Here’s the story: a woman is working for a church, but she develops narcolepsy (she can’t help falling asleep). The church fires her and gets a new employee – but she threatens to sue because she should be protected under the Disabilities Act. But the Supreme Court refused her right to sue, on the basis that it could not interfere with a church’s right to chose its own representatives (freedom of religion, etc.)

The ethics of this conflict are murky: The Western practice of diagnosing everything as a disability means that soon everybody will be protected against firing, and employers can no longer count on hiring able and competent people to work for them. This does not mean I am anti-disability; people with disabilities who are just as capable of doing a good job, should have that opportunity. But having a job should not be a right guaranteed to disabled people – unless perhaps, the government is paying for it. But should the government force a private company to keep an employee who isn’t doing her job?

On the one hand I don’t think that religion should be exempt from law unilaterally – the ruling also means that an employee fired after sexual harassment can’t sue, for example. This is an issue of employee vs. employer rights which should be clarified universally and churches should not be exempt. At the same time, I’m a bit of a shark who feels the best person for a job should get it, rather than the person who needs it the most (ala “Atlas Shrugged”).

However, in a related issue, last week Greece shocked the world (and itself) by reclassifying certain conditions – like Pedophilia and Kleptomania – as disabilities; now able to get higher government compensation than other “lesser” disabilities. While it may seem insane, the trend of diagnosing and classifying these serious personal problems as diseases/disabilities is an international trend.

If you put the Greek law together with the Supreme Court’s new ruling that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination, it would mean that the all-too-many cases of pedophilia in the (Catholic) church could not sue after being fired.

In contrast, before, someone who abused children in the church and was then fired may have been able to sue the church for termination! So the change seems like a step in a direction away from crazy. But now, under the new law, if a former employee of the church was terminated because they tried to stop pedophilia, then they couldn’t sue.

What do you think? Should church hiring practices be off limits to the Supreme Court?

 Sources:
Supreme court cannot get involved in church disputes

Greece classifies pedophilia as disability

Incoming search terms:

• supreme court religious vs disability (2)
• supreme court church disability (2)
• church terminates employee with narcolrpsy (2)
• supreme court decision church disability (2)
• church fires woman on disability (2)
• supreme court disability firing (1)
• supreme court disabilites act (1)

The “opposition” chosen to represent the heathens is a fat, batman-hat wearing guy who says “If you don’t want to be healthy, don’t be, if you want to be healthy, be healthy.” People should be allowed to choose unhealthy, health-harming (and by extension, ecosystem/economy destroying) practices.

But why? Spiritual traditions around the world, including Christianity, more or less agree that vegetarianism is better for ourselves and the world; it also seems to make people more relaxed, aware, and peaceful. I’m not vegetarian – but mostly because I eat whatever is cheap and convenient.
What would the world look like if the government took steps to ensure that what was available was also what was healthiest? What if they prevented huge corporations from using their resources to dominate the food growth, preparation and consumption market?

I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with the 7th Day Adventists from a legal perspective (in fact they are sure to lose) but I also feel that Western Civilization’s defense of malignant lifestyle practices is doomed to epic failure; humanity is a cancer that has been given free reign to grow however it wants, destroying whatever came before, ignoring “natural” laws of maintenance – all under the protection of “free will” (the ultimate corporation slogan!)

Other interesting bits in the video – The first McDonalds anywhere was about 5 miles out of Loma Linda! Also, there is already a Carl’s Jr. in town (who was asleep at the wheel when that happened?)

Watch the video below:

Incoming search terms:

• Did Carls jr sue loma Linda? (3)
• why is loma linda fighting against mcdonalds when they have carls jr (2)
• McDonalds 7th day (2)
• should christians be vegetarian (2)
• 7th day adventist mcdonalds (1)
• seventh day adventest fight against mcdonalds (1)
• the truth about mcdonalds christian (1)

But I don’t think there is enough overlap between them that Tim’s review is at all meaningful. How is Tim qualified to judge an article by a neuroscientist? (Ok ok, I know Tim is into science, medicine, testing and results – I can see how Tim might be interested in Sam’s writing). But what about credibility? How does Tim earn a place next to an Astrophysicist?

But maybe book reviews are not about credibility anymore; they are meant, after all, to sell books – what Tim brings to the table is an enormous herd of followers; followers that aren’t already fans of Harris and thus represent new customers.

And by leaving the review, Tim gets himself in front of a whole crowd of people who follow Sam, but not Tim. So Sam and Tim are basically saying, “hey some of your crew might like my shit, and some of my crew might like your shit.”

Not only is there nothing wrong with this picture, it’s probably good for everyone involved – and yet, something about it still sits unwell with me.

What do you think? Do you trust people you know are credible to give reviews – or do you trust people you already know and like, regardless of their background?

Incoming search terms:

• sam harris lying (27)
• lying sam harris (12)
• timothy ferriss lies (6)
• lying by sam harris (3)
• tim ferriss sam harris (3)
• sam harris lying review (2)
• tim ferriss reviews (1)

1. Let’s define Satan as the worst thought you can think. So anything bad, evil, disagreeable, wrong… all that stuff is “Satan” or “Satanic”. He’s the absolute most vile, ugly, scary creature you can imagine, with fangs, horns, and lots of eyeballs.

2. Ok, are you picturing it? Can you conceive of this idea? Now in your mind, take this concept a bit further by imagining that it exists in reality. This Satan that exists in reality is definitely worse then the Satan that exists in your mind only, right?

3. Since the Satan that really exists is worse, only it is the real Satan. The other Satan you were thinking of, the one that only exists in your mind, isn’t the real Satan (because he’s not as bad as the one that exists in reality.)

4. Therefore, Satan exists in reality.

***There seems to be some gap in logic between steps 3 and 4; I can’t quite tell right now whether it is my fault or St. Anselm’s. He moves a little slower than me, but I think the logical process is the same. What do you think?***

Incoming search terms:

• proving satan (2)
• anselm argument devil (1)
• anselm ontological argument blog (1)
• anselm\s ontological argument blog (1)
• did the devil really exist proof (1)
• is satan really exist (1)
• is the devil really real (1)

Today I had the opportunity to come back to Anselm with fresh eyes in a post-graduate philosophy course. What follows is an explanation of what St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is, how it works, and why it is inescapable – followed by why it doesn’t matter at all; in fact if St. Anselm’s proof of God is true, then the logical consequences for organized religion is disastrous.

How it works: Definition of God

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

Anselm starts with the definition of God – that there is nothing we can imagine that is greater than him. He must be, by definition, greater than anything else. From Latin, he actually says “We believe that You something than which nothing greater can be thought.”

(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.

You cannot imagine something greater than God – for whatever better thing you imagine, would actually be God, and that other thing you were thinking of wasn’t really God.

Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.

Aha, but then think of these two things: On the one hand thing of a perfect God as an idea in your mind, but not actually existing; then, think of the same God actually existing.

The first thing you thought of was just an idea, but the second thing was real, hence greater/better. Since God is not the first thing you were thinking of, but can only be the second, the greater thing, then this God that exists is really God, while the God that doesn’t exist isn’t really God.

(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

Why it works

As a logical proof, the argument unfolds elegantly from the starting premise. It is logically sound. However, once you accept the proof the inevitable consequences actually undermine religious belief and any particular faith in God. This is because the definition of the “best thought that can be thought” is always evolving and differs for different cultures and societies. Maybe I think a God with a fiery temper and a lightning bolt and a manly sexuality is “greater” than a meek and humble carpenter who dies willingly. If so my “greater God” (Zeus) must actually exist, while Jesus doesn’t. Greatness is subjective.

A god with a pink unicorn is greater than one without (a god with anything extra must be greater, right?) So the definition of God multiplies to include all differences, until God is everything we can possibly imagine, as well as everything that we can’t imagine. And that this god (or all of these gods) necessarily have the beneficial property of existence (which is greater than non-existence.

There’s also a problem with the first premise. In my translation it goes “We believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be thought.” The premise begins with the confirmation of a shared definition. The proof works as long as you include yourself in this “we”. But I, for one, do not believe the definition that God is that thing than which nothing greater can be thought. I can think of many things greater than God. Or – if I accept the definition, I would argue that a fully natural universe with NO DEITY or supernaturalism is more intrinsically perfect than a universe in which God is a jealous and manipulative tyrant; so the greatest thing – that which nothing greater can be thought – is for me the absence of god (which, according to the definition proposed by Anselm, is God.) Therefore, paradoxically, I’ve proved that God exists and that by existing there is no God.

Problems with epistemology

A final problem with Anselm’s proof is that God is both everything that can be thought, and also everything that can’t even be imagined. Part 5 of the proof is that this thing, than which no greater can be thought, can be conceived to exist in reality. And since existing in reality is greater than non-existing, it does exist! This is part of the western epistemological tradition (and arrogance) that pretends we can hold God in our minds – even though in Christianity, like most other world religions, the “True God” is complete mystery, completely removed, impossible to know or understand (isn’t this exactly what Yahweh tells Job – “how dare you try to understand me…”).

But for the proof to work, we have to accept that we can conceptualize a thing, than which nothing greater can be thought, existing in reality (this is a bit like conceiving eternity…which we can’t.)

Since God is something than which no greater can be thought, God is also something greater than can be thought. It’s like a constantly elevating ceiling – every time you think of something higher, it is God by definition. So since you can’t think of anything greater, if there is anything greater that you aren’t thinking of, it’s God too. (This ‘proof’ hasn’t worked out so well with the progress of science and technology, which has dramatically shifted the way we understand the universe).

What it all boils down to

St. Anselm’s ontological proof is a fun little mind-game, a verbal paradox of sorts. It’s fun to let it dance around in your mind. If you believe in God and accept Anselm’s first premise, it may seem like an impregnable bit of logic. But the same would be true if you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Flying Teapot, pink unicorns or anything else that you think is totally awesome.

Incoming search terms:

• st anselms ontological argument (3)
• anselm ontological argument (2)
• anselm\s blog (2)
• argument god exist pipe cleaner surrealist (2)
• simple explanation of the ontological argument (1)
• st anselm ontological argument (1)
• ST anselm that which nothing greater can be conceived - God (1)

But wait! Good Christians believe we are in the end of times, and should be watching out for a potential Antichrist. Many people mistakenly believe the Antichrist will seem evil or be anti-religious or atheistic. Not True! Actually the Antichrist will seem religious. This is his great deception.

So this is all you have to understand: whether or not you’re religious, whether or not you believe in Jesus’ imminent 2nd coming, a vote for Rick Perry is a vote for the end of the world.

Incoming search terms:

• rick perry is the antichrist (7)
• is organized religion the antichrist (4)
• rick perry antichrist (3)
• who christians believe is the antichrist (2)
• Rick Perry Christians (2)
• rick perry second coming jesus (2)
• rick perry not a christian (1)

Admittedly, the music is not to my taste. But I do relish the religious controversy and the ardent response from Christian Coalitions who are spouting threats of damnation for Johnny Depp’s callous insensitivity for religious tolerance.

But actually I find that Depp and  Jones’ deviant view of Jesus is much deeper, more profound and more honest than the religious fundamentalists who are so easily incensed.

“Christians go to heaven. Sinners go to hell. This is their message of peace. Oh yes and gays can f–k off too. It’s a beautiful world, Jesus,” wrote Jones on Twitter. He also spoke to E! News. “The Bible is the greatest fiction book of all time. Incredible stories of magic and mayhem. Full of Hollywood storylines. If Jesus was around today, he would probably be laying low, like I was, in a Days Inn single room, staying incognito to prevent fueling any religious hatred. If they were true Jesus lovers, they wouldn’t own CD players and iPods, they would be wandering the world preaching love and understanding.”

So basically, Jones and Depp are not making fun of Jesus at all – they completely support Jesus and Christianity’s message of love, tolerance and peace (as do I!). But they are pointing out, through their music, how vicious, angry, violent, judgmental and prejudiced the Christian Community has actually become; and how far from Jesus’ real message.

Isn’t this truly an inspirational and motivational Christmas message worth sharing? That all people, regardless of sexual orientation, race or other differences, have at the very least an equal chance at happiness and an equal share of forgiveness and understanding?

Watch the video below and share your thoughts!

Incoming search terms:

• jesus stag night club lyrics (18)
• johnny depp & baby bird single (16)
• johnny depp christmas carol (11)
• johnny depp religion (10)
• babybird jesus stag night club (7)
• jesus stag night club (6)
• babybird jesus stag night club lyrics (5)

The confusion is that for anybody within a Christian mindset (as the cops involved probably were) all magic and ritual is Satanic. However anybody who actually practices magic, ritual sacrifices, etc. are not Christian! Hence they don’t believe in Satan. Worshiping Satan is moronic because if you believe in him, then you also believe in God, Jesus and everybody else – so you know already that Satan will lose. What’s the point?

Nevertheless, it is firmly established in popular culture and social anxieties that there are Satan-Worshipers out there stealing babies and practicing blood sacrifice. Why? Let’s look at the 2nd article: “Therapist ‘Brainwashed’ Woman Into Believing She Was In Satanic Cult” (source). Lisa Nasseff, 41, of Saint Paul, Minn., is suing her former therapist, Mark Schwartz, after getting treated for anorexia, because while under hypnosis, her therapist convinced her that her family was Satanists, that they wanted to hurt and sexually abuse her, and that she had sacrificed her sister’s baby on a Satanic altar.

This is a modern story of how powerfully hypnosis can insert false memories. This can even be done accidentally; if the therapist asks leading questions like “What happened to you then? Was there an altar? Do you remember seeing a baby? What were they doing to the baby…” etc.

But wait – aren’t there historical cases of Satanism? Hasn’t everybody known a guy who’s known a guy who said he knew somebody who was involved in Satanism? Here’s the truth: In the 1980’s, the FBI dealt with nearly 50,000 cases of kidnapped children and abuse. They responded with the “stranger danger” posters, teaching kids not to get in cars with strangers or accept gifts or candy from strangers. Things got a lot more complicated when they realized that in the majority of child abuse cases, the abuser was a parent, friend or neighbor— someone the child already knew and liked.

Then things got really weird. There was an immense reservoir of belief in North America that underground Satanic cults were kidnapping, ritually abusing and killing children. These fears were fueled by two popular books, Michelle Remembers and Satan’s Underground. Michelle Remembers documented the alleged memories revealed under hypnosis of a woman who had been abused by “The Church of Satan”, which was reputed to have thousands of members and be particularly active in the Pacific Northwest. Lauren Stratford, the author of a memoir titled Satan’s Underground, was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show aired in May of 1989 and introduced as someone who was used in worshipping the devil, participated in human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism.

But these wild stories about satanic worship and infant sacrifice were part of a nationwide panic about child abuse that saw hundreds of people accused and dozens convicted for bizarre crimes that had no basis in reality. Historians believe the ritual abuse panic was sparked by several fraudulent memoirs, like Michelle Remembers and Satan’s Underground. The authors and publishers of these books are responsible for causing thousands of families untold harm. Not only were people falsely accused of ritual child abuse, but thousands of women seeking therapy for depression were led to believe that they had repressed memories of ritual abuse from their childhoods.

A 1992 poll in Utah revealed that over 90% of adults believe that Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) was happening in their state.

But the FBI has never found any evidence of a well-organized satanic cult. Michelle Remembers has been shown to be a hoax by three independent investigators. The abusive events described in the book are based on jazzed up versions of African native rituals. Satan’s Underground has been shown to be a hoax by Evangelical Christian investigators.

Nevertheless, by the late 1980s, various levels of governments, the FBI, state and local law enforcement had spent in excess of $200 million in a fruitless search for these nonexistent groups.

The appeal of the satanic conspiracy theory is twofold:

First, it is a simple explanation for a complex problem. Nothing is more simple than “the devil made them do it”. If we do not understand something, we make it the work of some supernatural force. During the Middle Ages, serial killers were thought to be vampires and werewolves, and child sexual abuse was the work of demons taking the form of parents and clergy. Even today, especially for those raised to religiously believe so, Satanism offers an explanation as to why “good” people do bad things. It may also help to “explain” unusual, bizarre, and compulsive sexual urges and behavior.

“The devil made you do it” helps people to understand and forgive.  This makes it even easier to deal with the child molester who is the “pillar of the community”. It is not his fault; it is not our fault. There is no way we could have known; the devil made him do it. This explanation has tremendous appeal.

“Satanism” is really just the perverse, backward, diversive, violent underbelly of mainstream religion; its strange “satanic rituals”, which include drinking blood, costumes, candles, and incantations, are little different from the holy rites carried out in churches across America. What appears to be “Satanism” is often just ultra-cultish behavior by religious fundamentalists; either those who believe in God but think themselves to be under the influence of Satan, or those who imagine they are doing God’s bidding.

Satanism is an enormously powerful temptation: If there are witches or Satanists in town, suddenly all behavior is permissible because there is a scapegoat. Suddenly we can do whatever we want, make up any kind of stories about the powerful forces who made us do it, against our will, and people will believe us. So if I’ve always a crush on my neighbor’s underage daughter, or homosexual fantasies, or violent urges, I can allow myself to act on these temptations knowing that I’ll be forgiven – both by God and my community.

How do you distinguish acts performed in a precise manner to enhance or allow sexual arousal from those acts that fulfill spiritual needs or comply with “religious” ceremonies?

In a religious content and setting, bad things seem to happen with greater frequency, because people believe that they will. People believe that Satan is tempting people to do terrible things… and paradoxically, these evil things, when blamed on Satan, indirectly ‘prove’ that their faith in god is justified.

People who believe in a supernatural world excuse themselves from all responsibility. Actions are either God’s will, or they are tempted by Satan. This is why successful preachers with thousands of followers can get convicted of child abuse, apologize and have their flock respond with pity, forgiveness and sympathy. Mankind was weak. Satan is powerful. Of course we can’t deal with our temptations. Of course we will fall. It’s in our nature. We can’t help it… the failure of the leader ironically strengthening his grip on his followers by expanding their fear: Satan is real and strong enough to convince this good man to do terrible things. If he fell, how much more easily am I in danger? So I better follow all the crazy rules and do whatever it takes to stay pure.

With God and Satan in the equation, humanity can quickly sink back to prehistoric shamanism, ritual, and nature magic involving expiation of sin, sacrifice, penance. They can be justified for forceful, obscene or ridiculous behavior, working long hours, inflicting physical and psychological pain and abuse.

Somehow, despicable accounts of sexual abuse, when blamed on the maneuverings of Satan, became a proof of the existence of God.

But take God and Satan out of the picture and you just have a sick fuck who likes to touch children, or a violent psychopath (interestingly, in my experience most psychopaths, child molesters or criminals are religious – religious belief and ideology is part of their pathology and justification for their actions.)

Incoming search terms:

• therapist brainwashed woman believing satanic cult (8)
• lisa nasseff (2)
• brainwashes satanist think there vampires (2)
• i dont believe in satanic cults (2)
• hypnotist insert false memories (2)
• satanism (2)
• facebook lisa nasseff (2)

First of all I’d like to point out that Ortega-Hernandez doesn’t seem crazy to me at all. Trying to assassinate President Obama was not a crazy/irrational action. It was the logical consequence of his beliefs – beliefs he shares with millions of other people. He does, however, go to an extreme when he claims to be the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ… I think you could probably make a firm case for narcissism or inflated sense of purpose; and yet feeling that history has a plan and that God is using you for a specific purpose, and is guiding you to it through signs and symbols, is also extremely common for the religious.

Ortega-Hernandez argues that marijuana shouldn’t be illegal and that Americans were forced into conflicts they didn’t choose because of the USA’s ruthless desire for oil. I don’t disagree with him on either point – although I don’t see why Obama is to blame for either.

I expect Ortega-Hernandez is going to be used for a long time in the future as an example cited against marijuana use (“See? Smoking pot leads to Presidential Assassination!”) But religion, faith in God and in Jesus is obviously just as important to Ortega-Hernandez as marijuana… so by the same logic we could argue that religion leads to violent, anti-governmental behavior and should be outlawed.

“You see Oprah?” Ortega-Hernandez says, “There is still so much more that God needs me to express to the world. It’s not just a coincidence that I look like Jesus: I am the modern day Jesus Christ that you all have been waiting for. Please cast me on your show Oprah, I’m begging you, (he actually gets down on his knees) please cast me on your show, it is so crucial that the world hears God’s world, for the fate of humanity, for the fate of the world.”

It’s touching. I feel sorry for the guy; however there are a few gaps in his logic I can’t really forgive, which are these:

1) The AntiChrist is supposed to bring peace; Jesus comes back bringing the wrath of heaven with him. Ortega-Hernandez seems to think Obama is the one creating the violence, and he hopes to restore peace himself… so he’s got things reversed.

2) If Obama IS the AntiChrist, it’s really important for him to finish all his business (one world financial system, mark of the beast, restoration of the Third Temple) before Jesus can come back and push his ass in the pit of fire. If you kill the antichrist and stop him from doing all of this, you’re fucking with God’s plan and stopping the 2nd Coming (If Ortega-Hernandez really was Jesus come back, he would have come back from the heavens without being born and growing up. Duh – it says so in the Bible.)

3) OK, marijuana should be legal. And American foreign policy is vile. But when the world runs out of oil, shit is going to get ugly, fast. Although it may not be the moral thing to do, and although we’re certainly screwing over everybody else, stockpiling oil will insure America’s future. I don’t condone it, but it’s probably a smart, well planned move… like when you’re playing Risk and you take over Australia and just camp there until everybody else kills each other…

Side note: You know who else shot a president recently? The kick-ass heroine of “The Hunger Games”… who, after seeing that nothing was ever going to change, kind of went psycho and assassinated the new president with her bow and arrow. Hardcore. And yet the book is brilliant, and we sympathize with her… which means that A) sometimes murdering a leader is the only way for real change B) it isn’t necessarily evil C) even though most people will never understand it and call you a criminal. Worth thinking about… especially in light of modern Middle-Eastern revolutions (which, unfortunately, have taken a turn for the worst with Chaos allowing conservative Muslims the chance to take over and implement stupid and archaic gender discrimination laws.)

Anyway, watch the video.

Incoming search terms:

• the 2nd coming (6)
• obama as antichrist (4)
• obama antichrist (3)
• christ 2nd coming (3)
• Obama Anti-Christ (2)
• 2nd coming of christ (2)
• was jesus white (2)

Uriah refused, claiming a code of honor with his fellow warriors while they were in battle. It was common for warriors in preparation for battle to abstain from sex, as a practice of discipline. After repeatedly refusing to see his wife Bathsheba, David sent Uriah to his commanding officer Joab with a letter that ordered to put Uriah in the front of the battle and have the soldiers move away from him so that he would be killed.

What does this story remind you of? Oh that’s right, the exact some scenario is played out in “The Man in the Mask”. Di Caprio (King Louis XIV) takes the wife of one of his soldiers and orders the man put into danger as a way of getting rid of him.

Here’s what you should be asking yourself: in the Hollywood version, this aldulterous, murdering creep was the villain. In the Bible, he is the hero. Although he is reprimanded and loses his first child as punishment, God still blesses him and his dynasty; his second child (with the wife he stole) is Solomon, who will found the first Jewish Temple.

If God wanted to choose someone worthy to start a covenant with, why are all the examples in the Old Testament of liars, cheats, murderers, magicians and demon-summoners?

On the other hand, we could point out that the story is just really good literature - which should make us suspect whether or not it ever really happened. More likely, the entire concoction is a re-telling of classical fables to make the story of David (which was probably really boring and ordinary) more fantastic and worth listening to.

Incoming search terms:

• king david vs galith printable pictures (2)
• king david versus (2)
• king david the soldier (2)
• king david in the bible (2)
• king david and galiathe pic (2)
• david putting uriah in the front of battle (2)
• what happened to king david in the bible (2)