Via Red State Rabble, we learn that Judge Jones was protected by the US Marshalls back in December, after his Kitzmiller Decision pulled back the curtain from ID and identified it for the warmed over creationism that it is. The reason for that protection? Threatening emails he received following his decision about ID creationism.
More details below the fold…
Clearly, there was a lot riding on that trial to intelligent design. People had invested countless hours, for one example, trying to advance ID creationism as some sort of legitimate science or as a reason to “unshackle” science from the requirement that its practicioners must test their hypotheses. ID creationism was their wedge and Judge Jones followed the evidence the only place it could have led: identifying it for the retitled creationism of old that it was.
But Judge Jones received threatening emails. Although the article linked above left open the matter of what exactly were the nature of the threats he was describing, the Marshalls felt sufficiently concerned to provide him protection back in December. Judge Jones said “We’re going to get a judge hurt.”
If it was creationists who stood to lose the most from Judge Jones’ decision, then it’s not too much of a stretch to think that angry creationists were the ones who concerned the US Marshalls so. Was it a creationist to whom Judge Jones referred when he said that someone was going to get a judge hurt? Anyone, on this weekend day so far under the influence of mind-altering substances, as to think it was disgruntled atheist creationists who sent those emails?
Christians sending threatening letters to judges. Christians lying on the witness stand. I’ll have a few more thoughts on this issue, and the topic of misplaced faith and why science is greatly threatened by it, tomorrow. For now, follow the link for the scoop from Pat Hayes.
BCH
PS - Tune in tomorrow.
Well, now. This certainly makes Mirecki’s story more plausible, doesn’t it? After all if someone can feel strongly enough to threaten a federal judge, how much more effort does it take to motivate oneself to assault a lowly professor?
Well, now. This certainly makes Mirecki’s story more plausible, doesn’t it? After all if someone can feel strongly enough to threaten a federal judge, how much more effort does it take to motivate oneself to assault a lowly professor?
[ann coulter] And if Judge Jones and Prof Mirecki don’t get over their America hatred right-quick, they just might find themselves in adjoining chain-link pens down in Gitmo… [/ann coulter]
According to an article in the New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/p[…];oref=slogin
A United States Senator, John Cornyn of Texas, is also quoted as making what you might consider a veiled threat concerning the Terry Schiavo case:
Just so you know, the first link to the article isn’t working. You need to put the “l” on the end of the URL.
Fixed. Thanks for the head’s up.
BCH
Hmm. I wonder how likely he would be to describe the origins of radical Islamic violence in similar terms.
Under the influence – check. Enough to imagine a fellow atheist was responsible – uncheck
I would have guessed christians anyway, because christians are not as ethical as atheists: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/20[…]s_and_t.html
off topic, but Seed magazine has an article on the Clergy Letter project:
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/20[…]dfellows.php
It turns out that many of the pastors who signed the letter, when interviewed later, didn’t really understand evolution and what they were supporting.
“it seems that many of the pastors who signed the letter…”
Many? The article quotes one, and goes on to say:
“Several other clergymen interviewed echoed this notion. The responses of these clergy members—while hardly a statistically significant sub-population—cast some doubt as to whether the 10,000 Clergy Letter signers are all the whole-hearted supporters of science, as the Alliance for Science claims.”
Several? How many other of the clergymen interviewed did not echo that notion? Let’s see some numbers. I don’t know Seed, but if that’s typical of its journalism I’m not sure I’m inclined to make its aquaintance.
R
RupertG wrote:
They didn’t put up numbers on that, or on how many they interviewed to find them. But it does call into question whether all 10,000 of the signers understood what they were signing.
It’s not the answer – it’s just the question. And it’s a very valid question.
If you want the answer you’ll have to conduct a more rigorous survey.
My experience with people who post here is that not all who fight for evolution understand exactly what they’re fighting for.
Perhaps they are simply fighting for something different than you are.
That has always, of course, been a concept that has been extremely difficult for fundies (of all sorts) to understand.
Lenny Flank wrote:
You might want to read the article: http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/20[…]dfellows.php
The quote they used was:
That’s something an ID advocate would say and he shouldn’t be signing a letter that’s anti-ID.
It’s not the culture-influences-genes argument I had with you awhile back.
That is true. I am one of them. But then again, why does anyone need to understand evolution exactly, to recognise it as science?
It does not take too long to recognise: 1. ID as a religious/political movement. 2. Evolution holds itself to scientific methodology while ID does not. 3. The most prominent ID supporters are either dishonest or ignorant (often both).
I would conclude that it is not important to thoroughly understand evolution to support it as science. To argue against it as science, people require far more of an understanding (at least they should do, to be honest).
They must have been fairly serious threats too. I would be surprised if the authorities hand out armed protection lightly.
Sheeesh! What a World we live in.
Jones mentions the threats and comments on the rhetoric that may lead to them late in this interview broadcast on March 24. (Link is to the audio file.) He also comments extensively on Kitzmiller – the interview is a hour long.
RBH
I don’t understand evolution exactly, but then again I don’t understand anything exactly. I can still say what I believe on the balance of probabilities to be the closest to the truth, while leaving open the option that I’m wrong. I’ve got what I think is a good grasp of the fundamentals of Christianity and scientific thought, and that’s one of the reasons I’m so confident which camp ID falls into.
If you want to find large numbers of people who really don’t have an idea what they believe but are prepared to defend it vociferously, religion has more than just an edge. If you took an average congregation of a Christian church (doesn’t matter what denomination) and asked them all separately whether they believed in dogma such as the Trinity, the resurrection and redemption, they’d say yes. Ask them what they thought the Trinity actually was and why it mattered theologically, and why God had his son killed and how that helped things, and I bet you’d get a different answer each time. (For real fun, ask where the concept of the Trinity comes from. For even more real fun, ask someone nice and cuddly like a Episcopalian priest what they’re actually taught in theological college about the Bible, and why they never preach that side of things from the pulpit. I’ve seen what happens when they do, and it ain’t pretty.)
But I digress.
One of the things that came through clearest from Kitzmiller was that the _opponents_ of evolution often cannot describe in the simplest terms what it is. Indeed, some seem to take pride in ‘I don’t know the details, but I know it’s wrong’, and I’d be hard pushed to find equivalent ‘I don’t know the details but I know it’s right’ evolution-minded people actually involved in the debate.
R
$text =~ s/Christians/fundamentalist Christian fanatics/;
Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 9, column 245, byte 905 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.1/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187
I meet these types every week as an escort for a Planned Parenthood clinic for which about 5% of the patients come for abortions. They (the picketers) call us escorts and the patients “evil”, “murderers,” “baby killers,” and other choice names. The women normally threaten us with damnation in hell (which I regard as theoretical and therefore immaterial) and the men with not so subtly veiled threats in this world. No one has yet tried to shoot anyone, but the potential is sufficient that the clinic employs an armed guard (a retired policeman around 50) and has bullet proof windows that incorporate seven layers of plate glass interleaved with some kind of heavy plastic sheet (about 1-1/2” thick). The religious right, including those opposed to evolution, has within it as much potential for violence as any group on the world, including Islamic fanatics. Anyone who publicly opposes them needs to be careful.
As an aside, several years ago, after a long but dispassionate letter of mine supporting evolution appeared in the local paper as a “guest column”, I had a rock thrown through a window in my house and a number of “heavy breathing” phone calls (I’m listed in the phone book). Nothing further has happened, but my wife worries about my willingness to publicly bait the fundies.
I see Bill Buckingham still doesn’t get it (http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3641366). He seems to be typical of the rest of them.
Regarding the clergy letter project: If a “high priest”* from the Mormons has difficulty with evolution but signs the letter, so what? At least he doesn’t preach against his church’s theology by saying Darwin is definitely in error.
If all the other signatories of the clergy letter also come from faiths where preaching against Darwin is false doctrine, that’s exactly the point.
Fact is that a small minority of Christian sects have serious theology statements that question the science of Darwin’s theory. Most of the flapping against Darwin and evolution is extra-theological, not part of the faith.
* In the Latter-day Saints structure, there are no professional clergy. Local wards are headed by lay clergy. Men become priests at about the age of 12, and advance through different priesthoods. Most Mormon men would be a high priest.
Always nice when your lawyer has to invoke your drug habit to explain your statements.
AHAHA! When I posted that I hadn’t read the very next part:
Must still have the monkey on his back.
Sort of makes you wonder why people distrust atheists, while seeming to naturally trust God-believers. That’s not to say a militant atheists would never be capable of sending threatening emails. But, how many crazy religionists does it take until people stop equating religiosity with being good? I’d suggest that ANYONE (secular or religious) who thinks they are in possession of The Truth, is capable of violence towards others.
When I was invited to debate the existence of God at a Minneapolis area church (for the non-theist side), the nice churchy Christian couple that sat IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN’S PEW said that if they “had a gun, they’d shoot [me] in the head right now” for my presentation. Which, by the way, was as gentle and respectful a presentation of non-theism I can imagine. So Christians turning homicidal because they’ve heard something they don’t like no longer surprises me in the least.
On another topic, Seed Magazine is actually quite good, generally. It’s not perfect–what is–but it does a nice job of addressing the “third culture” aspect of science and society. I read the latest issue over the weekend, and if nothing else, a review in Seed led me to advance-order the book “Intelligent Thought” coming out on May 9. It’s a collection of essays on intelligent design from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Pinker, and it’s only $14, so I’m expecting it to be a worthwhile purchase. Just a heads up.
Greg Peterson wrote:
From Andrew Sullivan’s blog: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
You might want to email your experience to Sullivan.
“Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” GEORGE SANTAYANA (1863-1952)
Its a sad bit of irony that fundies argue that atheists are evil because they lack any sense of morality.
A good atheist would not resort to violence when there belief is challenged because it is ethically wrong.
On the other hand a good fundie may resort to violence because they do not consider it morally wrong, even if it is clearly ethically wrong.
To be clear I am using ethical to mean right and wrong as determined by society and moral to mean right and wrong as defined by religion.
While the majority of most religions openly oppose any form of violence (For Christians: If you read the new testament, Christ clearly refused to resort to violence even in the face of imminent death). There are still many religious groups which either tacitly or openly support violence in the name of God.
But Jesus did get violent once. He started kicking over the tables of the “money changers” in the temple calling it a den of theives.
Alan said;” If you read the new testament, Christ clearly refused to resort to violence even in the face of imminent death)”Not so
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves “with many stripes” In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn’t sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: “bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me.” Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. Jesus is unqualified to act as the perfect light to lead mankind on the road to morality and is not worthy of the emulation accorded him by millions.
Truer words were never spoken.
Because I can’t norm. It has been well proven to me (mostly by myself) that it is not true. I can’t just willy-nilly decide what to believe. Can you?
Lenny asked:
No, my complaint is with you and Bee and Elliot. Your arguments against Intelligent Design become counter productive and encourage DIers when you use that ignorant post modern relativism to justify religion.
Let’s assume that he does.
What’s it to you?
Why the hell should you care?
What on earth makes you think that it’s your duty to stamp out his belief?
Who appointed you God?
(sigh)
Norm, maybe you’re hard of hearing. Maybe you’re just not terribly bright. Or maybe you’re just another fundie ideologue who only hears what he wants to hear. So I will say this again, one more time, just for you, and I’ll say it vveerrryyy ssslllooowwwllllyyyy.
Pay attention:
*ahem*
I do not grant the Bible any authority at all whatsoever in any way shape or form. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None at all.
I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or any supernatural entities whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not a single one. None.
Is there any part of that which you don’t understand, Norm? If so, I’ll repeat it again, and I’ll try to use smaller words next time.
Geez.
Do you seriously believe I am a post-modernist?
I do not believe every single argument has equal validity just because someone believes it.
I do believe everyone is entitled to a POV. That is not the same thing.
I do not want religion taught as science. There are obvious differences.
I do not want every single POV treated equaly in science classes.
I just want people to be able to live as they want. Not impose stuff onto others.
That’s pretty funny, Norm.
Would all the IDers here who have been encouraged by my posts to them, please raise your hands?
Norm, I’m not the one telling the fundies that their view – the Bible must be correct in every jot and tittle or NONE of it is correct – is right, and thus encouraging them to continue that view.
That would be, uh, YOU, Norm.
Stephen Elliott wrote:
Not really. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to play with my sister’s kids and act as if Santa were real.
You’re not the only one who can’t just willy-nilly decide what to believe. IDers and fundamentalists can’t do that either (at least the ones that aren’t bald faced liars).
The question is why can’t they?
That answer surprised me. TBH I had you pegged as somebody who would just tell them the truth and banish any idea of “Santa”.
Now, why do you consider me a post-modernist?
The 2nd part of your 2nd paragraph following into the 3rd is hard to answer. I do not know.
Lenny wrote:
No, what you do is say ignorant post modern relativit crap like this:
And Bush can call himself a conservative and then spend us into bankruptcy and increase the size of government. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you into that something. I can call myself a god – who are you to argue with me?
Your argument is in Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean” – Humpty Dumpty.
No it doesn’t not when you want to communicate shared ideas in a culture.
Elliot wrote:
Do you want to know? If so, how do you propose to learn?
I offered my take: http://www.totse.com/en/religion/ch[…]otcrst1.html http://www.totse.com/en/religion/ch[…]otcrst2.html
And no one has a good argument against it – just pomo crap.
I propose that my early experiences with being raised Christian are similar to any fundies and you can learn something about what being a fundy means from that.
But you’re on your own now – I’ve wasted too much time here today.
Bye all.
What does, Norm.
When do you plan on giving it up, Norm?
Sorry If I have offended you. I did not intend to. Those links you gave sound exactly like what I was saying a few years ago.
Norm, of course, would not be sorry for offending YOU.
Sounds to me like Norm just traded one religion for another, and is still just as eager as before to lead everyone down to the river. Same river, even – just the other bank. (shrug)
I see the pointless, off-topic religious flamewar is still going on. Since I don’t care to waste my time reading through another 75 posts of this stupidity, can someone tell me if Burt has given us his promised update yet?
I now return you to the breathtaking inanity.
Well I was assuming he was deliberately trying to offend at some points.
No big deal. I was once exactly the same. Just phases of life.
Back one more time… I missed something relatively important when I was frustrated by you all this morning:
Stephen Elliott wrote:
You actually make an important point about what Bee’s views might be (not that I think Bee meant what you said): What the authors considered demons (as they saw it) was actually something else. Yes. I agree with that. It was something else. What pissed me off about Bee’s take on the demons was that he was trying to put a positive spin on the demon story. “Just think of it as metaphor.”
No. You shouldn’t think about it as a metaphor. It’s bad as a metaphor. It was not meant as a metaphor. What you should do, if you’re interested in the truth, is ask what the hell is going on here? Are there really demons or is something like mental illness involved… or even something else.
I think it’s important to think about what that “something else” is and not brush it off. The something else looks to me like a very nasty bit of psychological manipulation that happens when you accept the Bible’s supernatural structure.
Think about what it means to feel and believe there is another personality inside you, driving you. That sounds like a personality that is disintegrating, splitting apart. What was once a part of you is rejected and no longer a part of you, it has become alien and evil.
And who gets possessed – believers. So what is really happening?
I offer the fact that demons are literal to some Christians as evidence that the Bible’s supernatural structures might be psychologically unhealthy. Saying you can ignore that and call them metaphors or symbols is a way to not see an obvious bit of evidence.
Does belief in the Bible’s supernatural structures cause a psychological phenomena that resembles demonic possession? If so, then are those Christian beliefs damaging to your psyche?
If you ignore such questions – are you an enabler of the psychological poison?
The Great Oz has spoken, huh.
‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank wrote:
Lenny, can you offer a case with evidence and facts that would suggest the demon possession stories in the New Testament are metaphors?
Can you refute any of the historical evidence I presented earlier?
If you can’t, might I humbly suggest you shut-the-fuck-up?
that’s an interesting question.
The STEP research program recently published an article on the study of the efficacy of prayer, and perhaps the only significant detraction that reviewers had was that the study of the efficacy of prayer also should include the study of the efficacy of curses.
Interestingly, the reviewers focused on the part of the study that showed an INCREASE in surgical complications after heart surgery when the patients KNEW they were being prayed for.
they chastised the authors for not pursuing the obvious; that these belief structures might actually be psychologically damaging.
I started a thread on this topic over on ATBC; I thought you specifically might be interested Norm.
cheers
Who cares if they are or aren’t, Norman? Why on earth do you think everyone is under some sort of obligation to accept every single jot and tittle of a 2000 year old book?
Can YOU offer a case with evidence and facts that would suggest Newton’s writings about angels pushing the planets into proper orbits are metaphors?
No?
Does that mean the Newtonian laws of motion are wrong?
It’s just a book, Norm. No need to get so obsessed about it. Looks like you still have some work to do to get rid of all your fundie upbringing.
I can always tell when I’m getting a fundie’s goat.
And I rather enjoy it.
When one reads into scientific data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a open-minded scientist and deserves our support.
When one reads into biblical data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a close-minded fundamentalist and deserves our contempt.
Eugene Lai wrote:
I trust you are being satirical because what you say means that if someone claims the “Bible never said Jesus cursed a fig tree” and then I point to a passage where Jesus did curse a fig tree I would, according to your categorical syllogism, be a a close-minded fundamentalist for pointing out the error.
Sorry the satire isn’t obvious after reading some really mind blowingly dumb comments here.
Your trust has not been misplaced.
The truly mind-blowing thing is the number of people on this board who do this way day after day without blinking, and think they are intelligent and fair minded.
I used to think they belong to UD.
To summarize: still more off-topic inanity.
Lenny,
Did you not “close the door and walk away” on this conversation some 100 posts ago (#90632)? Why are you still here?
Also, please stop bringing up my name in vain, particularly if you continue to deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent what I have been saying.
Are you God now, Carol . … . ?
In either case, I think you’d need to know what kinds of conclusions are being drawn. If one has an ulterior motive (which may or may not be malicious), he may draw a conclusion that is not reasonable based on the data - a practice which undermines serious study and understanding of any subject.
Update