sudo life

I was a part of a larger conversation when someone spoke up and said that America was a Christian nation and should behave as such, or some such nonsense. Normally I wouldn’t say anything, but recently I had read something that was pretty damning towards this sort of sentiment (beyond, you know, the constitution), so I decided to add my two cents.

“So you would disagree with the person who said, ‘the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?’” I asked, knowing the answer would be ‘yes.’ When I recieved that answer, I pointed out that it was written by John Adams in our treaty with Tripoli, under the presidency of George Washington. There was some mumbling, and the conversation moved on to other topics.

The fact of the matter is that people who claim that the U.S. is a ‘Christian’ nation is ignorant of not only American History, but Christianity as well. The founding fathers were overwhelmingly non-christian, and they specifically structured the government to reflect religious neutrality, which is a staple of any truly free country. There is talk that ‘freedom of religion’ doesn’t mean ‘freedom from religion,’ which is a really odd way of making the statement, but never-the-less is used to say that atheists don’t have rights in the U.S., something I’m sure would have pissed off most of the founding fathers if said in their time. Using such an arguement betrays not only their ignorance in American History and Christianity, but the English Language as well.

The Ten Commandments are usually given as an example of how Christian Law is a basis for our current law. While the idiocy of calling the Ten Commandments a set of Christian Laws is quite great, I will not address that here. Instead, I want to actually examine each of them and really see if they hold up:

1. No gods but the Christian God – nope this isn’t a part of our legal system.
2. No Idols – Nope not a part of our legal system. Actually americans tend to like idols in all forms, especially the 10 commandments themselves, which is truly ironic.
3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain – Nope, not a part of our goddamned legal system. Besides, when was the last time you heard someone swear by ‘Yahweh?’
4. Keep the Sabbath – Nope, not a law. I’d like to see them try that…
5. Honor your parents – While this is a good idea no matter what religion you are a part of (and if they deserve it), this is definitely not a part of our legal system.
6. Don’t Murder – Yes! Finally, after going through the first half of the commandments, we hit one that is indeed part of our legal system.
7. Don’t Commit Adultry – Nope, not illegal. It can be brought before a civil court, but not because it’s immoral, but because it represents the breakage of contract.
8. Don’t Steal - Yes, part of the legal system.
9. Don’t Lie – Unless you’re under oath, you can legally lie as much as you want to. So this counts as a no.
10. Don’t Covet – Definitely legal. It sort of drives our entire economy…

Ok, the final tally is… TWO! Two of the ten commandments actually match laws that are currently in the U.S. legal books. But there is something else. Both of those two – don’t murder or steal – predate the ten commandments in other, pagan religions. Indeed, our entire system of government has it’s basis not in Christianity or Judaism, which has a history of tyranny, but in pagan democracies!

There is only one way in which the U.S. might be considered a Christian Nation, and that is in the fact that most of our citizens are Christian. In fact, a very large majority of us are citizens. I suppose that counts for something. Well, something besides the massive amount if ignorance it represents. I don’t know what that something is. Perhaps some christian will be so kind as to explain it to me.

In the mean time, however, please stop all this nonsense about the U.S. being a Christian Nation. It’s not true, and you will only embarass yourself.

UPDATE: This popped up on pharyngula this afternoon and seemed very appropriate. The title of this photo is “Irody is Dead.”

Philosophy christianity, history

I’ve been a scientific skeptic for over nine months now, and I’ve discovered that most people don’t really know what this means. So, I’m going to attempt to explain it.

You can boil down the concept of scientific skepticism down to one single concept: we know things based on empirical evidence. But what does that mean? It means that the only evidence acceptable in support of something is that evidence that is available to everyone and can be verified by anyone.

When looking at the phrase ’scientific skepticism’ it’s important to focus on the first word. A scientific skeptic uses science and the scientific method to verify or discover new evidence.

There are many famous scientific skeptics you probably already know about. Here is a short list: Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Penn & Teller, and even the Mythbusters crew.

Using the scientific method, there are several things already know. We understand the effects of gravity (but are still working on how it works), the concepts of thermal-dynamics, the workings of the atom, evolutionary biology.

The things that there isn’t empirical evidence for are the things that the skeptic rejects. Examples of these things include: homeopathy, psychic readings, telepathy, and faith healing.

Sometimes the question arises about things everyone feels that they know, but we don’t really have evidence for. There is a scene in the movie, Contact, that illustrates this. The main character is asked to ‘prove’ that she loved her father. The point is that this was something she knew was true, but couldn’t really prove.

But is this a proper application of the skeptic epistemology?

There are several ways I’ve approached this problem. The first goes something like this. Personally, she has a lot of evidence for the fact that she loves her father. She has no problem knowing beyond all doubt that it is a simple fact. However, getting proof to this fact demonstrable and verifiable to a third person would be a bit more difficult. Some say that it would be possible for her to be hooked up to an MRI or EEG machine and readings of her brain to be taken. Or perhaps measurements of her body chemistry and how it reacts to thoughts of her father. In the end, however, there is an important thing to note that makes all of this rather pointless. She’s not trying to get other people to believe that she loved her father. It doesn’t really matter what anyone else believes. If she were to take on the task of trying to get other people to believe, perhaps then it would be necessary to provide such evidence.

When approaching a new idea, a skeptic will take a neutral stance and then look at the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the idea, then the idea is wrong, or incomplete. If the evidence is not enough to render a judgement either way, the skeptic will withhold judgement. This is an extremely important point. Skeptics are more tied to the method of knowledge discovery than to the knowledge itself. If contradictory evidence appears, the original idea is discarded and the search for a new one begins, one that fits with the evidence. Sometimes such new ideas are easily located, others may forever be out of our reach.

Philosophy meaning, Philosophy, Science, skepticism