Have a great weekend

I'm off to Niagara Falls on Saturday for some work, blackjack and hopefully a fine vegan meal. Then its off to Orchard Park, NY to see the Miami Dolphins slaughter the Buffalo Bills. The Dolphins are 3.5 point favorites - don't try to beat the spread on this one. I foresee Ricky Williams having a big day ......

Francione vs. Narveson

I have received some feedback from those who are tired of my promoting veganism on this site. To be blunt, they are offended (and perhaps disturbed) by the suggestion that their consumption of animal products is immoral. They get the impression that I am somehow speaking down to them or think less of them because they choose to continue consuming animals. This is unfortunate because I would never adopt a "holier than thou" stance on this issue. I consumed animals for over 41 years and I am hoping to last at least another 41 on the other side of the fence. I have been persuaded by the philosophical arguments which have been presented by Gary Francione (pictured above), Peter Singer, Stephen Law, Richard Ryder, Gary Steiner and others on this issue. My hope is that others will follow suit and I agree with Professor Francione's view that the wave of public opinion seems to be shifting towards greater acceptance of veganism.

All that being said, consumption of animal products in our society is so pervasive that veganism will likely be considered a freakish approach for the remainder of my lifetime. In the words of University of Waterloo philosopher Jan Narveson (pictured below), most people think it is "weird" to foreswear animal consumption on moral grounds. However, I think it is safe to say that Narveson is in the distinct minority among moral philosophers on this issue.

If this issue interests you, you will enjoy listening to a recent debate between Professors Francione and Narveson on The State We're In which is broadcast by Radio Netherlands:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/mp3/tswi_animal_rights_090328_20090328_44_1kHz.mp3

I am not an impartial observer but I would score this an an intellectual TKO by Francione.

Postscript - I should add that I am a newbie when it comes to veganism and this is not something that I intend to force on my family. My wife is concerned about the health implications of a vegan diet and I am the first to admit that I don't know whether abstaining from the consumption of all animal products is the "best" dietary choice for adults and/or children. I intend to keep an open mind on this issue and, indeed, it was my open mind that led me to accept the philosophical argument in support of veganism.

Calling an ace an ace and a spade a spade

I would like to send out a hand of applause to Dutch philosopher Floris van den Berg (pictured right). Writing in the October/November 2009 issue of Free Enquiry (a magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism), van den Berg reviewed a book called Forced Into Faith by Innaiah Narisetti. Here is a highlight from the review:

For liberals, this area [i.e. religious education of children] is considered mostly a private matter and therefore not a topic for moral concern. This is a grave mistake. Liberalism (and humanism) should take the action of the individual as its core concern. No individual has the right to limit the freedom of other individuals. Children are not the property of their parents. Parents have no right to force their children into their faith. Education and upbringing should be free from religion. ... There should be widespread consensus that it is immoral to speak to children as belonging to a particular religion, just as it is wrong to speak of children as beloning to a political party or an ideology.

van den Berg was taken to task by a reader in the current issue of Free Inquiry who was "disgusted" by the totalitarian suggestion that the state intervene to prevent religious indoctrination of children. The editors granted van den Berg the opportunity to respond and he did so with a rapier intellect:

It is an inconvenient liberal paradox: how to handle intolerance without resorting to intolerant means? Secular humanists take individual liberty as a core value. Religious parenting and education limit children's freedom and expose them to falsehoods ...

Liberalism and secular humanism seem to have ignored the subjection of children to closed-minded, illiberal parents. When one would argue that parents have a right to impose whatever nonsense they believe on their children and instill them with irrational taboos, then tolerance means tolerating intolerance. When there is awareness about the vulnerability of children, the question is: what to do about it? For secular humanists, totalitarian means are off limits, but nevertheless we should try to secure the freedom of individuals, including children. There should be compulsory secular, science-based state-run education so that all children are equally free to learn about the world and objective knowledge disseminated about religions. Homeschooling, which often is an excuse for religious indoctrination should be forbidden.

It is hard to monitor family life, and the state should not try to do that (except in brutal cases of, for example, (female) circumcision), but there should be a cultural Gestalt switch that is thrown when people say they raise their children religiously. It is not religion that should be respected but the freedom (and well-being) of individuals, including children.

Bravo Floris!

I believe because I believe because I believe

From time to time I post links to stories of unimaginable tragedy involving children because I believe they provide the most vivid evidence against a deity that actively intervenes in the affairs of humanity.

After a 15 month toddler plummeted to his death at Toronto's Pearson airport, one observer remarked: "You were meant to be safe in Mummy's arms. Now you are safe in God's." My response is that if your god couldn't keep a child safe in his mother's arms, he/she/it is impotent. When these situations arise, there are only two conceivable conclusions:

1. There is no Judeo-Christian god; or

2. There is a Judeo-Christian god and he is infinitely evil.

Religious believers will object at this point and suggest a third alternative, namely that god works in "mysterious ways". This explanation can also be paraphrased as follows: I believe because I believe because I believe. No matter what tragedies unfold I will not be shaken from my delusion belief that there is a supernatural being who actively intervenes in the world.

The story can be found at the Toronto Star's website: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/729849--toddler-gone-in-an-instant?bn=1

Veganism makes sense if you are willing to give the issue some thought

Here is a great New York Times op-ed piece on veganism by philosopher Gary Steiner: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=opinion

This is the most straightforward discussion I have seen regarding the issue. It explains why I have given up the use of animal products after 41 years. If you give the issue any thought at all, it's a remarkably easy decision to make.

I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!

I am an atheist and a father of three young children. I don't indoctrinate my children with my disbelief and I certainly don't go around telling other people's kids that god is likely a figment of their parents' imaginations. So you can imagine how pleased I was last night as I was walking around a public Christmas light display when a couple tried to hand each of my children a million dollar bill with a picture of Santa Claus (pictured above) with the following message:

He’s making a list, he’s checking it twice... he’s gonna find out who’s naughty or nice! If Santa used the Ten Commandments for his standard, how would you do? Let's find out... Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen anything? (No matter the value.) Ever used God's name in vain? Ever hated anybody? The Bible says “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer”

If you are guilty of these things, it shows that in your heart, you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, murderer-at- heart. Many people don't know that God will use the Ten Commandments to judge the world. Forget about Santa, "naughty" and "nice"... how will you do on Judgment Day? If you are found guilty, that means an eternity in Hell... 2,000 years ago, God sent Jesus to the earth to pay for your sins. When Jesus died on the cross, He took the punishment that you deserve for breaking His Law (The Ten Commandments). God's wrath came down on Jesus, instead of on you. The Bible says, "God commands all men everywhere to repent, because God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness."

Remember if you try to get to Heaven on your own, you must keep every Commandment in thought, word, and deed! Jesus paid the penalty for your sins on the cross. Then He defeated the power of sin and death when He rose from the dead. Repent (turn away) from your sins. Place your faith in Jesus Christ alone to save you. God will grant you eternal life. Read your Bible daily and obey what you read.

These "Santa bills" are a perfect example of how religiots have to start indoctrinating at kids at an early age in order to sell their twisted message. I had seen this rag earlier this week when it was dropped off at my house. That merely irritated me. However, to have someone attempt to hand deliver this mental diarrhea directly to my kids set me off. I curtly told the bible thumpers that they were entitled to believe whatever they want but that I wanted them to stay away from my house and my kids. The lead thumper seemed to enjoy my reaction and began telling me how we are all sinners in the eyes of his god. I just shook my head because I have had a long week of dealing with people with head injuries and advanced stages of dementia - those people are much easier to reason with than bibleists in the grip of religious delusion.

As we walked back to our van, I was dismayed to see dozens of little kids walking around waving their "Santa bills", their parents clearly oblivious to the bent message. However, as we drove away, my wife and I had a good laugh as we watched one young mother stop to read it. The expression of shock on her face was worth a thousand words.

Thought for the day

"It is an odd fact of evolution that we are the only species on Earth capable of creating science and philosophy. There easily could have been another species with some scientific talent, say that of the average human ten-year-old, but not as much as adult humans have; or one that is better than us at physics but worse at biology; or one that is better than us at everything. If there were such creatures all around us, I think we would be more willing to concede that human scientific intelligence might be limited in certain respects." Colin McGinn

BTW, if you haven't cliff dived at Horseshoe Lake at Jasper National Park in Alberta, Canada (pictured above), please add it to your bucket list.

Imagine a world devoid of religion ....

I am saddened by the fact that this video has been posted on youtube for well over 2 years and (at the time of this posting) still had less than 5000 views:

Punishing children for the sins of their parents

Does God punish children for their parents' sins? Exodus 20:5 (KJV) answers this question in the affirmative:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Of course, passages can be found that contradict the divine multi-generational grudge. Deuteronomy 24:16 tells us that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Ezekial 18:20 tells us that the son shall not bear the guilt of the father.

Because I am a sucker for punishment, I will occasionally visit Christian apologetic sites in (usually futile) attempts to poke holes in their bubbles of delusion. However, surely no sane person would try to defend the visiting of harm on children for the wrongs of their parents. Think again: : https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4764946987133813099&postID=7564157453935138382

I'll never be able to eat a candy cane again

I swear I don't make this stuff up.

This note was left in a photocopier in the teacher's lunchroom at our local Roman Catholic elementary school:

Candy Cane Poem

This goes very well with the Jesus Candy Cane Necklace!

Look at a CANDY CANE, what do you see?

Stripes that are RED like the BLOOD shed for me!

WHITE for my Savior, Who's sinless and pure!

"J" is for JESUS, My Lord that's for sure!

Turn it around And a staff you will see --

Jesus, my SHEPHERD, is coming for me!

I know that I shouldn't be surprised to see this kind of mental diarrhea at a religious school. However, if I were to teach my kids this kind of bunk without reference to Jesus, they would be apprehended by our local child welfare authorities or I would be locked up in a psychiatric ward, or more likely both.

I don't believe in bibles either ... Sunday atheist prayer

I am just getting into Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. Here are a couple of great quotes:

"I don't believe in bibles: no book has a monopoly of truth".

"If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration."

My Sunday atheist prayer is that people stop wasting their time reading religious tomes and start spending more time studying moral philosophy.

Without God Nothing is Impossible

The title of this post in inspired by a book written by the late Canadian philanthropist Murray Dryden. Dryden's book was entitled With God Nothing is Impossible.

I doubt whether many of you have heard of Dryden but you might be familiar with his son, NHL Hall of Famer and Canadian Member of Parliament Ken Dryden. In any event, Murray and his wife Margaret founded a charity in 1970 called Sleeping Children Around the World (SCAW). SCAW has a simple goal: they supply bedkits to impoverished children in underdeveloped and developing countries around the world. Administrative costs are fully covered by an endowment set up by Murray and distributions are performed by volunteers so 100% of each donation reaches the needy. For a $35 donation, SCAW will provide a bedkit that consists of a mat or matress, pillow, sheet, blanket, mosquito net (if applicable), an outfit of clothing, towel and school supplies.

Donations are fully tax deductible (at least in Canada) and, as a nice marketing touch, SCAW will mail you a photograph with the child who received your gift and a label with the donor's name. The picture above was taken during a distribution by SCAW in Mumbai, India in 2007.

SCAW came to my attention today at the mall when I noticed a table staffed by a couple elderly women from one of our local United Churches. I told them (only half jokingly) that it was nice to see some good finally being done in the name of religion. They took my barb with good nature and we had a nice chat about atheism. They were typical passive protestant churchgoers - they feel that society is better off with Christianity but, in their heart of hearts, they don't really believe any of the canons of their supposed faith. In any event, after perusing their material, I was impressed by the fact that SCAW provides bedkits to childen of any children who will benefit the most. That sounded good to me and I was happy to plunk down my 35 bucks.

As I departed with my 4 year old son in tow, I was pleased to hear the ladies continuing their discussion about how belief in God has nothing to do with philanthropy.

The next time you have $35 to spare for a great cause, please consider the SCAW and you can tell them TAM sent you: http://www.scaw.org/index.html

Jesus continues to be ridiculed ....

Imagine that you're a Christian who wants to get a letter to the editor published in as many newspapers across North America as you can. How do you do it? Just send the following letter to the editors and describe yourself as living in the community where they publish:

Fairbanks, Alaska - Daily News - Miner

Letters to Editor - November 11, 2009

OUR HERITAGE

Today, we as a nation will pause to honor those who fought to protect our country and especially its Christian heritage.

As we reflect on the supreme sacrifices our soldiers made for us, we should call to mind the sad fact that we have largely failed in our duty to be worthy heralds of their distinguished legacy.

Today, unlike in past times, religious sentiments are increasingly ranked among the unwelcome leftovers of antiquity. Symbols such as the cross, the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes and even the name God are being held up to scorn and ridicule. Everything in public life risks being desanctified — people, places, pledges, prayers, practices, words, sacred writings, religious formulae, symbols and ceremonies.

As religious life grows diffident, we see the most momentous matters placed among trifles, and trivialities are glorified. Values and norms that held societies together and drew people to higher ideals are laughed at and thrown overboard. Jesus continues to be ridiculed.

Where our soldiers fought bravely so that we might have a better future, our generation lacks true concern for the future. This is evident in our over-use of resources, the degradation of the environment, the oppression of women, the neglect of family values, the ignoring of ethical norms and the abandonment of religious traditions.

On Nov. 11, let us pause to honor the fallen. Let us also pause to evaluate our own lives — the Christian lives our soldiers won for us.

Terry Lucas, Fairbanks

I noticed this piece of crap in my local newspaper so I googled a few phrases from the article because I was skeptical of its originality. Apparently, Mr. (or Ms.) Lucas also resides in:

Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Huntsville, Ontario, Canada

Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada
Dallas, Texas

Denver, Colorado

Columbus, Ohio

Tacoma, Washington
Ganteng, South Africa
Dublin, Ireland

You get the picture ....

Effluent belief systems ... no, that's not a typo

There is plenty of garbage to be found on the internet but, every once in a while, you happen upon a diamond in the rough: http://thejaywalker.com/pages/shit_happens.html

What's the fuss all about?

I don't know why there is a furor over Indian villagers treating a turtle like a god: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2009-11/11/content_8948492.htm At least the turtle exists. Is praying to baby Jesus any more rational?

A devilish explanation for the density of creationist thinking

Ex-creationist Glenn Morton has proposed a thought experiment in which a demon stands at the gate of the mind of creationists and other anti-evolutionists that only allows in evidence confirming their world view, and shuts out any disconfirming evidence. It is this demon that allows them to maintain their world view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Morton's demon is derived from Maxwell's demon and is described below:

[Scottish physicist James Clerk] Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.


Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.


The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs [i.e. Young Earth Creationists] have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: a3bv4t$v2m$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.


Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.


However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.


The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!


He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.


But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.
But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy--he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.
Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

Copyright 2002, 2004 G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.


This article was originally posted on Talk Origins. Glenn Morton then posted it on his website at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm. It is provided here by permission of the author. Glenn Morton is a former young earth creationist, who has written for young earth organizations. This gives him a unique perspective into the world of young earth creationism.

Moral Schizophrenics .... meet Gary Francione

[Disclaimer - the purpose of this post is not to moralize or to convince anyone that they are somehow morally deficient for choosing to consume animal products. On the contrary, the purpose of this post is to simply to discuss how my own moral mindfulness has led me to the inexorable conclusion that veganism is the preferable moral baseline. Like any moral decision, choosing to abstain from the consumption of animal products is a choice people make for themselves - not a choice foisted on them by others. In any event, if you are willing to consider the issue, I suspect that you are already more than half way there - TAM]

I would like to introduce you to one of the most compelling and thought provoking moral philosophers alive today. His name is Gary Francione and he is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University. Professor Francione promotes an approach towards animal welfare which:

(1) requires the abolition of animal exploitation and rejects the regulation of animal exploitation;

(2) is based only on animal sentience and no other cognitive characteristic. Basically, he regards all sentient animals as moral persons with an interest in life, as opposed to the "animal welfare" approach which suggests that animals are only entitled to minimization of suffering;

(3) regards veganism as the moral baseline of the animal rights position; and

(4) rejects all violence and promotes activism in the form of creative, non-violent vegan education. He explains how it is idiotic for animal rights advocates to attack the suppliers (for example, laboratories which conduct animal testing) when they should be concentrating on reducing the demand for animal products.

Professor Francione's work is not merely interesting - it is downright intriguing. For example, he has pointed out the moral schizophrenia of those who criticize NFL player Michael Vick's participation in dog-fighting while continuing to eat meat. He has also pointed out that we would think it is absurd to talk about humane rape or humane concentration camps. By showing people that they already consider animals to be part of their moral community, he opens our eyes to the hypocrisy of promoting animal welfare while continuing to endorse the use of animal products.

We live in a society where use of animal products has become so pervasive that the thought of veganism is considered almost freakish to the average joe. People like Professor Francione are changing these attitudes with persuasive and methodical reasoning. If you have half an hour to spare, I urge you to check out what he has to say:










If you would like to learn more about the abolitionist approach, please visit Professor Francione's website: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/

Notwithstanding the disclaimer above, please consider converting to veganism. As Francione explains on his site: veganism is not merely a matter of diet or lifestyle. Veganism is your personal expression of your endorsement of the abolitionist approach.

Veganism means that you do not eat any animal products—no meat, fish, chicken or other birds, dairy, eggs, or honey. It means that you do not wear fur, leather, wool, or silk, and that you do not use products that contain animal by-products or that have been tested on animals.
Every person who goes vegan results in a decrease in demand for animal products. [my emphasis]

Veganism is something that each of us can do now. No campaign, legislation, litigation, is required. You can just do it. It is completely within your control.

And it is easy. It’s just a matter of really taking nonhuman animals seriously and not just saying that you take them seriously. It’s just a matter of recognizing that whatever pleasure you get from a steak or ice cream cone, or wearing a leather coat, it cannot possibly justify inflicting pain, suffering, and death on an animal.

Giving up flesh is not enough. There is no moral distinction that can be drawn between meat on one hand, and dairy, eggs, or other animal foods on the other. Animals used for dairy and eggs are treated horribly and end up in the same slaughterhouse as meat animals.

"Free-range" or "humanely raised" animals or animal products are not the answer. Those labels may make you feel better, but they don’t do anything for the nonhumans you’re exploiting.

Just as you could not consistently have been an abolitionist with respect to human slaves if you owned slaves, you cannot consistently be an abolitionist with respect to nonhuman slavery if you continue to eat, wear, or use the flesh and products derived from nonhuman animals.

Once again, the purpose of this post was not to make carnivores feel guilty but rather just to get them thinking ....

Kudos to Adam Kochanowicz for conducting these interviews and posting them to youtube.

Political correctness in an age of terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists

Nobody was more disgusted than I was by the backlash in the United States against Muslims following the the 9/11 attacks. While those attacks appear to have been perpetrated by radical Muslims, no right minded person would ever suggest that the majority of Muslims support terrorism.

Since 9/11, racial profiling at airport security check-ins has become commonplace and most travellers don't have any problem with that. Who is more likely to pose a security risk - a 65 year old caucasian grandmother from Cape Breton or a 25 year old Egyptian male student on a visitor's visa? Of course, Canadian airport security personnel are cute when it comes to racial profiling. The way they avoid being accused of overt racial profiling is by paying special attention to the passengers ahead and behind of those singled out for special attention. Don't take my word for it ... just take a look the next time you are travelling through a Canadian airport. Watch the different treatment given to passengers immediately ahead of and, in particular, behind a middle eastern male.

It has been interesting to watch the pendulum of political correctness in the American media swing from McCarthyism against Muslims immediately following 9/11 to the remarkably subdued media reporting following yesterday's attacks at Fort Hood, Texas. An apparently devout Muslim attacked an army base on U.S. soil (killing 13 and wounding 30). If you watch the video of Major Hasan at his local convenience store yesterday morning, he looks just as calm as Mohamed Atta did going through security before boarding American Airlines Flight 11: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.suspect/index.html. Obviously, we should not be rushing to judgment before all the facts are in and, of course, Hasan's actions cannot be said to be representative of the Islamic faith. However, to whitewash the religious element of this tragedy at this stage is wilful blindness to the extreme.

Another Bible verse that they never taught me at Sunday school

Why didn't we discuss the following verse at Sunday school?

Mark 16:16-18 (NIV)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Perhaps a good Christian will drop by and explain how this verse is being taken out of context. That's what they usually accuse me of doing.

Make sure you pick the right religion

The cartoon is easier to see if you click on it.

The real joke is that there is nothing behind either door.

Check out Owen Abroad

From time to time, I like to recommend sites which I believe are worthy of following. The one I would like to mention today is Owen Abroad (http://www.owen.org/) which is maintained by English economist Owen Barder. Barder currently lives and works in Addis Ababa, Ethopia. Barder (pictured to the left) is an interesting, eclectic fellow who works in the field of international development. His blog attracted my interest because he describes himself as "strongly atheist" and is impassioned about reducing global poverty.

Barder's blog recently drew my attention to the GAVI Alliance which describes itself as a: global health partnership representing stakeholders in immunisation from both private and public sectors: developing world and donor governments, private sector philanthropists such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the financial community, developed and developing country vaccine manufacturers, research and technical institutes, civil society organisations and multilateral organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank. If you have the means to help finance the immunization of a child ($20), a family ($100) or a village ($2000), please visit GAVI's site at http://www.gavialliance.org/ and donate online. You can tell them Owen Barder sent you ...

BTW, Barder's podcast Development Drums is available for free on iTunes and is well worth the listen for anyone interested in third world development.

... and I thought I had seen it all

Deconstructing The Purpose Driven Life - Chapter 34

Thinking Like A Servant

Richard Warren says that God is more interested in why we do something than in what we do. That's odd .... I always thought the road to hell was paved with good intentions. In any event, Richard's penchant for lists continues as he outlines 5 attitudes necessary for real servants to serve God:

1. Servants think more about others than about themselves. I applaud those parts of the Bible that encourage people to stop focusing on their own needs and to become more aware of the needs of others. However, the implicit suggestion that you somehow need the Bible and belief in God to lead a selfless life is intellectually bankrupt. I have much more faith in human nature than Richard who writes: I am, by nature, selfish. I think most about me. No Richard ... you are not naturally selfish. Over the course of millenia, your forebears evolved a sense of right and wrong that assisted the propagation of their genes. People who cooperated, who were philanthropic and who were nice to each other did better (on average) than those who lied, cheated, stole and murdered. This is not rocket science. The Golden Rule and practicing "tit for tat" are very successful evolutionary strategies.

2. Servants think like stewards, not owners. Yes folks, remember that God owns it all. We are all just worthless pieces of crud, deserving only hell without his salvation. Talk about eating humble pie .....

3. Servants think about their work, not what others are doing. Richard says don't compare, criticize or compete with other servants or ministries. This makes plenty of sense - if you and others are selling a product that doesn't exist, you don't do yourself any favours by pointing out to your buyers that your product is superior. Wink wink ... nudge nudge ... say no more.

4. Servants base their identity in Christ. That's right ... don't use your own inner moral compass to decide what's right and wrong. Just ask yourself what Christ would do. [sarcasm dripping]

5. Servants think of ministry as an opportunity, not an obligation. I love this one. Richard asks: Imagine what could happen if just 10 percent of all Christians in the world got serious about their role as real servants. Imagine all the good that could be done. 271 pages in and this is probably the most insightful comment yet. As Alan Watts wrote in Myth and Religion: "I return to the point that the clergy and people of the church do not really believe at all in God in the old-fashioned sense of the word. If they did seriously believe the Christian religion in its orthodox form, they would be screaming in the street."