Let him rave on, that men will know him mad.

Wow, just... wow.

I'm a big believer in trial by jury but occasionally you get some ignorant yahoos that make some pretty ridiculous decisions. This trial is a glaring example of such a case.

Yes; I wasn't in that courtroom listening to weeks of testimony. I'm not privy to all the information the jurors had to reach their verdict.

None of that changes the central fact of this case: this couple through the process of faith healing allowed their 15-month-old daughter to die a long, painful death from pneumonia. Take religion out of the equation- at it's base this is case of neglect and manslaughter.

Still want to give the jury the benefit of the doubt? Read this account of how the jury reached their verdict and tell me if you still feel the same way.

Here's juror Ken Byers account of the process:

"Trying to come to a consensus was trying to understand each others' viewpoints," Byers said. "And trying to say what's reasonable for me might not be reasonable to somebody else, or vice versa. That was pretty much the dynamic."

Huh? I was under this odd misunderstanding that the purpose of a jury was to listen to the facts of the case as presented and then consider those facts within the context of the law. Apparently the job of a jury is instead to come up with some happy consensus, sort of like a neighborhood association voting on what Christmas decorations are and are not appropriate. Silly fucking me.

BTW- the article mentions Byers went into the trial leaning towards guilty. Nothing in the article other than his empathy for other jurors who were sympathetic to the Worthingtons explains his change of heart. Fuck him for not standing by his convictions or the facts.

Thanks to these geniuses on the jury more Oregon children are going to die for no good reason and more jackasses are going to try and use their faith as a trump card when they do something to harm, through action or inaction, those that they're responsible for protecting.

If I sound angry about this that's because I am. This jury failed.

There is no such thing as a bad boy.

In the name of the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster what the hell are the editors of the print edition of the Oregonian thinking? The headline to this article on parents who murdered their fifteen-month-old daughter by treating her pneumonia with faith healing reads: "When Secular and Spiritual Laws Collide."

Hey Big-O! This country is not Iran. Our legal system is not built around Sharia law. There is no such thing in this country as "spiritual law." None. Zippo. Nada.

You might as well headline the article "When Secular Law and Tinkerbell Collide." It would be just as grounded in reality.

The laws of the United States, of which the last time I checked Oregon was a participating state, are secular. Period.

I'm hoping those secular laws run over these parents doing about 75 mph then back up and make sure they're finished just for good measure.

We pledge allegiance to the Bible. The Old Testament shall be our sole and only Constitution.

Since this has been religion week here we might as well cap it off with a comparison of the speeches by one great man 47 years ago and one not-so-great man just yesterday.

On Sept. 12, 1960 John F. Kennedy gave speech on religion to a group of Protestant clergy outlining his philosophy on that subject and what he saw as the role of the church and the state

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Yesterday Gov. Mitt Romney outlined his own philosophy on religion in our society and though it was meant to echo Kennedy's words, at least in form, in truth it stands in stark contrast to Kennedy's views.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Kennedy-

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

Romney-

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

To sum up and paraphrase both speeches:

Kennedy- "I am a religious man but my greater loyalty is to our constitution. The separation of church and state is absolute. The government protects our liberties including our freedom to worship as we see fit."

Romney- "I am a religious man and acknowledge that there is a separation of church and state but it shouldn't be enforced in any meaningful way. Liberty is derived from religion and not the other way around.

Forgive me but I'll take Kennedy's America over Romney's any day of the week.

I know. I also know that anyone who disputes the verdict of an Inquisitor is guilty of heresy.

The great thing about despising the League of Morality Poobas & Religious Whiners that seem to be everywhere these days is there are so many different ways that we lesser angels can stick it to the man. Whether you're driving them bonkers by insisting on using the phrase "Happy Holidays," or spending a few hours refreshing your children's understanding of the science of evolution you're really spending very little effort or energy in the pursuit of driving the Ratzingers, Dobsons, O'Reillys and Donohues of the world absolutely bonkers.

Personally I plan on doing my part this holiday season by taking my kids to see the film "The Golden Compass" which opens this weekend. The protests/ calls for boycott by the "Catholic League" make it THE film to catch for those of us who A) recognize Bill Donohue is a crazy son-of-a-bitch and B) recognize that our children's moral upbringing doesn't hinge on the vigorous application of dogmatic religion. Apparently we aren't alone in that last observation. There are even some Catholics who recognize this as relected in this review of "The Golden Compass."

I want my children to understand that human beings and institutions are fallible. That sometimes those who claim moral authority can traffic in corruption and abuse. I want them to be angry at every wrong perpetuated in the name of God. To question authority. To be feisty troublemakers for positive change. I've told my daughters that no one knows for certain that there's a God or a heaven. I always thought that was the beauty of faith -- that it rests on our willingness to believe in the things we can't prove, to consider, when we look up at the stars or contemplate the elegance of a DNA sequence, the possibility of a higher architecture. I hope that my daughters will find contentment and community in their religion. But I would rather they grow up to be kind, generous unbelievers than sanctimonious, blindly dogmatic Christians.

Amen to that last sentence and pass the popcorn. I'm going to the movies.

These dances and this kind of music can be destructive.

While I'm on the subject of religion-gone-wacky I'd point you towards Ratzinger's latest example of stupidity.

Pope Benedict XVI strongly criticized modern-day atheism in a major document released today, saying it had led to some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known to mankind.

Uh-huh. Because it was atheists who flew those buildings into the Twin Towers. It was an atheist President who saw it as his moral duty, ordained by God, to invade Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's atheists who deny the importance of stem-cell research or the human contributions of global warming or the dignity of women or who refuse to acknowledge that the advancement of science can indeed ease human suffering.

Jackass.

Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, although he acknowledges that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time.

This is going to sound trite but it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that a former Hitler Youth has a problem with Marxism. I write this only to point out that maybe, just maybe, his moral objections to Marxism have a longer, more personal history than Ratzinger's ordination so many years ago.

As for lumping Nazism in with Marxism I have no doubt that Hitler was an atheist but I would like to point once again how much he co-opted Christianity into the Nazi state. (See here.)

Update- More religious craziness. Whether it's a blasphemous book, movie or name for a teddy-bear the faithful certainly do a good job of getting in every one's face when they don't fall into line.

Um... Evolution?

If you've been following the drama of Teddy Bear Trial of a British national in Sudan then you may be wondering as I am why any sane person would consider religion, any religion, a reasonable framework to hang one's moral framework. Whether it's naming a stuffed animal after a prophet or insisting that the ten commandments belong in civil courtrooms the commonality of insensitivity to the broader society they inhabit shared by many people of faith is undeniable. Is there really that much difference between the office clerk in Sudan that ratted out this poor British teacher or the fundamentalist nutjob in Kansas that insists evolution is controversial?

A pox on all their houses.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

This short opinion piece by Kevin Myers is fascinating in it's central thesis that a belief in God, not necessarily the existence of God herself mind you, more often than not leads to a kinder, gentler society.

But here is the paradox. Rulers who believed in a Divine Creator have tended to create gentler societies than have atheists. The twentieth century was the first in which various avowedly godless states came into existence: and robbed of the inhibitions caused by a belief in the afterlife, the most astonishingly lawless regimes in world history emerged. The Aztec society which removed a heart each dawn from a teenage rib-cage to lure the sun-god from his couch, the Dahomey chieftain who daily dispatched a child to the afterlife to enquire after the health of his ancestors. Why, these were positively vegan compared to the godless butchers of the 20th century, the fine fellows who variously supervised human affairs from the Rhineland to Vladivostok, and from the Kamchatka Peninsula to the South China Sea. Their victims can be measured, not in the modest hundreds but in the hundreds of millions. The world has never, ever seen anything like the evil triumphs of the totalitarian secular states of the 20th century.

Which is not an argument in favour of the existence of god, merely one in favour of the belief in one: it is the social utility of a theistic faith which is appealing, not the fictions which lie at its heart.

It's a terrific argument but unfortunately grounded on tons of logical fallacies and historical oversights which Myers simply ignores.

First off the idea that religion and totalitarian dictatorships cannot commingle is ridiculous. I would suggest Myers check this page for just a couple of examples of how the Nazi state merged the Christian religion with the government. Hitler himself famously said "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Another famous founder of a totalitarian state who later went on to found the Beatles, said "religion is the opiate of the masses."

Totalitarian states COUNT on the religious. They are the ones least likely to question, quick to dispense with personal morality when carrying out the greater will of the god/ state. I would argue that a large contingent of the faithful is a necessity to a fascist state.

Then there's the idea that the predominance of Christianity itself will lead to a kinder, gentler state. I'm sure all those who died in the crusades and inquisition would be quick to back up that idea. But violence and cruelty aren't limited to Christianity. What the hell is the Aztec sacrifice example that Myers uses if not as a demonstration of the violence of religion? Religion doesn't mean peace. It just means for more organized violence.

I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?

It should come to no surprise to anyone that really thinks about it that moral decisions are tied to emotional centers of the brain.

US neuroscientists have demonstrated that moral decisions such as whether you would kill one person in order to save many others are strongly influenced by a part of the brain that involves emotion.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

The research team, comprising scientists from the University of Southern California (USC), Harvard University, Caltech and the University of Iowa, presented 30 men and women with dilemmas where they had to say which decision they would take.

Some of the decisions involved making moral judgements about whether to cause harm or death to one person in order to save others from immediate or future harm or death.

One example of a dilemma was: you know someone who has a deadly disease plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or shoot the person with the disease. Would you pull the trigger?

Most people would say they knew the logical choice is they should sacrifice the one to save the many, but they would not be able to bring themselves to pull the trigger.

The difference, say the researchers, is emotion; not emotions in general, but a particular combination of two emotions. One is a general aversion to the act of harming or killing another person, a sort of social compassion, and the other is a more specific compassion, or empathy, for the particular individual concerned.

Conservatives, on the other hand, might find this study counter-intuitive. Generally they consider themselves less plagued by an emotional view of the world than their leftist brethren as well as morally superior. The findings of this study run directly opposite to that worldview.

It brings to mind a number of conversations I've had over the years with my more conservative friends around religion and morality. They seem to have a hard time separating moral choices from religious beliefs. They are incapable of comprehending that correct moral choices can be made in the absence of a belief in a higher power of some kind and a moral value system built on religious foundations. As someone with no personal religious beliefs per se the idea that the only thing keeping me from robbing a bank or going crazy and shooting up the city is a belief in God incomprehensible.

There are a whole lot of things that would keep us from going on a murderous rampage among which are what I consider a societal moral structure that transcends religion. Our duty and belonging to the society we live in, our respect for the government and laws are just a couple parts of that moral structure. Most importantly - we don't harm our fellow citizens because we would just feel bad. Call in "conscience" or "empathy" or whatever but the bottom line is that there's something hard-wired into us as a species that normally prevents us from harming others.

Of course one of the downsides to the higher faculties we possess as a species is that conscience can be reasoned away and overcome. The professional military is very good at this. Citizens get that same opportunity when they serve on the jury of capital cases or vote. Usually we tell ourselves these decisions are for the higher good and they're not really decisions at all but necessary moral capitulations to the circumstances.

Then there are those which don't need to wrestle with these moral decisions. They're the ones that find these decisions simple, that have no problem making life or death decisions about others without giving it all that much thought. Ironically they usually consider themselves morally superior to others when in reality, as this study suggests, they're actually morally deficient when it comes to making choices of what's right and wrong.