Man Shot Churchgoers Over Liberal Views

By Duncan MansfieldKNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Knoxville’s police chief says the man accused of a shooting that killed two people at a Tennessee church targeted the congregation because of its liberal social stance.

Chief Sterling Owen IV said Monday that police found a letter in Jim D. Adkisson’s car. Owen said Adkisson was apparently frustrated over being out of work and had a “stated hatred of the liberal movement.”

Adkisson is charged with first-degree murder. Police say a gunman entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during a children’s performance Sunday. No children were hurt.

The church is known for advocating women’s and gay rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter.

link

Open Source Religion – Religion 2.0

Sidian: What follows is the speech for the workshop I gave at Starwood ‘08 this year about Religion 2.0 and Open Source Religion. The founder of Yoism was there and we had a very good discussion amongst everyone present.

Instant communication between people and between countries has accelerated over the last few years. The Internet, social networks, and cell phones have given people of all ages an opportunity to express their opinions on every conceivable topic. For example, people with different religious beliefs are coming into contact with each other much more now than ever before. Many of them are discovering that where they grew up and how they were indoctrinated had a direct effect on their religious belief system, and that legitimate, alternative beliefs exist all over the world.

In many ways, the media has operated much like our spirituality throughout recent decades. Just as the media has spoon fed us daily news and programming in a way which reflects the unique bias of the channel, organized religion has spoon fed their belief systems to members of their congregations. Both methods have a way of prioritizing, slanting world views to particular agendas.

This, I would call Religion 1.0. Like priests doling out sermons, the media has controlled what words are too sinful to air, what program is best to be seen, and so on until it seems we’ve unanimously agreed on something we never received a petition for.

There were disagreements among magazines, newspapers, and television networks just as there were disagreements among the priests and preachers of organized religions. But individuals were not encouraged to think for themselves, especially in ways that were considered unorthodox, and far from the mainstream.

But corporate and religious control are losing their stranglehold, especially in parts of the world where Internet connections are prolific. Indoctrination tends to lose its grip when someone, in a moment of curiosity, can learn about a dozen or more perspectives on salvation, the afterlife, karma, chakras, and God — or the lack thereof.

Suddenly, our spiritual beliefs have begun to operate a lot more like a shopping network with a dozen distinct brands of what is considered “sacred.” How often do you hear someone saying something like “I don’t believe in Fate because I don’t like the idea that my future is already decided.”? Or, “I look at all of the misery in the world and it is hard for me to believe in an All-Loving God.” Or, “Reincarnation appeals to me, even though it runs against the teachings of my church.”

We know that liking or not liking a religious idea really has no bearing on its reality. In this case we don’t really have any solid evidence for fate, free will, reincarnation, or even for God, depending on your definition. Yet it is evident that personal preference plays an immense role in choosing one’s beliefs. So spirituality has become a matter of taste. And there are as many flavors as there are seekers.

In the psychological community, these belief systems are sometimes referred to as one’s Personal Mythology. The process of conscious and unconscious myth making goes on all the time. Here are some examples:  “People are good at heart.” “I can’t stand large crowds.”  “life is not fair.”.

Everyone has them. Humans have always been myth makers because we’ve always been trying to figure this mysterious universe out, make sense of life and death, sickness and health, love and hate.

The point is everyone here has a Personal Mythology. Does anyone here believe in love at first sight? That is a personal myth. Does anyone believe that we die because our time has come? That is another personal myth. Does anyone believe that we get sick because we deserve the illness? You can see how personal myths can be rational or irrational, helpful or harmful, sensible or sheer nonsense.

Some people will try to change their personal myths and some people won’t. Many people are committed to their personal myths, even though the evidence is lacking. These people have needs that are reflected in such words as “belief” and “faith”, and “hope”. For someone to believe in, or to have faith in something, or to hope that something will happen, the object in question must not be tangibly present. For instance if I were to say that I “believe” in the existence of dragons, they must not be right here, right now. Because if they were tangibly present, it would be very strange for me to say I “believe” in them. I might say I “know” about them, or that I “understand” them, but I would not say I “believe” in them.

So beliefs are an important part of personal mythology. Beliefs also characterize religions, especially ancient religions that did not require evidence to back them up. These religions are part of cultural mythologies, such as Egyptian mythology, Greek mythology, and Norse mythology. Very few people take these religious beliefs seriously anymore. They generally do not “believe” that Aton, the Egyptian sun god, is worthy of reverence. They do not “believe” that Mount Olympus is the home of the Greek gods and goddesses. They do not “believe” that thunder results from the Norse gods playing with bowling balls.

Yet we refer to the religions of today as “religions” not “mythologies” because the latter term would be disrespectful to many people. It’s a funny sort of privilege we give these religions if they are still alive and kicking. But once forgotten, they lose this respect and are discarded as something too superstitious or unpopular to be true. Then they are often referred to as “mythologies.”

Yet all in all, religion itself IS mythology. Or I should say it is often mythology. There are a few spiritualities, which we call religions, like Zen. But there are no Gods of Zen, and there is nothing you must atone for in Zen, and there is nothing you must aspire to in Zen. Rather it seems to stand as a religion of no religion.

So there are religions with a lot of dogma and there are religions with very little to none. Now what is dogma anyway? One definition tells me this: Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by authority as incontrovertibly true. The trick to accepting dogma is convincing yourself someone else knows about it all better than you do. Which is sort of an affront to your own intellect.

Have you ever known someone who converted to another religion, or maybe they were never religious and they simply chose one. And of course you’re obliged to respect their decision and you might inquire about the situation.
“What made you decide to convert to this religion?”
And they will tell you something about having a vision, or being called to the religion, or that it’s simply the one true religion.

Of course if you choose a religion it HAS to be the one true religion. We can’t just let all of them be the one true belief; it would be spiritual chaos! This is how we have operated for a very long time.

My point is that we really do choose our beliefs, whether on an organized religion scale, or an individual scale using combinations of karma, salvation, beliefs about love and so on.

This is what I mean by Religion 2.0. When we are children our minds seem to act like a stem cell in matters of spirituality. Meaning we could choose any which way, depending on experience, environment, social life and a lot of other things.

Religion 2.0 is the recognition and embrace of the phenomena that we all consciously and unconsciously design, and redesign our beliefs. It is an Open Source Religion, meaning that it serves as a basis, a foundation for every other belief system. Under such a paradigm, it wouldn’t matter if you’re Christian, or Hindu, or Atheist, you are still participating in a designer belief system. You are still participating in Religion 2.0, you will always be designing your own mythology.

So is it possible that instead of having a religion which segregates itself as the one true religion; and instead of having a religion that discounts all religions, is it possible to have a religion which envelopes them all, which embraces them under one common idea?

For many, sadly, it is not. And they have chosen their sides as they have chosen black or white in a game of good and evil, right and wrong. But for some there does exist this unity I’m talking about. And you can find them at RedefineGod.com where you can discuss Open Source Religion, Religion 2.0 and any other philosophical question or idea you could have with other like-minded people.

Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia Demands Recount

Noises off

This is a story that starts in triumph, takes a detour through farce, and inadvertently ends raising some profound questions. The triumph is one of scientific progress in the study of evolution; the farce comes courtesy of those who run Conservapedia, who apparently can’t believe that any scientific evidence can possibly support evolution. The questions, however, focus on what access the US public should have to the research that their tax dollars support.

E. coli have evolved the ability to
metabolize citrate in the lab.

Ars covered the research earlier this month, when a paper reporting it was first published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. Richard Lenski and his colleagues have been conducting a long-term experiment in bacterial evolution, one that has encompassed over 30,000 generations of bacteria going back over 20 years. Many of the bacteria have evolved the ability to better utilize the sugar available in their cultures, but one strain underwent at least three distinct changes (at generation 27,000, 31,000 and 33,000) that enabled them to access citrate present in the medium—something their parents were incapable of. Lenski saved samples of every culture at intervals of 500 generations, and his paper suggested his lab was going back and sequencing the genomes of the intermediaries to try to find out the genetic basis for the evolution of this new trait.

Conservapedia meets cognitive dissonance

The denizens of Conservapedia were not amused. They apparently subscribe to the belief that acceptance of some scientific data goes against conservative values. The site tends to present the views of mainstream science and “creation science” as equally valid scientific perspectives, as evidenced by their discussion of kangaroo origins (which is actually much improved since we first checked). The site’s relevant sympathies with creationism can be seen in its discussion of information, which uncritically repeats William Dembski’s claim that “information cannot be created by natural (nonintelligent) causes.” Despite never defining how to measure biological information, Dembski has used this claim to rule out evolutionary origins for new biological capacities.

Clearly, Lenski’s bacteria appear to have evolved a significant new capacity. Fortunately, the residents of Conservapedia found a way out of this logical conundrum: Lenski was either misinterpreting his data, or he faked it. In an open letter to Lenski, Conservapedia’s Andy Schlafly (an attorney with an engineering background) wrote, “skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli [sic] bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study.” Their solution? Show them the data: “Please post the data supporting your remarkable claims so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions.”

Lenski replied, noting that the whole purpose of scientific paper is to discuss and display data and to use them to justify conclusions; the data were in the paper itself. He also pointed out he’d placed a copy of the paper on his website for those without subscriptions to PNAS. Lenski also spent some time reexplaining some of his conclusions, and pointing out errors and misconceptions in the letter he had received. This response prompted a second letter from Schlafly, suggesting he wanted to review the data underlying the data presented in the paper, and noting that the work is taxpayer funded, giving him a right to it as a taxpayer.

Backstage drama

From here on out, standard Internet drama ensued. By the time of his next reply, Lenski had apparently read the discussion pages attached to the letters, and discovered that Schlafly hadn’t actually bothered to read the paper he was demanding the data for. He has also discovered that some Conservapedia members were simply calling the whole thing a hoax, and accusing him of having engaged in research fraud. As a result, Lenski was apparently very annoyed, and his second letter is far more assertive.

Lenski again notes that the paper actually contained the relevant data, and that Schlafly’s complaints suggested he wouldn’t know what to do with any further data were Lenski to provide it to him. In this, he was backed up by a number of Conservapedia members, who said more or less the same thing in the attached discussion. Several of those individuals are apparently now ex-Conservapedia members, having had their accounts blocked for insubordination. In fact, anyone who questioned Schlafly’s demands seem to have been branded an opponent of public access to scientific data; the statement, “I’ll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data” peppers Schlafly’s responses throughout the discussion.

Problems with group think and incendiary discussions are common complaints about what happens behind the scenes at Wikipedia. The irony here is that Conservapedia was ostensibly founded as a response to precisely that behavior. It appears that the victims may now be trying the role of oppressors on for size.

< Previous Page | Next Page >

Jesus Vs Jeezus [comic]

Scientology’s Crushing Defeat

A previously unpublished saga of an $8 million check

By Tony Ortega
Tuesday, June 24th 2008

• 
  

  Scientology leader David Miscavige, in full Sea Org regalia. Miscavige’s status as “captain” of the Sea Org was central to a court case that resulted in the largest court penalty in Scientology history.

Six years ago, when I was a reporter at New Times LA, I’d written several stories about Scientology (Los Angeles is one of its headquarters), and I was about to uncork the longest one yet—a 7,000 word piece about an embarrassing, $8 million defeat Scientology had just suffered, when the weekly paper suddenly folded.That unpublished story has been sitting in storage ever since. Fast forward to 2008, and the world of reporting on Scientology has changed radically, thanks in part to the lunacy of Tom Cruise, but also in part to a worldwide, leaderless movement that calls itself Anonymous. Ravenous for any information about L. Ron Hubbard’s strange organization, Anonymous scours the world for the least tidbit about Scientology.

Well, here was a pretty meaty morsel just sitting in my hard drive. It’s still a substantial bit of reporting, and it fills in some gaps in the historical record of one of the most humiliating court losses Scientology has ever suffered.

Originally scheduled to be printed in October 2002, the piece follows. (It’s unchanged except for updates in

[brackets].) This material may come as a revelation to some readers, but even for the know-it-alls at Anonymous, there are juicy bites.—Tony Ortega

What Scientology Paid $8 Million To Hide

With an hour to spare, Hubbard’s minions settle a debt they vowed never to pay

(Prepared for publication in October, 2002) by Tony Ortega

Even before it started, the 1986 trial of Lawrence Wollersheim v. the Church of Scientology of California caused a mob scene at L.A.’s downtown superior court.

When a judge decided during pretrial motions that documents describing confidential Scientology beliefs should be put in a file open to the public, 1,500 Scientologists swamped the court clerk’s office to keep anyone else from requesting them. The next day, the judge resealed those records. But an L.A. Times reporter managed to get past the crush of Scientologists and copy the file. Newspapers around the country had a field day with what the Times reported: the documents showed that high-level Scientologists are taught that each human contains the souls of alien creatures banished to Earth 75 million years ago by a galactic overlord named Xenu.

---

Scientology’s process of “dianetics,” developed by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard over a period beginning in the late 1940s, was supposed to rid the body of those alien creatures. But Lawrence Wollersheim, who had defected from Scientology after serving 11 years and making about $50,000 in payments, claimed that the organization’s pricey rituals instead had made him insane and drove him to the brink of suicide. He filed suit in 1980, and six years later his trial was a sensation. Still the most expensive civil trial in L.A. court history, [This was true even in 2002, post-Simpson—T.O.] it made headlines almost daily in the spring and summer of 1986 as Scientologists jammed the courtroom and protested outside of it, complaining that their religious freedoms were being trampled on. For many in the public, reports of the trial gave them their first detailed description of Scientology, which today counts such celebrities as John Travolta and Tom Cruise among its members. Travolta himself made a visit to the trial that May which was widely reported.

In the lawsuit, Wollersheim claimed that after he left Scientology in 1979 the organization retaliated by destroying his business and attempting to destroy him. In five months of testimony, Wollersheim, his psychologist, and former Scientologists described the coercion he was subjected to, sacrifices he was expected to make, and bizarre teachings he was fed, which made Hubbard’s outfit sound more like a mind control cabal out of The Manchurian Candidate than the mainstream faith it claimed to be. Scientology’s attorneys countered that Wollersheim had come to the organization with a preexisting mental condition and was a drug user. Wollersheim was seeking $25 million in damages.

The jury awarded him $30 million.

It was a stunning blow to Scientology, but probably the most lasting impression that many took from the trial was the reaction of Scientologists themselves, who continued to protest at the courthouse day after day for more than a month after the verdict. Staging their demonstrations from a tent city set up across the street, the members wore pins made from ten cent coins and chanted over and over: “Not one thin dime for Wollersheim!”

It was a vow that Scientology kept for 16 years.

Show All1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page »