If you haven’t guessed yet since this is the second song I’ve posted from this band, I really do like Reign of Kindo, complex, artful, and just plain good.
Here’s the rundown so you can listen to more or buy some of their albums or tunes:
Joseph Secchiaroli (guitar/vocals)
Steven Padin (drums/vocals)
Kelly Sciandra (piano/rvocals)
Michael Carroll (guitar/percussion/sizes)
Jeffery Jarvis (bass/vocals)
A panel discussion of the drivers and restrainers to building new Nuclear Energy plants in the US. The panel is well rounded with Stewart Brand, Michael Brune and Industry represtentation.This is part one of five, the others are in order after it.
Within some extreme fundamentalist sects of Islam there’s a doctrine known as “Takfirism” – it’s most often used by terrorists like Ayman Al Zawhari, or by fundamentalist schools to justify killing other muslims through declaring them apostate. To boil it down to simple terms, on one pretext or another (your beard was trimmed to you played a music CD, etc, ) a person is declared Takfir and branded as apostate, and for the more extreme fundamentalists apostates are subject to death as punishment. To put it in simplest terms you are declared a heretic by someone who claims to be holier than you in your own faith.
For real Takfir most real scholars believe that the person who becomes Takfir must make a declaration of such or an open denial of some major component of their faith, you become Takfir through your own declaration or decision, not the declaration or or decision of another.
What’s this got to do with you and I?
In an earlier article I pointed out how Fox is either a sucker for the most fundamentalist views in Christianity, or they are are actively promoting those over mainstream Christian views, take your pick. In the US these fundamentalists use a similar “holier than thou” stance to brand anyone who doesn’t promote exact, literal, biblical inerrancy as a heretic and to cast them out. (Note that none of these extremist Christians are so wrapped up in their own rhetoric that they think killing due to this is justified as some off flavor Salafi and Wahhabists in Islam do.)
Here’s another example as a followup to my earlier post, to demonstrate how intolerant these fringes really are and how ABC news is also a sucker for the extremists just like Fox:
In this segment they bring in notable Answers in Genesis whack ball Ken Ham try to refute the guy. You might remember Ken from the infamous “Creationism Museum” in KY, you know the one where they imply that all black people are cursed.
While Lord Monckton might be good at devising Sudoku puzzles, you sure don’t want to seek his advice on anything to do with either science or politics since he’s demonstrably a consummate and nearly pathological liar when it comes to those two arenas.
He’s hopped on the climate denialist bandwagon, and there are many examples of untruths, hyperbole, and amazing claims in his body of statements on climate science, and he even managed to sucker me before I knew much about him [back here — one of those posts I really regret having created, followup is embedded in an update in the original post and here.]
Another bizarre example – he claims to be a member of the House of Lords, even though the House of Lords has stated that:
“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”
Indeed, the only time Fraud Monckton ran for house of Lords he received zero votes.
Peter Sinclair at Climate Denial Crock of the Week has a two part series debunking the Snake Oil that Fraud Monckton is pimping, if you haven’t seen Part one, stop by LGF , and here is part II:
There are several views on whether skeptics should get involved or not over the latest revelations regarding the Pope’s seeming complicity or knowledge of the Church’s retention of priests who had molested children in the past. Hitchens and Dawkins are for investigating whether the Pope should be arrested, Phil Plait says Skeptics should tread lightly and persuade through reason rather than attack, and fellow Kansan Josh Rosenau agrees.
Below you can see Dawkins defending his call, and I’ll chime in afterward about why I disagree with all of them to minor extents.
As the reporter demonstrates this is an emotional issue for many people, and Phil is correct when he says we need to tread lightly as skeptics. On the other hand his argument goes astray with me because skeptics should always speak up and ask “why” when Supernatural claims of sovereignty are used as shields from the laws the rest of us must live within. Calling for an investigation does make sense however Hitchens and Dawkins calling for it strikes an odd note.
As a skeptic when you see special legal handling or indications of special legal handling for religious institutions and persons you should always point that out, and if warranted, call for an investigation.
The Pope, as head of the Catholic Church, enjoys a certain amount of immunity to normal laws — let’s face it: if this were the head of the army, or the head of GM, or anyone else in any other position you would see the masses with their torches and pitchforks storming the castle by now, and you would see prosecutors in many jurisdictions clamoring to get the culprit first. You would not see it drag out over decades, nor would people put up with a double spin cycle of repeating events. I gave the last pass I was going to give during the last round of scandals regarding this — it’s not going to happen again.
The hint of Papal immunity is what rubs most skeptics the wrong way in this case. It’s a smack in the face to America, and the principles we were founded upon when it is truly exercised. It denies reason, the reformation, the renaissance, and the end to tyranny through religious justification that our country truly represents.
Underneath every monarch, king, or historical tyrant lies some justification through religious woo as to why that person’s family is noble and none others are, and why they therefor deserve to rule. Whether it’s the Dalai Lama, The Pope, or some imagined Caliph to be, they are all justified by religious supernatural claim, and that is where they must be challenged. So I will not be meek, I say the pope should be investigated.
I say that it appears that the Pope is receiving prosecutorial inaction here here others might instead receive action due to his claim of supernatural sovereignty and the diplomatic treatment he receives. In reality he is no different than you or I, and is not above our laws.
Unlike Hitchens and Dawkins however I don’t think it’s the UK or international courts where this belongs, or if it even belongs in court yet. The Pope’s actions and inaction do need investigation, not in the UK but rather with the State of California and in particular the City of Oakland investigators*. It is there were the string of correspondence regarding this originated, and it is there where the child molesting Priest was part of the Diocese. So City of Oakland and State of California is where the matter belongs because they have the factual standing and it does not belong in the UK.
Since it’s not clear that the Pope is obstructing justice from just the one letter it does seem to me that either California or City of Oakland ought to investigate further, subpoena all of the correspondence, and relook at the cases during the appropriate timeframe to discover if there was obstruction or failure to report issues.
Note to the Vatican travel office: it’s probably best not to route the Pope through OAK anytime soon. So in a nutshell where I am at is here: Skeptics should be calling for further investigation by proper authorities, my respect for all of the skeptics above is immense, however I disagree with them a bit on this one.
Update: Ack! It appears I am in the PZ camp on this matter.
*Update II: It appears that Munich also has a bit more reason for the civil authorities to investigate or react to the Pope’s response than other areas as well.
Here’s an attempt to manipulate perspective at the edge of the road in the desert.
The real problem of this photo is that it was taken in Spring, and really doesn’t look like full desert because everything to the right or left of the area I cropped to was blooming or green.
