Why the Anglican schism great!

It is all but likely that the Anglican church will schism primarily over the issue of gay marriage/ordinations. But this schism is about much more. The reasons for the split is between those who view their religion as dogma with traditions and views set in stone for all time and those who think that their holy text is a product of its times. This is therefore a fundamental split and cannot be resolved for the same reason faith and reason cannot be.

Evangelicalism works well in convincing people because people will believe a big lie over a small one (as Hitler knew) and if you invalidate some part of tradition or the holy text why not the rest? The more reasonable will argue some of the text is allegorical and out of date and that it was not possible 300 years ago to say being gay is fine and get church members. They will say that science has shown some things to be false and so it is ok to question the text (but not too much). The rebuttal is by the dogma people who say then this could invalidate the entire holy text and make their religion a shame so they don't accept science (as with creationists).

Clearly the dogma people don't want to lose their phycological support system since they are not stable enough to question their entire religion so they will fight tooth and nail since their entire mental sanity is at stake, and who can blame them. But this schism has a very positive effect for the moderates and us freethinkers since this forces a debate within (a debate from us heretics is unlikely to ever have an influence) and once they schism there will be two opposite voices for the Anglicans. This will effectively eliminate their voices! It will also divide their resources making them less effective. What are the spoils? Well I can imagine this getting ride of one strong opposition voice to stem cells and that could potentially solve a large number of medical problems and revolutionize our lives!

When the market fails

It occurs to me that there are other places were the free market fails. The electric car seems like a prime example. Despite being able to make a profit from such a product car companies do not want to sell them. For instance despite the fact GM is losing money and market share they scraped the EV1 car and would not even sell the prototypes (see http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/index.html). The problem is that many current companies would stand to lose a lot of money. Not to mention longer lasting and more efficient cars would mean that the industry would lose money since not as many cars would brake down and need repairs or to be replaced. The same can be said about shoes. It seems unlikely we can't make shoes that can endure more than a summer yet what incentive do companies have for making them. The consumer may want it but they have the current situation and it is more profitable.

The answer seems to lie in leglislating why we want these things. The problem with non durable shoes is there is a large amount of garbage that results. If the cost of disposal of the shoes are added then in order to drive prices down companies would make them more durable. Similarly with the car. It just seems unlikely that a packaging and disposal tax can be added.

The World Cup

I have mixed feeeling about the biggest tournament on earth. I really dislike the nationalism that it instills and promotes. Nationalism and patriotism are simply political tools of manipulation. That said, I love the atmosphere and the attitude it brings to people. All of the people I saw watching were awed, hopefull, interested and pleasesent. It is very nice to be around despite the nationalism.

Stephen Harper's comments

When Stephen Harper was asked about the threat, he made a glib remark. He has got a lot of flack for it and that's ridiculous. It was a historical joke and showed the way most Canadians reacted, a measured reaction.

Almost terror-attacked

Well we were almost the victims of Islamic extremists as I'm sure you all have almost heard. I noticed when I first saw the coverage there was no mention of the fact they were Muslims. I only deduced it from the next days news when they spoke of a Mosque being attacked. So it seems the elephant in the room is the fact that these where hone grown Islamic terrorists but no one wanted to say Islamic!?! Here is a great article about the absurdity of the current media coverage of Islamic terrorism and the medias PC nonsense. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists, that's nonsense, but all of our terrorists are Muslim and that's quite a clue!! I saw one station where one of the accused wife was saying they treated her husband "like a monster." He's not a monster he's just a person who believes in killing innocent fellow-citizens. That only makes him a ...uh... hmmm... lunatic/madman/butcher/murderer/terrorist/asshole.

I especially am happy to see the myth that Islam only preaches love and peace dispelled by direct quote of the Koran:

[F]ight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).

(Sura 9:5).
I've posted this before but I think it is important to put up again. If you read the Koran over and over againuntil it is dogma how can you not be violent? Although the Bible Torah does the same crap, few memorize it, and most only pay attention to the violence against gays. Although if you read the Koran correctly you would realize that it is actually a joke written by FSM (see here) as you can see from the "ye" and "fight."

Terrorists, bomb-makers and quotes

I likes these:
The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
George Washington

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

I am glad they caught those alleged bombers in Toronto, the idea of blaming the internet is nonsense. I already feel that the "hate" laws we have go too far and feel we should not sanction government censoring of the internet as in China. If anything this should encourage a (court approved by warrant) tracking of Canadians to suspect sites.

The bigger question is should we play the propaganda war? For instance the government could set up fake sites like the ones visited with bomb making instructions that were inherently unsafe. But that's probably illegal. Too bad, the idea of bomb makers blowing themselves up accidentally has a nice ring to it.

Inconsistent religion

Isn't funny how the large majority of religious people don't actually believe their own nonsense. How can I say that? Take the Mennonites. When the next SARS or bird flu hits they won't go for vaccines or medicine because there religion tells them evolution is not true, etc. So they are consistent in their belief that religion is right not science. But how many 'moderates' will rush to their doctor to get the latest medical science treatment? If you are going to be delusional at least be self-consistently so.

If not gays then me

After watching the V (Vendetta) movie and seeing the persecution of gays I am reminded that I owe them a debt of gratitude. The gays get the brunt of the religious people's social critizism regardless of whether they are religious or not. Now religious people will always need someone to demonize (you can't be 'right' and moral if you can't point to someone who isn't) and after they gays it's me/us the atheists. We already know they distrust us the most but so far they remain distracted. Imagine Rove is trying to win the 2016 electron and gay marriage/adoption/pension/teaching/etc are all worn out having been on previous ballet boxes. What else is there to demonize? Atheists, with their science and reason. So until then thanks for taking the brunt of it!