Wednesday, March 30, 2011
[This received "Honorably Mention" in the Comedy/Novelty category of the International Songwriting Competition 2009. Seemingly it was written in all seriousness, praising not parodying drug users. Of course we all know how much fun drugs are.]
In 1962, prayer was banned from public schools. In 1963 Bible reading, was banned.
In the 1960's evolution became widely taught in America's high schools.
The large scale hippie movement began in summer, 1967.
Eventually the hippies grew older and became yuppies. The yuppie drug of choice was shopping.
Since the 1980's, the government debt has been growing, personal debt has been growing, savings have been dropping. The balance of trade began falling rapidly in the mid-1990s. We have now been hit by a financial crisis, which I suspect will eventually lead to a United States sovereign default, with consequences I'd rather not think about.
Basically, the Protestant work ethic has been exchanged for the mindless selfishness and instant gratification of atheism, with unfortunately predictable results. Twelve Step programs have tried to reinvent the church, however with limited success. We are quickly becoming Third World America.
I can only say, rephrasing the song: God save America, land that I love.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 6:34 AM
Friday, March 25, 2011
Almost a year ago, we adopted a dog. Last night, he died.
He was a good friend to myself and my two oldest children. Prince was gentle, intelligent and fiercely protective. Unfortunately, like many dogs, Prince loved to run away and explore the world. He probably escaped about once a month since we adopted him. Last night was the first time he escaped at night. Being black, he was not visible to drivers at night and he soon met his end on a busy road near our home. A police officer called me. I came and took away his lifeless body. He now rests buried in a nearby forest, next to a little stream.
What's interesting is how different this response was in comparison to a human, God forbid, being struck by a car. In that case, not just one police car, but several would have been called. A small truck, fitted out with medical equipment and containing several paramedics and emergency medical technicians, would have rushed to the scene within minutes. The victim's mouth would have been cleared, an oxygen mask would have been applied, CPR might have been performed and the patient would have been totally immobilized on a board before transport to prevent spinal damage. In the hospital, teams of doctors and nurses would have rushed to provide further intervention. Every person involved with the victim would have extensive training and licensing. Very likely, the outcome would have been the same. The body would then have been moved to the hospital morgue to await removal by a licensed funeral director for respectful burial or cremation. Many thousands of dollars would have been spent all to do anything possible to, first of all, save the victim and, failing that, to respectfully dispose of his remains. Boxes of paperwork would be generated as well to document every tiny detail. This might be in addition to a lawsuit being brought against the driver involved, a large settlement being paid to the victim's survivors, again huge expenses, legal fees, mountains of paperwork, etc. The process could extend for years and involve dozens if not hundreds of highly trained and educated professionals.
Why is there such a massively different response to a car running over a four year old dog or a four year old child? Surely, today, 150 years after the publication of Origin of Species, everyone except a few religious lunatics must know that man is merely an animal, and not even a very nice one.
The fact is, amazingly, not everyone's mind has become entirely poisoned by such nonsense. Most Americans still believe whole heartedly that man is fundamentally NOT an animal, but rather he is an image of God. A dog, however intelligent, kind, beloved and beautiful, is not.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 5:41 AM
Monday, March 21, 2011
This question is a little bit complicated. The Nazi government did not aggressively promote atheism in the way that most Communist governments did and still do. The Nazi party preferred to persuade the churches to cooperate with the government when possible, rather than to outlaw the churches.
I also have a feeling that many Nazis harbored a soft spot for Christianity, since Nazi antisemitism was clearly rooted in Christian antisemitism.
On the other hand, the Nazis certainly promoted Darwinism. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote
"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development."
This is a cornerstone of Nazi philosophy and is merely a statement of the Darwinian concept of natural selection. Nazism and evolution are both based on the same fundamental belief.
At the same time, Nazism certainly discouraged the concept of a personal, Biblical God. The Waffen SS did not seem to possess an official chaplaincy of any sort, at least not in the earlier years when recruitment could be more selective.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no record of any Nazi official in Hitler's bunker praying even during the final days of the war.
If we therefore define atheism, as I do, as a belief in evolution and a disbelief in the Biblical God, I believe that we can describe Nazism as being a fundamentally atheistic movement.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 5:55 AM
Friday, March 11, 2011
[a gathering place of the evil]
Some people think that I'm being a little bit harsh when I claim that the primary motive of Orthodox Jews who convert to atheism is greater sexual freedom.
However, when I read articles like this, it sounds like I'm probably about on target. The covert apostate in this article seems to have no interest in discussing philosophy and science however he does have a desperate need to be introduced to secular women whom he's certain will be impressed by his handsome appearance. (Sure, man, the girls will be all over you.)
I've noticed a great similarity between White Supremacists and ex-Orthodox. Compare for example Failed Messiah and Stormfront. Both spend a lot of time bashing Jews. (There is actually a film depicted an ex-Orthodox Jew becoming a neo-Nazi - not far from the truth.) However I give the White Supremacists more credit on one point. However perverted their beliefs are, they do believe in something, and are not merely mindless hedonists.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 1:18 PM
Monday, March 07, 2011
[an unhappy camper?]
According to an op-ed article in today's New York Times, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America” have published research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults and finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.
This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.
Among the young people Regnerus and Uecker studied, the happiest women were those with a current sexual partner and only one or two partners in their lifetime. Virgins were almost as happy, though not quite, and then a young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.
In other words, by engaging in casual, promiscuous sex, men are selfishly hurting women and women are foolishly hurting themselves.
I don't mean to sound flippant, but "Duh".
Posted by jewish philosopher at 4:00 AM
Sunday, March 06, 2011
[the messiah of science]
Charles Darwin was the founder of a popular modern religion known as atheism. While it is true that atheists existed before Darwin, however Darwin made atheism respectable and popular. Richard Dawkins has written "atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".
Who exactly was this man?
Charles Darwin was born in 1809 into a wealthy English family. He lived his entire life as an idle gentleman and never worked. Regarding his personality, he was polite, loyal and honest. He was a quiet man who was often sick with some unidentifiable digestive illness. He was married to his wife Emma from age 30 until his death 43 years later. They parented ten children, three of whom died in childhood or infancy. His only known vice seems to have been an obsession with shooting birds in his late teens and early twenties.
As far as education is concerned, Darwin received an ordinary degree from Cambridge University in 1831. This seems to have been something equivalent to a modern day American high school diploma. In 1853 Darwin was awarded the Royal Society's Royal Medal for two of his works: Geological Observations and A monograph on the fossil Lepadidæ. These were not earth shattering publications, however I believe that this medal for original research would qualify as the equivalent of a PhD in paleontology today.
As far as intelligence is concerned, I don't know of any evidence that Darwin was above average.
The reason why anyone today has heard of Darwin is because of a tragedy which occurred in 1851 - Darwin's ten year old daughter Anne died. Darwin until then had been basically a liberal Protestant. After this tragedy, the most painful in Darwin's life, he came to hate God. "What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!" he would write in 1856. At last, in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of Species, the first book ever published by someone with real scientific credentials which suggested (although he still dared not state it explicitly) that life could, in essence, just create itself, no God needed.
In my humble opinion his arguments for evolution are no more or less convincing than arguments made by other men, just as bright and educated, for Christianity, Islam or Communism for example. Darwin's substitution of evolution for the Biblical God is grasped by scientists and hedonists for obvious self serving reasons. For the scientist, evolution meant that scientists are no longer merely studying God's handiwork while the clergy studies God Himself, making scientists naturally inferior to the clergy. Now scientists are of supreme importance. For the hedonist, evolution was (pardon the expression) a godsend. Without the Biblical God or an afterlife, everything is permitted.
Posted by jewish philosopher at 2:22 PM