In Science We Trust

In Science We Trust
Originally uploaded by BrockLi

I found this on flickr. What an excellent idea!

Spread the word.

Bringing Back the Spanish Inquisition

I just found this in the article about the Spanish Inquisition on Wikipedia:

The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had impression of drowning.^[29]

Isn't that what the Bush administration now calls "water boarding"? Such a misleading name for something called "water torture" by the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe we should bring back the rack and burning at the stake, too.

America Founded on Rule of Law

The United States was founded during a period known as The Enlightenment, or the philosophical Age of Reason. From Wikipedia: "The era is marked politically by governmental consolidation, nation creation, greater rights for the common people, and a diminuation of the influence of authoritarian institutions".

The founding fathers were strongly influenced by this era of freethought, and by the preceding events of the Protestant Reformation in England and Europe. The Reformation was a period when the corruption and excesses of the Catholic church were brutally overthrown. Although on the surface the overthrow was based on religious differences, in reality it was more a struggle between the two ruling powers of the day - the Crown and the Church. More than theology, it was about power, money, and property.

Those who resisted British rule were very familiar with a system of government that was strongly influenced and controlled by the church. In God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, Marci A. Hamilton explains how Western law changed to bring churches and other religious institutions under the umbrella of neutral, generally applicable laws:

"Before the common law and its equalizing principles were entrenched and before the creation of the United States, churches did have autonomy from the law. The rights of religious institutions and their clergy were above those of ordinary citizens. From the 3rd to the 16th centuries in Britain, church autonomy was in fact the order of the day."

Regarding the Christian church vs. the rule of common law, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824:

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed."

Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia:

"By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts ther are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years' imprisonment without bail."

"This is a summary view of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws."

"Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged."

"Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

Jefferson is obviously very familiar with a system of government that had been corrupted by religion. He and the other founding fathers were committed to establishing a nation that would be governed by the Rule of Law, and that would derive its power from the rights of the common people, not the theocracy of the church.

Death of a Democracy

I have watched several different videos taken of this event, and read dozens of comments about it. In every case, the controversy centers around whether or not the student should have been tasered. I think, though, the issue is not whether he should have been tasered when he resisted arrest, but whether he should have been pulled away from the microphone in the first place.

This video shows the best version of the student's actions, and the moment when campus security decides to step in. If you watch this, you will see that at no point did the student make any threats, or call for anyone else to join him in any sort of protest. When the first security guard approaches and speaks to him, the most he has done at that point is perhaps to be rude. What he says to the guard is, "I will ask my question."

That, in fact, is all he attempts to do. For that, he is very quickly silenced. First the mike is shut off. Then he is pulled away from the mike, and the guards attempt to physically escort him out of the auditorium. Before he can be shuffled out the back door, he jumps away from the guards, which is when they apparently decide to restrain and cuff him. It really just looks like the more physical they get, the more frightened he gets, and the more he struggles. It isn't completely clear when the taser is first shot at him, or by which guard. However, it does seem to be yet another overreaction on the part of the security personnel.

What is most disturbing about this whole incident is the reaction of other people. First, the audience actually applauds campus security for pulling the student away. Senator Kerry just goes on as though nothing is happening, which just may be a case of not being able to comprehend what was right in front of him. A lot of the comments I've seen and heard have been in support of the campus security.

I've got to get ready to go out to dinner for my birthday, so I'll have to finish this post when I get back.

One Party Under God

I haven't been watching all, or even most, of the presidential debates. I did catch the Democrats' debate last night, though, on MSNBC. While none of the candidates really surprised me by their positions, and I didn't change my judgment of any of them, I was shocked by the last question.

After asking questions pertaining to the war in Iraq, the S-CHIP bill, gas prices, etc., they ended the debate by asking all of the candidates what their favorite bible verse is. I was completely stunned.

How is it possible that anyone could blatantly ask presidential candidates in the United States of America to pass what is essentially a test of how Christian they are? Despite the fact that Republicans have been winning at the voting booth by using "values" issues, is there really a majority in the Democratic party that cares whether the next president is a graduate of Sunday School? They might as well have ended the debate by asking the candidates whether they all believe in fairies.

This is so disturbing to me, and not just based on last night's presidential debate. A couple of weeks ago I was at a public event where the local state Democratic party had a booth set up. I went over to give them a piece of my mind, and saw stacks of flyers for their mayoral candidate. I couldn't help but exclaim, "Are you kidding me? This guy's a Democrat?!?"

I have been seeing campaign ads on tv for this guy where he lists the things he cares about: right to life, prayer in schools, "family values," etc. However, I had no idea this guy was running as a Democrat. I just want to ask, if this guy's a Democrat, what's the difference between the two parties? Doesn't this mean that, in fact, there are no longer two parties? After last night's debate, I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that question.