are at the same physical place after all. And they appear to be reacting similarly.

The boring rituals of the established churches have lost those that relate to a far more societally available and meaningful (to them) exposition of belief. Song, current song, not old world dirges.

Remember the reactions to The Beatles. They were hailed as musical gods. People wept at their concerts, frothed at the mouth at the very prospect of being at a concert. It's group-think: people being seduced by the group; people finding acceptance within a group.

Modern Christian cults embrace elitism, at least that's my take here in Australia. God wants you to be successful and success is measured in terms of financial wealth. What a WASP ideal! Sanctioned by god, no less! So the evangelicals band together in groups and appear to hold a lot more sway than they really do.

Events move in mysterious ways:-). This seems to be the age of the fundamentalists who are likely to kill you if you don't adhere to their teachings. Frightening? Yes. That's why we all have to join those who have written books, lecture constantly and in all ways put themselves out there in order to combat what they see as a diminution of reason.

Don't rail about losing your country, act now to secure a future free from superstition (I know how hopelessly idealistic that sounds – it's a rallying cry!:-). I wish I could write like Shakespeare – Agincourt comes to kind!

Don't let the Stephen Baldwins win. Is he a brother to Alec Baldwin?

This is not the best of posts. I hope that I had something worth while to say.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

45. Comment #64240 by Dr Benway on August 18, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Atheist then says, "Why?"
Theist: God is outside reality.
Atheist: OK fine. But getting back to the resurrection - that happened around 30 AD right? Now, like any alleged historical event, it's up to us to weigh the evidence. If I say that yesterday I was abducted by aliens, I know you won't believe me unless I can come up with some pretty convincing evidence. So what evidence do we have for the resurrection?
Theist: Uh...

Give 'em the metaphysical deism or idealism that they want. Then turn to the alleged interventions or miracles. Point out that nutty people make similar claims. We have to reject extraordinary claims unless we've got some amazingly good evidence.

You will go round and round and round, because these people have been led to believe that the God outside reality is off the hook entirely when it comes to evidence. It's like Obi Wan waved his hand and said, "These are not the droids you were looking for. And God is outside reality; evidence is inside reality, so God doesn't need it."

But maybe the repetition will help.

Same phenomenological world no matter the metaphysics. Science is concerned with the phenomenological realm, not the metaphysical realm.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

46. Comment #64242 by ? on August 18, 2007 at 10:58 pm

# 64239 by Veronique-

Your take on modern Chritianity and "trance" music was interesting. Yes, the fundie right thrives on crude emotional manipulation through rythmic music, huge crowds and shaman-like charismatic speakers.

Its weird that the "conservative" side has embraced such postmodernism. A while back the idea of "guitars and casual clothing in church", etc. was the height of edgy "Jesus was a hippie" theological liberalism.

But today's version is hard and dead underneath the aritifical frenzy. There is no sensitivity or real expression behind it. It is not the Christian equivalent of the Beatles, Stones, Simon and Garfunkle or interesting contemporary stuff like Coldplay (sp?) or the Shins. It is the asthetics of the crassest kind of TV or radio commercial. Drown out BOTH rational thought AND complex emotional responses.

Theologically, these folks are also extremist and crude; and getting worse by the hour. I remember trying to read a book by LaHaye and throwing it down in disgust when he accused St. Augustine of free-wheeling theological liberalism! But by today's standards he has a point! Intelligence = heresy.

Other Comments by ?

47. Comment #64259 by pantsandboots on August 19, 2007 at 4:47 am

Christ! I sometimes wonder if we're being a bit harsh; that religion gives personal comfort... and then I read something like this and it reminds me we're nowhere close to doing enough.

Other Comments by pantsandboots

48. Comment #64270 by lostpoet on August 19, 2007 at 6:46 am

I've been looking over the website maintained by the OSU nutheads (osutour.org). They list some corporate sponsors:

SUBWAY
Network Funding Bank, LLC
Interstate Batteries
Photostat - Medical Records
Frito Lay
Coke

Yes, I think contacting these companies will be worthwhile. I think I'll ask if they really want to be openly associated with these kind of loonies.

Other Comments by lostpoet

49. Comment #64271 by hightrekker on August 19, 2007 at 7:54 am

These Cabbages For Christ will kill us all---
There is no bottom for ignorance with these poor meme infected hosts for toxic replicators.

Other Comments by hightrekker

50. Comment #64393 by jesus_christ_himself on August 20, 2007 at 12:46 am