This came out today:
Nuclear or Bioterror Attack on U.S. Likely by 2013, Panel Warns
Tuesday , December 02, 2008
WASHINGTON —
The United States can expect a terrorist attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013, reports a bipartisan commission in a study being briefed Tuesday to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
It suggests the Obama administration bolster efforts to counter and prepare for germ warfare by terrorists.
"Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing," states the report, obtained by The Associated Press. It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.
The commission is also encouraging the new White House to appoint one official on the National Security Council to exclusively coordinate U.S. intelligence and foreign policy on combatting the spread of nuclear and biological weapons.
The report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and Jim Talent of Missouri, acknowledges that terrorist groups still lack the needed scientific and technical ability to make weapons out of pathogens or nuclear bombs. But it warns that gap can be easily overcome, if terrorists find scientists willing to share or sell their know-how.
"The United States should be less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists," the report states.
The commission believes biological weapons are more likely to be obtained and used before nuclear or radioactive weapons because nuclear facilities are more carefully guarded. Civilian laboratories with potentially dangerous pathogens abound, however, and could easily be compromised.
"The biological threat is greater than the nuclear; the acquisition of deadly pathogens, and their weaponization and dissemination in aerosol form, would entail fewer technical hurdles than the theft or production of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and its assembly into an improvised nuclear device," states the report.
It notes that the U.S. government's counterproliferation activities have been geared toward preventing nuclear terrorism. The commission recommends the prevention of biological terrorism be made a higher priority.
Study chairman Graham said anthrax remains the most likely biological weapon. However, he told the AP that contagious diseases — like the flu strain that killed 40 million at the beginning of the 20th century — are looming threats. That virus has been recreated in scientific labs, and there remains no inoculation to protect against it if is stolen and released.
Graham said the threat of a terrorist attack using nuclear or biological weapons is growing "not because we have not done positive things but because adversaries are moving at an even faster pace to increase their access" to those materials.
He noted last week's rampage by a small group of gunmen in Mumbai.
"If those people had had access to a biological or nuclear weapon they would have multiplied by orders of magnitude the deaths they could have inflicted," he said.
Al Qaeda remains the only terrorist group judged to be actively intent on conducting a nuclear attack against the United States, the report notes. It is not yet capable of building such a weapon and has yet to obtain one. But that could change if a nuclear weapons engineer or scientist were recruited to Al Qaeda's cause, the report warns.
The report says the potential nexus of terrorism, nuclear and biological weapons is especially acute in Pakistan.
"Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan," the report states.
In fact, commission members were forced to cancel their trip to Pakistan this fall. The Islamabad Marriott Hotel that commission members were to stay in was blown up by terrorist bombs just hours before they were to check in.
"We think time is not our ally. The (United States) needs to move with a sense of urgency," Graham said.
So, hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the so-called war on terror, and this is what we get?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Rejecting Substitutionary Atonement
I reject the concept of substitutionary atonement.
Bishop John Shelby Spong said in a sermon, "Jesus did not die for your sins. Let that be said a thousand times." Spong was speaking against the concept of substitutionary atonement, the idea that Jesus was sacrificed as the only possible appeasement acceptable to God for the sins of mankind. Former Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan calls substitutionary atonement "very bad theology." He goes on to say, "It's a crime against divinity." And it is. Only only works if God is vile.
God is not vile.
Substitutionary atonement depends on Man being inherently evil. It depends on all of us being born of original sin, which by some magical method, we automatically inherit from Adam and Eve and their fall from paradise.
There's a profound problem with the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden. It’s a bad story. It doesn’t ring true. Consider the initial condition of Adam and Eve. They are naked and naive. They are so naïve they don’t realize that they are naked and they don't know that there is anything wrong with being naked. They do not know what wrong means. They are blissfully ignorant of wrongness or rightness. They are complete innocents. We see this clearly in the 2nd chapter of Genesis where God told Adam, (Gen 2:16-17) “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.“ Here we see God tell us that Adam has no knowledge of good and evil, no knowledge of right and wrong, and that only if he eats a certain fruit will he acquire that knowledge. The astute reader will also note that Eve wasn’t there for the message; she was not created until later (Gen 2:22).
The first thing we hear from Eve is that the subtle serpent is talking to her, convincing her to eat of the fruit. Eve says, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’” (Gen 3:2-3). Then the serpent says, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” This statement, apart from telling Eve that God has lied about the fruit being lethal, confirms the woman’s innocence and her inability to tell right from wrong.
We all know what happens. Eve eats the fruit, Adam eats the fruit, they gain knowledge of good and evil, God finds out and throws them out of the garden. They don’t die (as God said they would – the serpent was right), they just have to go out and make their own living. What a crappy story! It really paints God as a lying pea-brain. Pea-brained! How can He punish Adam and Eve for doing the wrong thing when he knows for a fact that they don’t know the difference between right and wrong. It’s like punishing your dog for eating your bacon after you drop in into his dish. I reject this story because God doesn’t lie, and God’s not pea-brained.
OK fine. Now that I’ve pitched out the story of the fall, with it comes the concept of substitutionary atonement-- the belief that the reason Jesus died on the cross was to save us from our sins. This awful notion that holds that we are born so sinful that God just can’t get over it. He can't forgive us. Why not? Because we inherited so much sin from Eve, who committed the unforgivable crime of eating fruit when she didn’t know any better. Substitutionary atonement says that the only way that God could ever forgive us would be if his only begotten son was murdered as a sacrifice. Again! Another version of an asshole of a God is not only pea-brained, but mean as the dickens, unyielding, spiteful, angry and just plain vicious. I reject this story, too. God’s not an asshole, he’s not even wrathful.
So, who invented this terrible vision of God? Was it Anselm of Canterbury? Was it because he made up the theory because he couldn't otherwise understand why Jesus died?
Among other things Anselm wrote: “"Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam," which can be translated as "Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand." This woeful wrongheadedness for our times. Maybe it was fine for the 11th century when the world was a much larger, simpler place, but today it’s a recipe for disaster. Think about it, first believe, then understand. First make up your mind, then look for justification. This is how Rush Limbaugh makes a living. Today, this is the way millions develop their world view about issues like global warming, energy policies and human rights, as spinoffs from the way they view their religion, the view they use to accept substitutionary atonement. It is such a bad idea for our time. It is the way of crimes against divinity. God is not the product of crimes, and he doesn’t want us to be criminal, either.
Bishop John Shelby Spong said in a sermon, "Jesus did not die for your sins. Let that be said a thousand times." Spong was speaking against the concept of substitutionary atonement, the idea that Jesus was sacrificed as the only possible appeasement acceptable to God for the sins of mankind. Former Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan calls substitutionary atonement "very bad theology." He goes on to say, "It's a crime against divinity." And it is. Only only works if God is vile.
God is not vile.
Substitutionary atonement depends on Man being inherently evil. It depends on all of us being born of original sin, which by some magical method, we automatically inherit from Adam and Eve and their fall from paradise.
There's a profound problem with the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden. It’s a bad story. It doesn’t ring true. Consider the initial condition of Adam and Eve. They are naked and naive. They are so naïve they don’t realize that they are naked and they don't know that there is anything wrong with being naked. They do not know what wrong means. They are blissfully ignorant of wrongness or rightness. They are complete innocents. We see this clearly in the 2nd chapter of Genesis where God told Adam, (Gen 2:16-17) “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.“ Here we see God tell us that Adam has no knowledge of good and evil, no knowledge of right and wrong, and that only if he eats a certain fruit will he acquire that knowledge. The astute reader will also note that Eve wasn’t there for the message; she was not created until later (Gen 2:22).
The first thing we hear from Eve is that the subtle serpent is talking to her, convincing her to eat of the fruit. Eve says, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’” (Gen 3:2-3). Then the serpent says, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” This statement, apart from telling Eve that God has lied about the fruit being lethal, confirms the woman’s innocence and her inability to tell right from wrong.
We all know what happens. Eve eats the fruit, Adam eats the fruit, they gain knowledge of good and evil, God finds out and throws them out of the garden. They don’t die (as God said they would – the serpent was right), they just have to go out and make their own living. What a crappy story! It really paints God as a lying pea-brain. Pea-brained! How can He punish Adam and Eve for doing the wrong thing when he knows for a fact that they don’t know the difference between right and wrong. It’s like punishing your dog for eating your bacon after you drop in into his dish. I reject this story because God doesn’t lie, and God’s not pea-brained.
OK fine. Now that I’ve pitched out the story of the fall, with it comes the concept of substitutionary atonement-- the belief that the reason Jesus died on the cross was to save us from our sins. This awful notion that holds that we are born so sinful that God just can’t get over it. He can't forgive us. Why not? Because we inherited so much sin from Eve, who committed the unforgivable crime of eating fruit when she didn’t know any better. Substitutionary atonement says that the only way that God could ever forgive us would be if his only begotten son was murdered as a sacrifice. Again! Another version of an asshole of a God is not only pea-brained, but mean as the dickens, unyielding, spiteful, angry and just plain vicious. I reject this story, too. God’s not an asshole, he’s not even wrathful.
So, who invented this terrible vision of God? Was it Anselm of Canterbury? Was it because he made up the theory because he couldn't otherwise understand why Jesus died?
Among other things Anselm wrote: “"Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam," which can be translated as "Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand." This woeful wrongheadedness for our times. Maybe it was fine for the 11th century when the world was a much larger, simpler place, but today it’s a recipe for disaster. Think about it, first believe, then understand. First make up your mind, then look for justification. This is how Rush Limbaugh makes a living. Today, this is the way millions develop their world view about issues like global warming, energy policies and human rights, as spinoffs from the way they view their religion, the view they use to accept substitutionary atonement. It is such a bad idea for our time. It is the way of crimes against divinity. God is not the product of crimes, and he doesn’t want us to be criminal, either.
Monday, October 13, 2008
First things first
I am a Christian.
The most important thing, the highest priority for me, as a Christian are the words spoken by Jesus in an exchange with a Pharisee who had asked Jesus which commandment was the greatest. Jesus said to him, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37 – 40).
In Luke (10:30-37), a similar, but slightly different exchange takes place. After agreeing on the greatest commandments, the Pharisee asks, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus then tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which a Samaritan, a gentile, comes to the aid of a Jew wounded by robbers. The Samaritan offers remarkable generosity and charity, even when two other Jews would not offer help. The Samaritan is a stranger to the Jew he helps. Furthermore, at least from the Jewish perspective of the day, Samaritans are to be shunned because they are unacceptably low class. The Samaritan surely knows this, but he offers help anyway.
At the end of the parable, Jesus asks the Pharisee "which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."
Together, these two Biblical passages state the most important instructions for Christians. We know what we are supposed to do, and we know who is to be included in the doing. As Jesus said, on these commandments hang all the law.
Coming soon: Jesus did not die for our sins, and Evolution happens.
The most important thing, the highest priority for me, as a Christian are the words spoken by Jesus in an exchange with a Pharisee who had asked Jesus which commandment was the greatest. Jesus said to him, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37 – 40).
In Luke (10:30-37), a similar, but slightly different exchange takes place. After agreeing on the greatest commandments, the Pharisee asks, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus then tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which a Samaritan, a gentile, comes to the aid of a Jew wounded by robbers. The Samaritan offers remarkable generosity and charity, even when two other Jews would not offer help. The Samaritan is a stranger to the Jew he helps. Furthermore, at least from the Jewish perspective of the day, Samaritans are to be shunned because they are unacceptably low class. The Samaritan surely knows this, but he offers help anyway.
At the end of the parable, Jesus asks the Pharisee "which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."
Together, these two Biblical passages state the most important instructions for Christians. We know what we are supposed to do, and we know who is to be included in the doing. As Jesus said, on these commandments hang all the law.
Coming soon: Jesus did not die for our sins, and Evolution happens.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
I'm not making this up....
This is posted on the Whitehouse website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/
No kidding.
President Bush Attends Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008
"...[L]et me start first by telling you that America has got to change its habits. We've got to get off oil. And the reason why is, first, oil is -- dependency on oil presents a real challenge to our economy. As economies grow -- and we want all our economies to grow; we want people to be prosperous, we want people who are living in poverty to be able to grow out of poverty. We want there to be general prosperity, but as economies grow, until we change our habits, there is going to be more dependency on oil."
--President George W. Bush, March 5, 2008
I'm speechless.
No kidding.
President Bush Attends Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008
"...[L]et me start first by telling you that America has got to change its habits. We've got to get off oil. And the reason why is, first, oil is -- dependency on oil presents a real challenge to our economy. As economies grow -- and we want all our economies to grow; we want people to be prosperous, we want people who are living in poverty to be able to grow out of poverty. We want there to be general prosperity, but as economies grow, until we change our habits, there is going to be more dependency on oil."
--President George W. Bush, March 5, 2008
I'm speechless.
Jane Spahr: No Harm, No Foul
The Presbyterian Church (USA) aquitted Jane Spahr. They determine that she had done no wrong in marrying a lesbian couple, because the PCUSA doesn't recognize same sex marriages. In effect, she didn't marry the lesbian couple because she did not have the authority to do so. Yes, she performed a ceremony, but it didn't count. Therefore, no wrong was committed.
What an interesting decision.
What an interesting decision.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Human variation
I once saw a toxicology graduate student's research poster for a study she had done on the comparative sensitivity of the enzyme, acetylcholinesterase to the inhibiting effects of the poison, parathion. The comparison was between blood samples taken from humans and lab rats. (Just to be clear...the blood was treated with the poison after it was drawn.) I can't remember which species, humans or rats, was more sensitive. But what I do remember was the huge amount of variation in the human responses compared to the tiny amount of variation in the rats. It was quite striking. The human values were all over the place, while the rat values all tightly clustered around an average.
Maybe I should not have been so surprised. Lab rats are bred to be a very similar group where each individual is very much like the next. But you sure can't say that about humans. I've seen the data.
Maybe I should not have been so surprised. Lab rats are bred to be a very similar group where each individual is very much like the next. But you sure can't say that about humans. I've seen the data.
The power of naming
I notice with some interest the church trial of Jane Spahr, a retired Presbyterian minister in California. Jane performed two wedding ceremonies for lesbian couples. There's no question of whether or not Jane performed the ceremonies, but rather it is a question of whether or not she committed a breach of Presbyterian church law. She has been through the machinery of the Presbyterian court system where she was found innocent of any wrong-doing by a local court, then guilty by a higher one. She appealed to the highest Presbyterian court and the verdict will be announced tomorrow.
In this case it only appears that Jane is on trial. What's actually on trial is the Presbyterian church. This is because in issuing a verdict on Jane, the Presbyterian Church (USA)...(sorry about that...there are numerous factions (sects? arms? flavors?...whatever) of Presbyterianism and the one bearing the suffix, USA, is the one at hand...I'm not a Presbyterian so I'm not too sharp on their labels and nomenclature)...anyway...the Presbyterian Church USA is forced to make a definitive statement on the OK-ness of same-sex marriage. If it is not OK, Jane is guilty of something, and if it is OK, Jane is declared innocent.
This is a hard spot for the PC-USA because they traditionally don't come down hard on one side or the other on nettlesome personal issues, preferring instead to be open and accepting to as many people as possible. Apparently, there are some in the PC-USA who are extremely pissed off because of such lack of clear definition of what is OK and not OK. They believe that right is right and sin is sin, damnit. (See President Bush's remarks, April 17). And then there are others who find this fuzzy ambivalence to be a very attractive feature because they appreciate that we human beings come in so many different varieties, the ambivalence allows more room for those who are at some variance from the norm.
Anyway, I started this post to address the power of naming, because I noticed in a blog that someone, I think it was a guy named Jim Berkley, who referred to Jane as, "the lesbian advocate Jane Spahr." and I thought Wow! He just renamed her. That's effective! She used to be a whole person, Jane Spahr, but now renamed she's just a fraction of a person. It would be fair to say that former whole human being Jane Spahr, who laughs and loves, who pays taxes and does her laundry, who has thousands of interests and friends of every stripe, who loves art and good jokes, who has a rich spiritual life, who prays for others and cries with them, who tends flowers and still rides a bicycle for fun, has now been reduced to "the lesbian advocate Jane Spahr." The renaming effectively seems to remove from her identity, all of the other aspects of her being that don't immediately address her advocacy for lesbianism. What a neat trick! I can't wait to try this out for myself.
Where can I start?...let's see....how about,
"the conservative demagogue Jim Berkley."
Cooool!
I like it!
In this case it only appears that Jane is on trial. What's actually on trial is the Presbyterian church. This is because in issuing a verdict on Jane, the Presbyterian Church (USA)...(sorry about that...there are numerous factions (sects? arms? flavors?...whatever) of Presbyterianism and the one bearing the suffix, USA, is the one at hand...I'm not a Presbyterian so I'm not too sharp on their labels and nomenclature)...anyway...the Presbyterian Church USA is forced to make a definitive statement on the OK-ness of same-sex marriage. If it is not OK, Jane is guilty of something, and if it is OK, Jane is declared innocent.
This is a hard spot for the PC-USA because they traditionally don't come down hard on one side or the other on nettlesome personal issues, preferring instead to be open and accepting to as many people as possible. Apparently, there are some in the PC-USA who are extremely pissed off because of such lack of clear definition of what is OK and not OK. They believe that right is right and sin is sin, damnit. (See President Bush's remarks, April 17). And then there are others who find this fuzzy ambivalence to be a very attractive feature because they appreciate that we human beings come in so many different varieties, the ambivalence allows more room for those who are at some variance from the norm.
Anyway, I started this post to address the power of naming, because I noticed in a blog that someone, I think it was a guy named Jim Berkley, who referred to Jane as, "the lesbian advocate Jane Spahr." and I thought Wow! He just renamed her. That's effective! She used to be a whole person, Jane Spahr, but now renamed she's just a fraction of a person. It would be fair to say that former whole human being Jane Spahr, who laughs and loves, who pays taxes and does her laundry, who has thousands of interests and friends of every stripe, who loves art and good jokes, who has a rich spiritual life, who prays for others and cries with them, who tends flowers and still rides a bicycle for fun, has now been reduced to "the lesbian advocate Jane Spahr." The renaming effectively seems to remove from her identity, all of the other aspects of her being that don't immediately address her advocacy for lesbianism. What a neat trick! I can't wait to try this out for myself.
Where can I start?...let's see....how about,
"the conservative demagogue Jim Berkley."
Cooool!
I like it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)