Rock on, Stephen Anderson!
I've written about pissed off über-fundamentalist Stephen Anderson before. Just a little video here with him rocking "Nothing But The Blood" on the harmonica with his niece on the piano. There's something distinctly fundamentalist about the rigid non-groove of the performance and literalistic about the strict adherence to the beat. But rock on, Stephen! When you've got a harmonica in your mouth, you're not spreading your hateful gospel!
Does this mean that Tillikum is a murderer?, continued
Apparently he is. And he should be put to death. By stoning.
So says American Family Association,
If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone's misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.
Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)
"Judeo-Christian tradition", you say? It might be a weird example of the Mosaic law, but that hardly qualifies as tradition. But wait, there's more! While in the first instance "the owner shall not be liable" for his killing animal, it's a different story if the animal kills again - which Tilly did, twice.
But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)
Watch out, Chuck Tompkins! The head of animal training says that Tilly won't be put down, thus directly doing against God's clear commandment!
SeaWorld is apparently, however, unrepentant. Chuck Thompson (sic), its curator in charge of animal behavior, says Tilly continues to be "a valuable asset not only from a breeding standpoint but from a behavior standpoint, too."
Unrepentant, indeed! I bet he also says "Jehovah" all the time!
Oh well. There's not much you can say about this. It's clearly raving mad. And for more raving madness read American Family Association's Wikipedia page.
Belief in absolute truth and likeliness of listening to others

In my interactions with more fundamentalist friends, I've noticed a trend. These friends insist on the existence of absolute truth. They also insist that this absolute truth is knowable and that it's accessible through the Bible. The more they insist on speaking about absolute truth, the more they seem closed off to what others have to say about what they regard as truth.
If someone, on the other hand, thinks absolute truth is unknowable or that the question itself is irrelevant for some reason, I've noticed that they are much more likely to listen to others.
I think it's ironic, because to me the second approach, listening to the experiences and insights of others, seems like a much better way of coming to know truth. So by insisting on absolute truth a person is much more likely to be closed off from the truth they say the seek.
This leads me to conclude that talk of absolute truth is much more about knowing certainty than knowing truth. I know I'm ignoring the history of philosophy here and only focusing on psychology, but come on... We're not trying to find the absolutely truthful analysis of the situation!
Questioning the questions

I have a friend on Facebook who's a hardcore fundamentalist. We always end up in discussion about things - he particularly doesn't like my not being a creationist or Christian Zionist. He recently found out that I don't condemn my gay friends to Hell and he was shocked and appalled.
The other day there was a moment of clarity in his otherwise rather scatterfire approach to debating. He said something like, "You're always saying 'The question is this or the question is that.' But the Bible is a book of answers, not questions!"
Someone, I don't quite remember who, once said that the truly closed minded person is not the one who thinks he knows all the answers. No, the truly closed minded person is the one who thinks he knows all the questions.
By the same token, I would say that deep thinking entails thinking about the questions, first and foremost, while shallow thinking only deals with the answers.
Not that this is a profoundly deep sentiment, but I think it's an important one to have in mind, both when thinking things over by yourself and when engaging others in dialogue. Am I, are we asking the right questions? So much discussion gets lost because the different parties are asking different questions, but don't know it. So much more clarity and understanding would be achieved by thinking about questions first, answers second. Not that questions are easier than answers. They're not. But even if we agree to disagree regarding which ones are the right ones, we are at least not talking past each other.
To go back to my fundamentalist friend. I think it's extremely important to always question the questions, so to speak. The Bible might well be said to be a book of answers, in many regards. But we must always question the questions those answers answer or we'll never understand.
The irony of Christian fundamentalism
[Christian fundamentalism] passionately supports a government whose policies have created a sharp rise in the rate of poverty. For a self-declared Christian movement, it shows startlingly little sense of responsibility for the vulnerable in society.
And here is the culminating irony. This movement, which calls itself fundamentalist, subscribes fervently to the principles of laissez faire capitalism. It has helped to push American society toward what the English economist Herbert Spencer called “the survival of the fittest.” Darwin borrowed that phrase from Spencer to name the dynamic of natural selection in the evolution of species, otherwise known as Darwinism. In other words, our anti-Darwinists are Social Darwinists. The great defender of what were then called “the fundamentals” was William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat and a pacifist and a passionate campaigner against what he saw as the economic structures that created poverty. His “Cross of Gold” speech spoke of the poor of America as Christ crucified – not at all the kind of rhetoric we hear these days. Bryan, a liberal by any standard, opposed Darwinism because it was taken at the time, rightly or wrongly, to justify not only economic exploitation but also racism, colonialism, eugenics, and war. He feared the loss of belief in the sanctity of the human person, the only stay against these things.
Marilynne Robinson, via Per Crucem Ad Lucem
Anti-religion scientists shoot themselves in the foot
The critics, though, have it exactly backward: the United States needs more scientists like Collins—researchers who show by their prominence and their example that a good scientist can still retain religious beliefs. The stunning irony in the longstanding tension between science and religion in America is that many scientists who merely claim to be defending rationality from religious fundamentalism may actually be turning Americans off to science, doing more harm to their cause than good.
Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause, Newsweek
Onward Christian soldiers!
“We are to live with anticipation and expectation of His imminent return,” he told me. Look at the signs, said Young: nuclear Iran, economic collapse, President Obama’s decision to “unleash science” upon helpless embryos. He seemed to feel that the military was now the only safe place to be. “In the military, homosexuality is illegal. I don’t want to get into all the particulars of ‘Don’t ask,’ but you can’t act on homosexual feelings. And adultery is illegal. Really, arguably, the military is the last American institution that tries to uphold Christian values. It’s the easiest place in America to be a Christian.”
From Jeff Sharlet's excellent and deeply scary Jesus Killed Mohammed: The crusade for a Christian military.





