Global Peace Index: We’re 96th! We’re 96th!

Iran, U.S. have something in common: Both rank high in violence, By BARRY SCHWEID, ASSOCIATED PRESS

The United States placed 96th [in an assessment of the peacefulness of 121 countries] and Iran came in 97th on the global index released Wednesday by researchers at the Economist magazine.

“The United States suffers because it is the world’s policeman, with high levels of militarization,” Andrew Williamson, the director for economic research, said in an interview. …

Norway was rated at the country most at peace, followed by New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and Japan. Iraq was in last place, with Sudan and Israel just above. …

Western Europe was rated the world’s most peaceful region, although France was ranked 34th and the United Kingdom 49th. …

About 24 indicators were used, including wars fought in the last five years, arms sales, prison populations and incidence of crime. …

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070531/NEWS07/70531018/1009

Following the Masters

The Writer’s Almanac from American Public Media

Leaves of Grass came out on July 4th 1855. Whitman paid for its publication himself and arranged for it to be sold in different formats, at different prices, to reach as wide an audience as possible. He anonymously wrote wildly enthusiastic reviews of the book himself. He said: “The public is a thick-skinned beast and you have to keep whacking away at its hide to let it know you’re there.” But despite all of his efforts, he sold only 10 copies of the first edition, and gave away the rest.”

http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2007/05/28/#thursday

Who am I to argue with Whitman. Gotta go check my Amazon rank and write myself a wildly enthusiastic review. mjh

The Village Idiot

During a Rose Garden news conference on Thursday, President Bush was asked by New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg why Osama bin Laden is still at large. Bush responded:

Why is he at large? Because we haven’t got him yet, Jim. That’s why. And he’s hiding, and we’re looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We’ve brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That’s why he’s still at large. He’s not out there traipsing around, he’s not leading many parades, however. He’s not out feeding the hungry. He’s isolated, trying to kill people to achieve his objective.”

Stop Fighting

There is a chance — a hope — that one day humankind will grow up and stop killing each other en mass. Perhaps, we will all finally recognize war as futile madness. I think there is a slightly better chance we will completely destroy ourselves first. peace, mjh

Last Week’s WTF?!

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor
Wolves Terrorizing Catron County

MEXICAN WOLF program personnel are the ones flagrantly and regularly breaking federal laws and regulations and thereby causing intolerable endangerment in Catron County as the people are made to tow the line in all areas regarding safety for wolves.

There are many similarities between dumping killer predators in people’s yards and commandeering airplanes and flying them into buildings. In both cases the targets are people, not government.

These federal functionaries who illegally and/or unsafely dump killer predators are not attacking the U.S. government. They are attacking average citizens in our homes and on our properties. …

Will the Department of Justice explain why cover-ups and the breaking of federal law and rules leading to illegal predator dumping is not terrorism, and why they are shirking their duty? Will the U.S. attorney explain to the world why planned and deliberate acts of terror directed against the people are of no concern to his office, if indeed, that is the case?

MARY MACNAB
Blue, Ariz.

A few years ago, conservative loonies feared The New World Order, enforced by jackbooted thugs, black helicopters and UN forces. Before that, the bogeyman was a communist. (Why do we let the fearful set our agenda?)

This is what happens when we engage in a war without end against a faceless enemy that could be anywhere, anytime (look over your shoulder, look under your bed). Terrorism is the new name for anything you don’t like. It’s becoming meaningless, as are the conservatives. mjh

From One Member of the 2%: Don’t be angry, be cool

I could do without the war metaphors. Human history is a slow struggle out of ignorance and towards comprehension. Shedding religion will just be another step in our maturation. We also need to outgrow the madness of War and find a way to control our inherent anger. You can’t rage for peace; you can’t be mad for reason. Calm down and wake up. mjh

Angry Atheists Are Hot Authors By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer [mjh: the alliteration calls for “ABLE Authors” or “Acute”]

[B]elievers far outnumber nonbelievers in America. In an 2005 AP-Ipsos poll on religion, only 2 percent of U.S. respondents said they did not believe in God. Other surveys concluded that 14 percent of Americans consider themselves secular, a term that can include believers who say they have no religion.” …

The time for polite debate is over. Militant, atheist writers are making an all-out assault on religious faith and reaching the top of the best-seller list, a sign of widespread resentment over the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.

Christopher Hitchens’ book, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” has sold briskly ever since it was published last month, and his debates with clergy are drawing crowds at every stop.

Sam Harris was a little-known graduate student until he wrote the phenomenally successful “The End of Faith” and its follow-up, “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Richard Dawkins'”The God Delusion” and Daniel Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” struck similar themes — and sold.

“There is something like a change in the Zeitgeist,” Hitchens said, noting that sales of his latest book far outnumber those for his earlier work that had challenged faith. “There are a lot of people, in this country in particular, who are fed up with endless lectures by bogus clerics and endless bullying.”

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said the books’ success reflect a new vehemence in the atheist critique.

“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” Mouw said, “but it’s almost like they all had a meeting and said, ‘Let’s counterattack.'”

The war metaphor is apt. The writers see themselves in a battle for reason in a world crippled by superstition. In their view, Muslim extremists, Jewish settlers and Christian right activists are from the same mold, using fairy tales posing as divine scripture to justify their lust for power. Bad behavior in the name of religion is behind some of the most dangerous global conflicts and the terrorist attacks in the U.S., London and Madrid, the atheists say.

As Hitchens puts it: “Religion kills.”[mjh: gods don’t kill people, people kill people.]

Given the popularity of the anti-religion books so far, publishers are expected to roll out even more in the future. Lynn Garrett, senior religion editor for Publishers Weekly, says religion has been one of the fastest-growing categories in publishing in the last 15 years, and the rise of books by atheists is “the flip-side of that.”

“It was just the time,” she said, “for the atheists to take the gloves off.”
– – – – –

Is Atheism Just a Rant Against Religion?
Humanists Say Atheists Need to Offer More Vision Than Rhetoric, By Benedicta Cipolla, Religion News Service

Despite its minority status, atheism has enjoyed the spotlight of late, with several books that feature vehement arguments against religion topping the bestseller lists.

But some now say secularists should embrace more than the strident rhetoric poured out in such books as “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins and “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris. By devoting so much space to explaining why religion is bad, these critics argue, atheists leave little room for explaining how a godless worldview can be good.

At a recent conference marking the 30th anniversary of Harvard’s humanist chaplaincy, organizers sought to distance the “new humanism” from the “new atheism.”

Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein went so far as to use the (other) f-word in describing his unbelieving brethren.

“At times they’ve made statements that sound really problematic, and when Sam Harris says science must destroy religion, to me that sounds dangerously close to fundamentalism,” Epstein said in an interview after the meeting. “What we need now is a voice that says, ‘That is not all there is to atheism.’ ”

Although the two can overlap, atheism represents a statement about the absence of belief and is thus defined by what it is not. Humanism seeks to provide a positive, secular framework for leading ethical lives and contributing to the greater good. The term “humanist” emerged with the “Humanist Manifesto” of 1933, a nonbinding document summarizing the movement’s principles.

“Atheists are somewhat focused on the one issue of atheism, not looking at how to move forward,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the Washington-based American Humanist Association. While he appreciates the way the new atheists have raised the profile of nonbelievers, he said humanists differ by their willingness to collaborate with religious leaders on various issues. “Working with religion,” he said, “is not what [atheists] are about.” …

The suggestion that atheists may be fundamentalists in their own right has, unsurprisingly, ruffled feathers.

“We’re not a unified group,” said Christopher Hitchens, author of the latest atheist bestseller, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”

“But we’re of one mind on this: The only thing that counts is free inquiry, science, research, the testing of evidence, the uses of reason, irony, humor and literature, things of this kind. Just because we hold these convictions rather strongly does not mean this attitude can be classified as fundamentalist,” Hitchens said.

Distinguishing between strong opinion and trying to impose atheism on others, Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., also finds “fundamentalist” a misnomer. Instead, he faults atheists for preferring black-and-white simplicity to a more nuanced view of religion.

“Religion is a human construction, and as such it will exhibit the best and worst of humanity. They throw the baby out with the bath water in certain instances,” he said.

The humanists are taking advantage of renewed interest in atheism — in effect riding the coattails of Dawkins and Harris into the mainstream — to gain attention for their big-tent model. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, the share of American adults who do not subscribe to any religion increased from 8 percent in 1990 to more than 14 percent in 2001.

While only a small portion of the nearly 30 million “unaffiliateds” might describe themselves as atheist, Epstein, from Harvard, sees humanism appealing to skeptics, agnostics and those who maintain only cultural aspects of religion. …

More than a kinder, gentler strain of atheism, humanism seeks to propose a more expansive worldview.

“Atheists don’t really ask the question, what are the vital needs that religion meets? They give you the sense that religion is the enemy, which is absurd,” said Ronald Aronson, professor of humanities at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“There are some questions we secularists have to answer: Who am I, what am I, what can I know? Unless we can answer these questions adequately for ourselves and for others, we can’t expect people to even begin to be interested in living without God.” [mjh: I disagree. I have questions without answers but no need for god and no interest in god other than in understanding other humans. I am not just “interested in living without god,” I am doing so every damn day.]

For equal time, hold your nose and read the sarcastic wit of the Washington Times, god’s own paper:

Revival time with the village atheist Wesley Pruden, editor in chief of The Times

The jobs don’t pay a lot, and you take most of your pay in self-esteem, but somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they’re one and the same.

Lately we’ve seen fresh pursuit of these positions, fueled by a rash of books about atheism, or more accurately, irrational screeds mocking those who have the faith the authors clearly envy. Atheists are organizing. They have their registered lobbyist now on Capitol Hill, and they’re planning a revival meeting in Arlington in September. …

Merely driving by a church to shake a fist at the steeple on a Sunday morning is no longer enough to make an atheist tingle. [mjh: LOL!]
– – – – –

Desicritics.org: The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, the author of the NY Times bestseller – The God Delusion – has been interviewed many a time recently. The questions asked were mainly related to his book, the views on atheism, morality and present world.

He answered all questions in a flawless and confident way. Each and every answer speaks about his passion and eagerness to explain his stance on every point. It’s an amazing experience to watch him speak. I have tried to pick up a few commonly asked questions and his answers on different topics.

Why are you against faith?

Because, I am a kind of person who cares about the Truth. The religion and any sort of dogma are the biggest obstacle against the Truth. Not only that, I am worried about the position religion enjoys in our society. You can attack other’s political view, criticize a football coach but cannot attack one’s religious faith. It’s a kind of immunity from criticism that religion enjoys, despite being proven to be mostly illogical.

[mjh: I agree with Kahlil Gibran: “Say not, ‘I have found the truth,’ but rather, ‘I have found a truth.’]

Bible Literalism is Voluntary Ignorance

If you believe the universe is only a few thousand years old, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion or perspective. This is willful ignorance. This is choosing to be stupid. That is one’s choice, but unbearable to witness. mjh

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The Denver Post – Museum’s biblical take on “history”
Exhibit opens to public Monday
By Dylan T. Lovan, The Associated Press

Most scientists say there’s a gulf of millions of years between humans and the giant lizards, but according to the Creation Museum, they lived in harmony a few thousand years ago. It’s part of the literal interpretation of the Bible adopted by Ham and other creationists.

“People are just fascinated by dinosaurs, but they’ve sort of become synonymous with millions of years and evolution,” he said.

Evolution is derided at the 60,000- square-foot facility, packed with high-tech exhibits designed by an acclaimed theme-park artist, animatronic dinos and a huge wooden ark. In this Old Testament version of history, dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

A Colorado group offers a similar take on area museums. Littleton- based Biblically Correct Tours, founded in 1988, offers religious tours of secular sites, such as the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

The Kentucky museum’s displays include fossils, hung in large glass cases. Ham said most fossils were created by the massive flood detailed in the book of Genesis.

“The Bible doesn’t talk about fossils, but it gives you a basis for understanding why there are fossils around the world,” he said. [mjh: what a curious equivocation, to take the Bible literally but then fill in gaps as needed. Why not just say there is no such thing as a fossil because the Bible doesn’t mention them?]

Ham said the stories of the Bible are supported by science, a notion that has drawn the ire of science educators across the country.

“They make such a point of trying to make it appear scientific,” said Lawrence Krauss, a physics professor, author and critic of the museum. “Instead of shying away from those things that clearly disprove what they’re trying to say, they use those things for deception.”