Friday, September 11, 2009

Rockford Higher Criticism Examiner: Where can I find freethinker groups near Rockford, IL?

examiner logo

Inevitably, whenever you enter in a query about finding groups of like-minded individuals that you would possibly like to join, the number one search result for terms such as atheist, agnostic, for freethinker seems to be meetup.com. This Website is... Read more »


Rockford Higher Criticism Examiner, John F. Felix


John F. Felix is a freethinking student of philosophy, science, literature, ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and a family man just passed the 25-year mark, loving Chicago and Rockford, IL, lifeways. He is a published poet, and performs freelance research for authors and scholars (expertise: creating new versions of ancient e-texts). Send John a message.

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:21 PM PDT


BlakeĆ¢€™s Anti-Atheism on Display at Morgan Library
The Epoch Times Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:06 PM PDT
BlakeĆ¢€™s extensive work is permeated by a spirituality and sense of higher being that is both vague and powerful.




See more news stories that match my keyword





PaleoBabble


PaleoBabble


Posted: 09 Sep 2009 12:56 PM PDT
This is a common claim by Zecharia Sitchin and those who adore him, like his webmaster Erik Parker, and Jason Martell. As I have blogged here before (here and here), this idea was common fare toward the end of the 19th century, due primarily to two historical forces: (1) the novelty of the decipherment of cuneiform material, certain items of which sounded like Genesis stories; and (2) anti-Semitism being rife within higher-critical biblical scholarship. Today, in the 21st century (and one could say since the mid 20th century), scholars of Akkadian and Sumerian do NOT hold this view.  They just know better since they have a much more accurate grasp of Akkadian and Sumerian, as well as Semitic linguistics.
This morning the University of Chicago graciously posted a new e-book on the ABZU website entitled, “From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West.” It’s free, and so here’s a link to it. I recommend (unless you are a fundamentalist Sitchinite) reading the article “The Genesis of Genesis” by Victor Hurowitz.  I have inserted a hyperlink to the page in the Table of Contents. Hurowitz is a professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel (so he lacks that awful Christian bias). He is a recognized expert in the interface of the Hebrew Bible and Assyriology, and serves on the steering committee of the Melammu Project, which focuses on the study of the intellectual heritage of Assyria and Babylonia in the modern East and West.
Guess what? He doesn’t agree with Sitchin and his followers that Genesis came from Sumerian and Akkadian works. What a shock. I’ve highlighted a few choice phrases in the PDF at the link so you can’t miss them. What’s even better is that the article also includes quotations from Assyriologist Wilfred Lambert that say the same thing. Who is Lambert? He’s one of the scholars Sitchin likes to quote in his books to create the impression that he (Sitchin) is doing serious research when he isn’t.
But please read if for yourself. Yes, there is a relationship between works like Enuma Elish and the book of Genesis — because they both come from the ancient Near East, not because of literary dependence. As the article points out, the real parallels to Genesis from non-biblical material do not come from Mesopotamia; they come from Ugarit. This is something that anyone who has looked at my divine council site already knows, since I point it out all the time.
There’s no antidote against PaleoBabble like fact-based scholarship. But like any medicine, you have to take it before it can help you.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

[TC-Alternate-list] The Ending of Mark and Higher Criticism

Steven Avery,
I just now noticed your comments in posts 2715 and 2716.
SA: (summarizing my position) "You believe that the Mark ending was made by Mark, but not as part of his Gospel. Somehow the Gospel started as the shorter version, and then something happened x years later (5 - 10 - 20 ), and a 12 verse length separate writing that Mark was preparing for publishing in the Weekly Gazette describing the resurrection account of Jesus Christ was quickly added to the original Gospel, making what we have today."
Your impression of my theory is partly incorrect. I do believe that 16:9-20 was composed by Mark as a freestanding composition. And I do believe that Mark wrote up to 16:8, and was, at that point, prevented from writing further. But I do not believe that the Gospel of Mark circulated without 16:9-20 before it circulated with 16:9-20. (Proto-Mark was in circulation, but Proto-Mark was never the Gospel of Mark.) The attachment of 16:9-20 occurred before the text was released for dissemination in the church. Also, I do not believe that the attachment of 16:9-20 occurred five or ten or 20 years later; I believe it occurred, as I just said, before the Gospel of Mark began circulating.
SA: "The addition was done while Mark was still alive, in your scenario, I think. So your dates are something like 50 AD and 55 AD (or 65 AD) or 80 AD and 85 AD (or 95), except the latter would be very difficult. (My dates are closer to 45 AD for everything.)"
Steven, a fairly up-to-date draft of my essay is available at the TextExcavation site, and in it you can read my theory and not have to guess about this sort of thing. I put the completion of the Gospel of Mark in 67-68.
SA: "And somehow this discrepancy worked its way into the manuscript line as a permanent difference."
Yes; here is the somehow: an overly meticulous copyist discerned that Mark 16:9-20 was an addition, and on the grounds that it was not added by Mark, this person removed it, preferring to interpret John 21 (or a source-document that has been recast as the first part of John 21) as the proper ending of the narrative that otherwise abruptly stops at Mark 16:8.
SA: "Now you can correct all that, my description was a bit of a combo, but I think it gets the point across."
Okay; I corrected it. There doesn't seem to be much left of your point.
SA: "I think you to a large extent deep-six all your fine efforts with this cumbersome stuff that is totally strange and unnecessary."
The theory that 16:9-20 is not the ending that Mark intended to place after 16:8 is grounded in the internal evidence that I profiled in post #2697; it is not "strange and unnecessary," but flows smoothly from the internal features I described.
SA: "Now your debate opponent quite properly showed your view as a concession that the ending was not original. (Your nuance about 1st century distribution and authority is irrelevant to him, and many others.)"
I think that more thoughtful appraisal of his comments will conclude that he only showed a determination to avoid acknowledging my point. He did not block it at all.
SA: "Now his position is that Mark is a fiction account, not history at all, very likely written in the 2nd century, and any inconvenient verses to a separate ending of Mark are simply handwaved into redactions."
He seems to currently believe that the Gospel of Mark was composed around 130, and redacted (by someone who inserted 14:28 and 16:7) sometime after that. This has not been a distraction from the ongoing debate about Mark 16:9-20, so far.
SA: "There is no discussion really possible, since there are no parameters of agreement."
The debate has been reasonably focused so far.
SA: "And even your debate statement affirmation involves concepts that are totally outside the concepts of your opponent."
The only concept that I think he didn't understand (or did not acknowledge) is the difference between a higher-criticism (that is, production criticism) problem and a lower-criticism (that is, textual criticism) problem. Textual criticism is not concerned about discovering what parts of a book were made by which authors, co-authors, and editors. Textual criticism is concerned about recovering the original form of the text /when it was initially disseminated./ The answer to the question, "What was the original form of the Gospel of Mark before its production was completed?" is that the original form of the Gospel of Mark was some blank papyrus and a few ounces of ink. But realizing that is obviously not our goal. Our goal is to recover the original text as it existed when it was initially disseminated. The question of how many authors or editors contributed to the production of the text up to that point is not a text-critical issue.
SA: "I never had an inkling of an idea there was a suppose "problem"."
Be that as it may, a consideration of the internal features of Mark 16:9-20 raises numerous problems for the idea that Mark 16:9-20 is the ending that Mark wanted to write as the conclusion of his Gospel-account, as I already explained in post #2697.
SA: "The lunacy of judging comparative literary styles when the writer talks of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ ! amazes me. It is like saying the resurrection itself was too abrupt ! "Mark, you must write a segue ... prepare the reader. Jesus, couldn't you stop and at least do a tour in the Galilee before the resurrection?"
Drifting into rhetoric is no substitute for engaging the evidence I presented in post #2697. The problem is not the abruptness of the resurrection; it's the evidence I presented in post #2697.
SA: "You could never give one iota of evidence that your scenario is more "likely" than Mark having died and his cousin adding the account, or Ernest Markingway in Rome. Never."
Yes I can; the consistent traditions that Mark was never bishop of Rome, and that he died in Alexandria, clearly indicate that he did not die in Rome. And putting two and two together, it looks like Mark left Rome at about the same time that Peter died. Set that part of your objection aside, and it looks as if all you are really saying is that other than the reference to Aristion, there is basis for any assertion about the name of the person who completed the Gospel of Mark by attaching 16:9-20. You seem to think that that's a bad thing, but consider what John Burgon had to say: "The question is not at all one of authorship, but only one of genuineness." On p. 12 of "Last 12 Verses of Mark, " Burgon wrote, "If they "ought as much to be received as the last chapter of Deuteronomy (unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and proper conclusion of the book of Moses" – it is difficult to understand why the learned editor should think himself at liberty to sever them from their context, and introduce the subscription KATA MARKON after ver. 8."
SA: "You simply do not understand, nor do you want to understand, the beauty and unity and power and strength of the Gospel."
I do not grant that. The Gospel of Mark, 1:1-16:20, has a providentially integrated beauty, strength, etc -- though this is of course my own non-scientific opinion. The matter of the artistic beauty and divine power of the Gospel of Mark must be preceded by another question: how do /you/ account for the internal features that I listed in post #2697?
SA: "I will encourage every true defender of the resurrection account of Mark to note that your position is really defacto that of an opponent."
That seems to be a result of a misunderstanding of my theory. I uphold Mark 16:9-20 as part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. At the moment, we disagree about a higher-critical question ("Who is responsible for the presence of Mark 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark?") but as far as I can tell, we completely agree on the question of whether the passage should be accepted as part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark, or rejected as a scribal accretion.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
P.S. For reference, here again is post #2697, in which I answer the question, "What to you is the compelling evidence that Mark was not the author of the resurrection account as the original ending of his Gospel?".
That is a well-phrased question, because (although this view is not necessary for the case for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20) I think that verses 9-20 were written by Mark as a freestanding composition, and that this originally separate composition was attached to the Gospel of Mark by his colleagues at Rome after Mark was forced to stop writing at the end of v. 8.
It would be convenient, in some ways, if the evidence indicated that Mark did proceed to write verses 9-20. That would be a simpler scenario that the one I have pictured. But I don't think the evidence allows such a simple conclusion. That view is /too/ simple; it is simpler than my approach, yes – like a bridge
that only reaches halfway across a canyon is simpler than one that reaches all the way across. Here are the pieces of evidence, listed in no particular order, that drive me to the view that Mark 16:9-20 is not the ending that Mark was preparing to compose when he was writing 16:8.
(1) The transition from 16:8 to 16:9 is grammatically very harsh. Mark uses "gar" 67 times on other occasions, and every time it does not end a sentence. The end of 16:8 looks like an interrupted sentence. It is grammatically feasible, but not linguistically probable at all as the conclusion of a
narrative. The alleged parallels in an essay by Plotinus, and in a speech by Protagoras, are not the same sort of thing. Plotinus substantially post-dates Mark and the points at which the collections of Plotinus' essays start and stop reflect the editing of Plotinus' assistant Porphyry. As for Protagoras, he simply ends his speech with a clarifying parenthetical phrase. Neither of those compositions resembles the "cliff-hanger" at the end of Mark 16:8. Whereas the closing phrases in the essay by Plotinus, and the speech by Protagoras, wrap up loose ends, the gar-phrase in Mark 16:8 creates one.
Although some interpreters have viewed the end of 16:8 through an optimistic lens, and regarded it as some sort of open-ended invitation to the reader (although the question of exactly what sort of invitation it is varies from interpreter to interpreter), it seems to me that one could tear off the Gospel of Mark at a number of points in 16:1-8, and the same interpreters, using the same optimistic lens, could squint a meaningful and brilliant open-ended ending into existence. It requires much less squinting to see that the end of 16:8 looks like an interrupted sentence because it /is/ an interrupted sentence. Mark's failure to complete the half-sentence indicates that he did not complete the narrative as a whole.
(2) The group of women in 16:8 is not revisited; we go from a group of women that includes Mary Magdalene in 16:8, to an appearance exclusively to Mary Magdalene in v. 9, with no explanation. We never get back to the group of women anywhere in 16:9-20. We never get back to the group of women. Dr. Bruce Terry has pointed out that Mark repeatedly brings a pericope to a close and reopens the narrative with a fresh scene. But in those other sudden transitions (such as from 2:12 to 2:13), things wrap up tidily in the first pericope. That is not the case here. In this case, there is unfinished business in the first scene: Mary Magdalene is in the group of women in 16:8. Nothing is said about how she
separated from the others.
Dr. Terry mentioned one case of a pericope with unfinished business which merits further explanation: in 14:65-66, we see the narrative camera focused on a scene where Jesus is being slapped, and then the camera turns back to Peter, and when it returns to Jesus in 15:1, the servants who were slapping him are gone. He compares this to the disappearance of Mary Magdalene's companions. However, it looks to me like the "servants" in 14:65 ("officers" in the NKJV; "guards" in the ESV) should be understood as a group of soldiers whose job was merely to guard Jesus until He was called for, at which point the other soldiers would take Him to trial. In other words, Jesus is handed off from one group of soldiers, in 65a, to a second group of soldiers, or "servants," in 65b. There's a textual variant here – EBALLON versus ELABON – and we also face the question of how hUPHRETAI ought to be translated. But no matter how one slices it, the result remains the same: if the hUPHRETAI = "servants," whose job is only to watch Jesus until the soldiers take Him to trial, then it is no surprise that we don't see then again, since the trial before Pilate commences in 15:1. And if the hUPHRETAI = "officers," leaders of the soldiers, then we /do/ see them again, in the group of soldiers on hand in chapter 15, mentioned in 15:16. Either way, this is not the same kind of inexplicable disappearance of characters that we see between 16:8 and 16:9.
(3) A reference to "the first day of the week" appears in 16:2. Mark would thus have no reason to use the phrase "on the first day of the week" again in 16:9. If 16:9 began a new composition, though, the phrase would be completely appropriate, as would be the new parenthetical phrase that Jesus had cast out
seven demons from Mary Magdalene. (The phrase that refers to the seven demons is not particularly question-raising if one assumes that 16:9-20 was written by Mark right after he wrote 16:8, but it is even more appropriate if 16:9-20 existed as a freestanding composition.)
(3) Mark indicates, by foreshadowing a rendezvous between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee in 14:28 and 16:7, his intention to describe a rendezvous between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee. As Croy and other authors have shown, Mark establishes a pretty clear pattern of prediction-followed-by-explicit-fulfillment in Mark. However, what is predicted in 14:28 and 16:7 is not explicitly fulfilled in 16:9-20. The encounter between Jesus and the disciples in 16:14ff. could be assumed to have occurred in Galilee, but elsewhere Mark makes the fulfillments explicit, leaving no need for the reader to make assumptions.
(4) In 16:10-13, EKEINOS is used as a pronoun four times, and again in 16:20. Mark uses EKEINOS as a pronoun in 12:4-5, too, so this cannot validly be considered a "non-Markan" feature of 16:9-20. But it does show that 16:9-20 is written in a more condensed, more "staccato" style (as more than one author has put it) than 16:1-8. That would be natural in a short freestanding composition that Mark had composed as an easily memorized summary of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. In this regard it is comparable to the staccato-style summary in First Corinthians 15:3-7. EKEINOS is repeated, somewhat rhythmically, as WFQH is somewhat rhythmically repeated in I Cor. 15:3-7.
Now, on one hand, a person could say that this merely shows the nature of the source Mark was using as he wrote the Gospel of Mark, just as the stylistic features in I Cor. 15:3-7 show the nature of Paul's source without /being/ Paul's source. So this feature is not strong enough to stand alone as evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was not Mark's own deliberate ending. On the other hand, it interlocks with the other points; that is, this feature is neatly explained by the same premise that explains the rest. Those who would argue that Mark 16:9-20 is a natural continuation from 16:8 need to explain why Mark suddenly began to write in this condensed style.
(5) In 16:7, the women, including Mary Magdalene, are instructed by the angel to go tell Jesus' disciples "that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him," but 16:9-11 only says that Mary Magdalene reported that Jesus had appeared to her, and that Jesus is alive and that she had seen Him. It does not say that she said anything about Galilee, or about the angel at the tomb, or about the angel's message. This is accounted for more naturally by the idea that 16:9-20 was attached, than by the idea that Mark wrote it at the same time that he wrote 16:1-8.
(6) 16:7 seems to foreshadow an encounter in Galilee in which Peter will be prominently featured. But in 16:9-20, the climactic reunion between Jesus and the apostles does not feature Peter in any special prominence at all.
(7) The preceding six points stand completely separate from this point, and I expect this point to be persuasive only to those who already see the Proto-Mark model as a probable solution to the Synoptic Problem. If Matthew 28:8-10 and 28:16-20 represent the contents of Matthew's copy of Proto-Mark, then we have grounds to expect Mark to follow up on 16:8 with an ending that resembles Matthew 28:8-20, minus the intervening verses in 28:11-15 about the guards. Such an ending would interlock smoothly with 16:8: the fear of the silent women is relieved when Jesus personally appears to them and restates the angel's command; they report to the disciples; the disciples dutifully depart to Galilee; in Galilee Jesus meets the disciples (and restores Peter, though this is not mentioned in Matthew 28), and commissions them to spread the gospel everywhere.
This interlocks so smoothly with Mark 16:8 that the interlock is /suggestively/ easy, indicating that such an ending was in Proto-Mark, and would thus be the sort of ending which Mark would have intended to follow 16:8 in the Gospel of Mark. But that is not the sort of ending we have in 16:9-20; instead, we see no
further trace of Mary Magdalene's companions as Mary Magdalene alone is featured; we see the disciples disbelieving her report; there is no statement to the effect that the disciples left Jerusalem and went to Galilee. This is all accounted for if 16:9-20 is not the ending that Mark had been expecting to write
after 16:8.
Besides noting those seven reasons for concluding that 16:9-20 was not written by Mark as the conclusion of the Gospel of Mark, I would also note that the lack of a transition between 16:8 and 16:9 appears to reflects the reverence of the editor (a Roman colleague of Mark) for both Mark 1:1-16:8 and for the LE. A newly composed ending, made expressly for the purpose of concluding the Gospel of Mark, would have a smoother transition. Such high respect for the LE indicates that the editor regarded it as both authoritative and appropriate, and this indicates, in turn, that it was either a Markan composition (a point supported by all the Markan features in 16:9-20 already noted by Farmer) or a composition known to have been approved by Mark and/or Peter for the church at Rome.
-------

------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/

Freethought Examiner: The Religion of Environmentalism?

examiner logo

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and the self-destructive mentality that has allowed for it and much other pollution and environmental degradation to occur. I was reminded by a reader that this mess in... Read more »


Freethought Examiner, D.M. Murdock


D.M. Murdock, also known as Acharya S, is an independent scholar of comparative religion and mythology from a "freethinking" perspective. She is the author of The Christ Conspiracy, Suns of God, Who was Jesus? and Christ in Egypt. Her work was featured in the movie Zeitgeist and Bill Maher's Religulous. Her main website is TruthBeKnown.com.

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:21 AM PDT


Tierney Sutton: Not a Material Girl
All About Jazz Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:29 PM PDT
Vocalist Tierney Sutton discovered jazz while immersed in Russian language and literature studies at Wesleyan University. During her college years she also abandoned her earlier atheism and became engaged in a lifelong study of Man's spiritual nature. She has adopted no halfway measures in any of these pursuits. Though she hasn't yet written lyrics, she brings the passion of a poet to the use of ...




See more news stories that match my keyword





How to prove God doesn't exist: ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

A message from Dr. Terence Meaden to all members of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN on Atheist Nexus!
Here's a short video to watch on "Origins". It's called: "How to prove God doesn't exist" [Posted by outlaw]
Visit ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN at:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/show?id=2182797%3AGroup%3A109911
--

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Sunday, September 06, 2009 2:21 AM PDT


Ball State student begins on-campus group for atheists
Ball State Daily News Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:27 AM PDT
Although she was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic school prior to college, Ball State University student Lauren Rumpler is starting an on-campus organization that aims to talk about atheism.




See more news stories that match my keyword





Wednesday, September 09, 2009

AANEWS for Saturday, September 5, 2009

A M E R I C A N A T H E I S T S
A A N E W S
#1274 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 09/05/09
http://www.atheists.org
http://www.americanatheist.org
http://www.atheistviewpoint.tv
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS, a nationwide movement that defends
civil rights for non-believers; works for the total separation of
Church and State; and addresses issues of First Amendment public
policy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"ATHEIST is really a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term, it admits
of no paltering and no evasion, and the need of the world, now as
ever, is for clear-cut issues and unambiguous speech."
-- Chapman Cohen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In This Issue:
* State appeals Ky. Homeland Security Ruling --
Kagin, "Waste of Taxpayer Money!"
* Declare your intellectual independence, join American Atheists
* Worth Noting -- Jindal & Church Politicking: It's Our Money!
* Dave's Blog
* Resources
* About this list...
KENTUCKY TO APPEAL RULING AGAINST HOMELAND SECURITY
GOD PROMOTION PLAQUE, PROGRAMS
KAGIN: "REGRETTABLE" WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY
, Ready For Supreme Court If Necessary
The State of Kentucky announced Friday that it would appeal
a court ruling that struck down legislation requiring the
Commonwealth's Homeland Security Office to display a religious
plaque and incorporate "dependence on God" in its training
programs.
Two statutes, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001
faith-based terrorist attacks, were challenged by American Atheists
and a cohort of plaintiffs who maintained that they violated
key portions of both the U.S. Constitution and the Kentucky
Constitution's prohibition about establishing religion.
The hastily passed bills mandated that the new department "publicize
the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on
Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."
Another statute called upon the Director of the new office to
promote the religious message, and prominently display the plaque
"at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center..."
The text of the statue declared:
(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from
acts of war or terrorism.
(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on
government, but rest in large measure upon individual citizens
of the Commonwealth and their level of understanding, preparation
and vigilance.
(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved
apart from reliance on Almighty God as set forth in the public
speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham
Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863 Proclamation urging Americans to
pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours of American
history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22,
1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written
long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but
in vain.' "
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists took
the issue to court. The Kentucky Attorney General promptly
filed for a motion to dismiss, and disingenuously argued that the
statutes honored god and had little or nothing to do with religion.
On August 26, however Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate denied
the Commonwealth's request, and made a summary judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs. Wingate opined that the statutes clearly established
religion, and said that while the legislature had broad authority, in
the case of the two statutes, "the secular purpose has to be genuine,
not a sham and not merely secondary to a religious objective."
Despite the 17-page rebuke of the Commonwealth's arguments,
though, the Attorney General's office decided to appeal at public
expense. Mr. Kagin called the move "regrettable," and told reporters:
"I would not be at all uncomfortable taking the facts of this case
before the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the statue is so blatantly
unconstitutional that any court would find it unconstitutional."
Shelly Johnson of the state's Attorney General office declared:
"We believe there is a clear distinction in the law between
acknowledgement of religion, which has been permitted for years,
and the establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the
Constitution. The statute in question merely acknowledges religion
and should have been upheld by the court."
Associated Press writer Roger Alford noted the importance of the
case. "States in the Bible Belt such as Kentucky, cannot afford to
concede this court battle, even when legal grounds are shaky..."
Western Kentucky University political science professor Scott Lasley
concurred, noting the partisan electoral aspects of the case.
He observed that Attorney General Jack Conway is seeking the
Democratic nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in the 2010 race.
"The reality of the situation is that for most attorneys general
that (not challenging the court ruling) would be the end of their
political careers. It's just the reality of the situation, given
the political environment you're operating in."
**
CELEBRATE YOUR INTELLECTUAL INDEPENDENCE! JOIN
AMERICAN ATHEISTS AT OUR NEW, LOW RATE
Here's a "stimulus package" for Atheists! We know that times are
difficult. Nonbelievers are like everyone else in the country
--you can get laid off or put on part-time, you can see important
investment and home value evaporate. And many people are cutting
costs, postponing vacations, cutting back whenever and wherever
they can.
So, American Atheists is making it easier than ever before to join
up in the fight for Reason, separation of church and state, and
the effort to give America's unbelieving community "a place at the
table" in the discussion over First Amendment public policy. You
can join American Atheists for only $20 per year; you receive the
American Atheist Magazine, a leading journal for news and opinion;
plus all of the discounts and other benefits of membership. It's
easy to do! Visit
<http://www.atheists.org/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=26>
to sign up using our secure, on-line transaction server.
Your membership in American Atheists shows that you care about taking
a stand for Reason, civil liberties for Atheists, and the total,
absolute separation of church and state! Membership is open to all
who agree with our Statement of Aims and Purposes. Joining American
Atheists, though, also has it rewards! Benefits and Privileges of
Membership include.
Membership dues and donations to American Atheists are tax
deductible.
Your personal Membership card qualifying you at Conferences,
Conventions and other organizational activities for special
Membership Discounts.
A beautiful Certificate of Membership suitable for framing signed
personally by the President of American Atheists.
Participation in our on-line discussion group, AACHAT.
Participation in our special "Atheist Singles" program (see below).
A special 10% discount on ALL books and products offered through
American Atheists Press.
A special discount when you present your Membership Card for
registration at American Atheist Conventions, Regional Atheist
Meets and other select activities.
A subscription to the American Atheists Magazine - a leading source
of news about AA activism and First Amendment issues!
Eligibility in the new American Atheists Scholarship Program. The
Scholarships will provide generations of American Atheist families
with funds, and help to defer costly education expenses.
Members of American Atheists benefit from our Savings Partners
program of discounts on goods and services from both local and
national businesses. And there's a special gift waiting for you when
you join American Atheists! By joining American Atheists, you're
making a major contribution in helping to protect civil liberties
for Atheists, and preserve Jefferson's "wall of separation" between
government and religion. Let us hear from you today!
<http://www.atheists.org/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=26>
**
WORTH NOTING...
<http://io9.com/5352312/the-most-exalted-star-wars-religious-art-in-the-universe/gallery/>
The Most Exalted Star Wars Religious Art In The Universe "Star
Wars is a religious experience for many of us, whether or not we
actually feel the Force. But some artists take it even further,
depicting Star Wars characters as saints, martyrs and religious
icons. Check out our holy gallery."
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090903.html>
Sen. Ted Kennedy's Legacy of Disdain for the Separation of Church and
State There was one message that dominated the remembrances of the
late Sen. Ted Kennedy following his death: He was a very successful
dealmaker. It was always good to have Ted on your side - regardless
of the obstacles. Unfortunately, one obstacle Kennedy often ignored
was the Constitution's mandate of a meaningful separation of church
and state.
<http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/04/jindal-took-chopper-to-church/>
Reports: Gov. Jindal took state helicopters to church Louisiana's
Republican Governor Bobby Jindal is receiving heavy criticism
after local media revealed he has been using taxpayer money to
make helicopter visits to churches in the state. According to one
Louisiana newspaper, the governor's chopper-travel habits have cost
the taxpayers over $180,000.
<http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/783014.html>
Outside faith, a rising tide of 'nones' A few years ago, Tyler Manley
would have considered himself a Presbyterian. If asked about his
religion today, he will confess he doesn't have one. Nor does he
believe in God. The United States remains one of the most religious
countries in the world, but Manley is part of one of the steadiest
trends in the national landscape of faith . the growing number of
Americans who profess no religious affiliation.
**
SILVERMAN BLOG SHAKING UP CYBERSPACE!
It is one of the fastest growing blogs in the
Atheist/Freethought/Secular Humanist community, and you can get in
on the discussion!
Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists is in
the Blogosphere at http://nogodblog.com. It's filled with insight,
wit, hot news, controversial opinion -- and polite, thoughtful
commentary. So join the conversation! Sign up (it's free) by
visiting http://www.atheists.org and click on the blog navigation
button, or go directly to http://nogodblog.com .
**
RESOURCES FROM AMERICAN ATHEISTS
* For membership information about American Atheists, send
mail to info@. Kindly include your name and postal
mailing address. Ask for a free membership info packet. You may
also visit http://www.atheists.org and click on the "Membership"
navigation button.
* For a free catalogue of American Atheist Press books, videos and
other products, send mail to catalogue@. Kindly include
your name and postal mailing address, and request a copy of the
AAP catalogue. You may also shop directly at http://www.atheists.org
--click on the "Shopping" navigation button.
* Current members in good standing of American Atheists may sign up
for our free E-mail Discussion Group list, aachat. We have over 150
participants who discuss topics such as Atheism, religion, First
Amendment issues, creationism and much, much more. Contact the
Moderator, Ed Gauci through egauci@ .

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Saturday, September 05, 2009 2:21 PM PDT


We are born to believe in God
Times Online Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:55 PM PDT
ATHEISM really may be against the laws of nature: humans have been hardwired by evolution to believe in God, scientists have suggested. The idea has emerged from studies into the way childrenĆ¢€™s brains develop and into the workings of the brain during religious experiences.




See more news stories that match my keyword





Sept 13th Mtg: National Health Care Reform: Can "Obama-Care" Solve the Health Care Crisis?


The Center For Inquiry/Chicago is pleased to present:
National Health Care Reform:
Can "Obama-Care" Solve the Health Care Crisis?
 

with guest presenter Helen Redmond of the
Chicago Single-Payer Action Network



(Please note that this is a MORNING session.)


















Sunday - September 13th - 10:30 AM
UIC, University Center East building
750 S. Halsted (UIC campus), Room 613 (our usual place)






































This lecture will examine the current health care crisis, the politics of health care reform, who the major players are, President Obama's health care legislation, and Congressman John Conyers's legislation, H.R. 676 - the United States National Health Care Act - which would create a single-payer health care system in the United States.
Helen Redmond is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) and a Certified Alcohol and other Drug Counselor (CADC). She has worked as a medical social worker for 15 years. Currently, she is employed at Fantus Clinic which is part of the ambulatory care health network of Cook County.  Ms. Redmond writes about numerous aspects of the health care crisis and is a regular contributor to Counterpunch, International Socialist Review, Social Work Today and Socialist Worker. Ms Redmond speaks frequently on health care and is a founding member of Chicago Single-Payer Action Network (CSPAN.) She blogs at http://helenredmond.wordpress.com
Please join us for this interesting meeting.  This MORNING session will include the main presentation, a Q&A session, and usually some additional time for a roundtable discussion!  We provide the hot coffee and we very much appreciate pastry and snack donations.



































You need not be a Friend of the Center (member) to attend these meetings, although non-CFI Members will be asked for a modest contribution.  If you find that you like us, please do join as a Friend of CFI/Chicago!



































Questions?  Just call our (part time) office phone: 312-226-0420.
Hope you can attend!

























 




































CFI/Chicago is uniquely positioned to help you live a secular, inquiring, joyful life in Chicago.  It's only $60 per year and joining helps demonstrate your commitment to our shared values!



































Join us, won't you?
Just click on the links below to become a Friend - today!



















Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
 Tell-a-friend!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Center for Inquiry.

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:21 PM PDT


DART Commission Approves "More Open" Advertising Standards
WHO-TV 13 Des Moines Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:57 PM PDT
As the wheels on the DART bus go round and round, so has the debate about controversial ads promoting atheism posted along their sides.




See more news stories that match my keyword





Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Rockford Higher Criticism Examiner: Thanks for the atheist smoothie.

examiner logo

Amid the backdrop of a beautiful Labor Day weekend afternoon, and a disappointingly overpriced Rockford, IL, Waterfront Festival, Logan Ausherman spoke openly and candidly about his love of mathematics and physics, as well as his committed atheism,... Read more »


Rockford Higher Criticism Examiner, John F. Felix


John F. Felix is a freethinking student of philosophy, science, literature, ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and a family man just passed the 25-year mark, loving Chicago and Rockford, IL, lifeways. He is a published poet, and performs freelance research for authors and scholars (expertise: creating of new versions of ancient e-texts). Send John a message.

Keyword News: [atheism]

Yahoo! Alerts
Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:21 PM PDT

Why does everything have to be God vs Dawkins?
Arts Journal Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:34 AM PDT
The discussion of whether one religion is respected more than another in Daniel Barenboim's Diwan orchestra is degenerating into a tedious slew of smug atheism. Why bother about religion at all, some respondents seem to feel, if God is dead and everyone knows it?




See more news stories that match my keyword





CFI featured in Buffalo News article about the rise of the non-religious


Center for Inquiry featured in a new Buffalo News article about the rise of the “nones.”
Dear Friends and Supporters,
The Buffalo News today ran a front page story – Outside faith, a rising tide of 'nones' – about the rise of the non-religious in society. The reporter, Jay Tokasz, visited the Center here in Amherst, New York during our CFI summer institute, (A Secular Summit) aimed at exploring nonbelievers and their cultural impact. On hand for this event were well-known demographers Barry Kosmin, Phil Zuckerman, and Luke Galen. All three have spent a considerable amount of research time analyzing and reporting on the internal characteristics of atheists, agnostics, and humanists. While visiting the Center, Tokasz took the opportunity to interview all three of these experts. As one can tell from reading the article, only Kosmin survived the final editorial cuts. Nonetheless, we hope you will agree that his contribution is an important part of the story. The story also features comments from CFI’s Vice President of Education and Research, John Shook, and an important reference in the final paragraphs to CFI’s presence around the country by way of its Centers and Communities. 
We hope you enjoy reading the piece, which can be found in its entirety here.
Sincerely,
Nathan Bupp
Vice President of Communications
Center for inquiry 
 


Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
 Tell-a-friend!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Center for Inquiry.

[TC-Alternate-list] Review of Parker's Intro to NT MSS

Matteo Grosso offers a positive review of D. C. Parker's "An Introduction to the NT MSS and Their Texts" at
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6994
Grosso seems to completely agree with Parker's idea that the NT text is an "abstract entity."
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.

------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/

PaleoBabble


PaleoBabble


Posted: 02 Sep 2009 10:31 AM PDT
L. A. Marzulli recently asked me to contribute to a newsletter he has created. I naturally agreed since he wanted some thoughts on the work of Zecharia Sitchin. Here’s my short contribution for PaleoBabble readers:
Zecharia Sitchin: Why You Can Safely Ignore Him
Although the name Erich von DƤniken may be more familiar, Zecharia Sitchin is arguably the most important proponent of the ancient astronaut hypothesis over the last several decades. One cannot go into a Barnes & Noble and not find his books prominently displayed in the New Age section. Why? Because both Sitchin and his readers have cast him as something von DƤniken is not: a scholar of ancient languages and texts. Sitchin's name therefore carries academic authority in defense of the idea that extraterrestrials visited earth millennia ago, spawning the human race through genetic manipulation and fostering civilization's major advancements, including Judaism and Christianity. That may sound silly, but tens of millions of readers take it seriously. But should they?
One of the advantages Sitchin has had over his career is the fact that few people could question his "translations" of ancient Sumerian tablets or the Hebrew Bible, or some obscure Aramaic text. He had readers over an academic barrel, not because his work was academically sound, but because these fields are so arcane. Realistically, how many people do this sort of work?
The answer is "not many," but I'm one of them.  Since 2001 I've tried to alert people to the fact that Sitchin is no expert in any ancient language. If he was, certain things would be transparent and true.
First, scholars provide their credentials to the public, not for the purpose of boasting, but to enable the non-specialist to verify expertise. It might sound trite, but this is one of the reasons doctors, lawyers and auto mechanics put diplomas, licenses, and certifications on their office wall. The public needs to know the one rendering a service is competent and willing to be examined for expertise. Sitchin has no credentials and has never offered any. All we have is the foreword to his books describing him as a journalist and an expert in a range of ancient languages. Just because his publisher markets his work well doesn't mean it's true. What Sitchin should do is tell us where he got his training so readers can verify his credentials.1
Second, genuine scholars don't make mistakes in their areas of expertise that a trainee or beginner would commit. The ancient language blunders committed by Sitchin are truly startling. I've documented Sitchin's inability to tell Aramaic from Hebrew, to understand simple Hebrew grammatical features (e.g., subject-verb agreement), and the fact that the Sumerians and Mesopotamians would disagree with his interpretation of their own vocabulary.  This last example is the easiest for non-specialists to follow and judge Sitchin. The Mesopotamian scribes who inherited and utilized the Sumerian script for their own written language (Akkadian) created bilingual dictionaries (called "lexical lists" by scholars) between their language and Sumerian.  Akkadian is very well known (it is related to Hebrew) and so we can get firsthand definitions to Sumerian words.  Simply put, they are at odds with Sitchin's phony translations.
Third, bona fide scholars are driven by the desire to be accurate. Hopefully the motivation is honesty, but at the very least, scholars know that other members of their guild will see their work and judge its quality. In academia this is called "peer review." Scholars who want to contribute to their field offer articles and books that will be reviewed and publicly critiqued by their peers. Peer review is critical in fields like medicine since the ideas put forth in medical journals can mean life or death. That may not be the case in ancient studies, but peer review is the primary means to validate quality scholarship. A simple author search in a religion or humanities database available at any college or public library will reveal that Zecharia Sitchin has never put his theories forward in scholarly publications where they can be reviewed by experts in the fields in which he is supposed to be expert. Instead, he writes for the non-specialist who cannot evaluate his work. That Sitchin has no peer-reviewed publications is an indictment on his desire to have his work tested, and perhaps even his ability to write anything that experts would not think ridiculous.
Lastly, real scholars are careful with how they note and represent the work of others. Followers of Sitchin love to point out that he quotes a number of books written by Sumerian and Mesopotamian scholars, but they miss two important items: Sitchin often does not record full titles or page numbers (so he can be checked), and he to date has offered no instances where the scholars whose books he quotes agree with his extraterrestrial interpretations. It is simply dishonest to quote a Sumerian scholar in regard to the birth of Sumerian civilization and then later claim that source backs up his work in other regards. This is to create a faƧade of academic approval where none exists.
Should you worry about Sitchin's vast output in defense of ancient astronauts? Only if you prefer to base your worldview on data that contains outright errors, or doesn't exist, or that has never been subject to the scrutiny of knowing peers. The emperor simply doesn't have any clothes.
  1. I wouldn’t ask Sitchin to do anything I wouldn’t do, and so I have had my resume online since the beginning.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now