Dear Europe

This is an old open letter that I thought might spark some provocation, and show everyone that we are still alive!



"Hi. Are you nuts?

--Outdated--
"Forgive me for being so blunt, but your reaction to our reelection of President Bush has been so outrageous that I'm wondering if you have quite literally lost your minds. One of Britain's largest newspapers ran a headline asking "How Can 59 Million Americans Be So Dumb?", and commentators in France all seemed to use the same word - bizarre -- to explain the election's outcome to their readers. In Germany the editors of Die Tageszeitung responded to our vote by writing that "Bush belongs at a war tribunal - not in the White House." And on a London radio talk show last week one Jeremy Hardy described our President and those of us who voted for him as "stupid, crazy, ignorant, bellicose Christian fundamentalists."
---------


"Of course, you are entitled to whatever views about us that you care to hold. (And lucky for you we Americans aren't like so many of the Muslims on your own continent; as the late Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh just discovered, make one nasty crack about them and you're likely to get six bullets pumped into your head and a knife plunged into your chest). But before you write us off as just a bunch of sweaty, hairy-chested, Bible-thumping morons who are more likely to break their fast by dipping a Krispy Kreme into a diet cola than a biscotti into an espresso - and who inexplicably have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined, host 25 or 30 of the world's finest universities and five or six of the world's best symphonies, produce wines that win prizes at your own tasting competitions, have built the world's most vibrant economy, are the world's only military superpower and, so to speak in our spare time, have landed on the moon and sent our robots to Mars -- may I suggest you stop frothing at the mouth long enough to consider just what are these ideas we hold that you find so silly and repugnant?

"We believe that church and state should be separate, but that religion should remain at the center of life. We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions. We believe that individuals are more important than groups, that families are more important than governments, that children should be raised by their parents rather than by the State, and that marriage should take place only between a man and a woman. We believe that rights must be balanced by responsibilities, that personal freedom is a privilege we must be careful not to abuse, and that the rule of law cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient. We believe in economic liberty, and in the right of purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs to run their businesses – and thus create jobs - with a minimum of government interference. We recognize that other people see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views. But we believe that our country is worth defending, and if anyone decides that killing us is an okay thing to do we will go after them with everything we've got.

"If these beliefs seem strange to you, they shouldn't. For these are precisely the beliefs that powered Western Europe—you—from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance, on to the Enlightenment, and forward into the modern world. They are the beliefs that made Europe itself the glory of Western civilization and - not coincidentally - ignited the greatest outpouring of art, literature, music and scientific discovery the world has ever known including Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Isaac Newton and Descartes.

"It is your abandonment of these beliefs that has created the gap between Europe and the United States. You have ceased to be a Judeo-Christian culture, and have become instead a secular culture. And a secular culture quickly goes from being "un-religious" to anti-religious. Indeed, your hostility to the basic concepts of Judaism and Christianity has literally been written into your new European Union constitution, despite the Pope's heroic efforts to the contrary.

"Your rate of marriage is at an all-time low, and the number of abortions in Europe is at an all-time high. Indeed, your birth rates are so far below replacement levels that in 30 years or so there will be 70 million fewer Europeans alive than are alive today. Europe is literally dying. And of the children you do manage to produce, all too few will be raised in stable, two-parent households.

"Your economy is stagnant because your government regulators make it just about impossible for your entrepreneurs to succeed - except by fleeing to the United States, where we welcome them and celebrate their success.

"And your armed forces are a joke. With the notable exception of Great Britain, you no longer have the military strength to defend yourselves. Alas, you no longer have the will to defend yourselves.

"What worries me even more than all this is your willful blindness. You refuse to see that it is you, not we Americans, who have abandoned Western Civilization. It's worrisome because, to tell you the truth, we need each other. Western Civilization today is under siege, from radical Islam on the outside and from our own selfish hedonism within. It's going to take all of our effort, our talent, our creativity and, above all, our will to pull through. So take a good, hard look at yourselves and see what your own future will be if you don't change course. And please, stop sneering at America long enough to understand it. After all, Western Civilization was your gift to us, and you ought to be proud of what we Americans have made of it."

"An Open Letter to Europe", was written by Herbert E. Meyer. Meyer

- Spero

As Promised

Before reading, keep in mind that, as with all such posts, this is purely based on opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of In Cogito as a whole.

What is Christianity, and why oppose it?

· Christianity is a religion that is based on blind faith in the Bible’s stories and teachings.

· Christianity is an imperialistic religion that intrudes and imposes upon people in their daily lives.

· Christianity spreads ignorance and delusion and is frequently imposed upon children who are young and impressionable enough to believe everything that their parents tell them; thus involuntarily internalizing the Christian faith without actually having made a rational choice to do so.

· Christianity was created during a time when it was necessary and common for man fabricate tales in order to conceptualize and to explain phenomena that was beyond science at that point, assign meaning to their lives, and motivate and unify societies.

· Christian ideologies are obsolete, and no longer apply to modern society.

· Christianity demands the utter devotion of its members, pressuring them to attend church regularly, and sapping them of their precious time.

· Christian mythology defies all established modern scientific principles.

· The Christian Church has opposed and sabotaged nearly every scientific innovation and discovery since its beginning to this day.

· Christianity flaunts itself as the moral authority to the world.

· Christianity has hijacked, influenced and twisted social values and standards such as morality to force even non-believers to conform to its irrational ideologies.

· Christianity is a hypocritical and intolerant religion that labels all non-believers as “fools”, and condemns them to eternal suffering in hell.

· Countless people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity.

· Countless crimes have been committed in name of Christianity.

I am not going to go into any detail to try and disprove Christian mythology because that would be simply too easy. We all already know that the Bible is composed of myths that contradict all proven scientific principles and rationality, and that it is full of inconsistencies, intolerance, and lies. Belief in the Bible is belief in talking animals, giants and unicorns, the magical parting of seas, the impregnation of a virgin, magical healing powers, the possibility of a man walking on water, flying chariots of fire, that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, that dinosaur fossils are only “a test of our faith,” etc...

Many theists at least have the intelligence to see through these myths, but use the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible as an excuse to cling on to their faith because they are too scared not to, much like a child that is attached to a security blanket. The most common argument supporting the Christian metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is that the Bible is a good source of moral influence. Of course, this is complete nonsense; The Bible condones war, slavery; intolerance, and other ideas that are generally considered immoral, such as polygamy; and in any case, the notion of morality is in no way an inherent human trait, as it has been shown to change in regard to developing social ideals; so why allow the Bible, an ancient book, to define morality in our modern society?

If God isn't the answer, then what is? I certainly do not claim to have the answers. The truth is, we do not know, and people have to learn to deal with that. Science is not flawless, there is very much that science can not explain. However, perhaps it is for the best that we simply accept that the human brain has limits and that there are certain things that are beyond our comprehension. It would be arrogant to think that we live in a universe that we fully understand. At least this is a better approach than to put all of our faith in ancient fairy tales.

I bring up many points against Christianity, but I do not expect anybody to believe it because I am telling them to. I want for people to make their own rationalizations, and to see the truth for themselves through each person's own perception of reality. To define the universe on one's own terms is a fascinating journey, and to simply believe in the words of others based on blind faith is being robbed of that experience.


Finally, here are some biblical quotes that I’m sure you can appreciate:

Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Matthew 5:29-30 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22573021/

GE 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

CO 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

CO 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

EP 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

EP 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

EP 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

CN 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1PE 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I know there are many points that I have not addressed, but I do not want to crowd too much into one post. If you have any counterarguments to offer, feel free to do so by posting a comment, and I will most likely respond promptly.

To anybody I have offended:

Please do not regard this post as hateful. As I have said before, I have nothing personal against Christians at all. Christians and all theists for that matter, have the right to any faiths they choose to believe in. At the same time I have the right to criticize these faiths if I choose.

Christians believe that all nonbelievers are fools and they condemn them to burn in eternal hellfire for it. So, who is intolerant?

- Voice of Reason

Democratic Economics and Parallels to the 20's

I was going to write a more targeted article even before this weeks issue of The Economist
arrived at my doorstep, but after reading the magazine(and their view on Democratic Economic Policy) I've decided to expand my frame of reference. Because well, they're right.

Miserabilism as Democratic Policy

I'm sure everyone has heard about Hillary and Barack threatening to withdraw from NAFTA in an attempt to woo Ohio voters.
They both, but especially Barack Obama, portray the United States as a place where a mother must compete with her child for minimum wage employment - at a time when unemployment is low by historical standards.

They've been quick to blame NAFTA for job loss that is probably better attributed to the Chinese or Indians. NAFTA definitely isn't the demon they've created in the minds of the American voter; free trade allows consumers to get better items at cheaper prices. This increased purchasing power is exactly what we need at a time when the dollar is ruined and we're heading into a recession.

Mr. Obama has sponsored two bills in his short history that seem to indicate he's thrown away his common sense. The failed Fair Pay Act would have ensured that women and men get the same pay, not for the same work, but for what the government deems equal. His second bill is called the Patriot Employers Act which would reward American companies for NOT expanding overseas.

Naturally, the rich (who already bear nearly all America's tax burden) will not be voting for a Democrat in 2008. But if Mr. Obama is to be believed he intends to raise their tax burden to around 62.3%. Hope - but not for all americans.

Luckily for us, the Democrats always veer populist during the primaries. It is merely a question of how much they do in the Presidency.

Parallels to the Great Depression

Recently I've compared Barack Obama to FDR. Their "Change" and "New Deal" programs sound similar - both are very vague during the race for the White House. And both men are silver tongued and charismatic. The problem with that comparison is that FDR had the experience(as governor of NY) to cobble together a policy on the fly, and I doubt Obama will be able to do the same.

The whole era in general has stark similarities to the depression: the United States is burdened by war debt(WW1 in the 20's), people have mortgages that they can't pay(buying stock on margin in the 1920's), a depreciated dollar might have the same effect on purchasing power as overproduction and subsequent unemployment of farmers in the 1920's; the straw that may break the Camel's back is electing a protectionist president(the tariffs in the 20's were the highest in peacetime history).

For many, this is unsettling - and unfortunately it gets worse.

If Barack Obama truly has become the demagogue that his new speeches indicate then he seems to resemble not FDR but one of the fascists that arose in the Europe during the same period.


- Spero

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766009

Questions and Comments

We plan on regularly taking some time to answer starred questions you guys ask in a short post every once in a while. Here's our first edition!

Questions and Comments:

Fletch wrote,
"Though I don't know how fair the analogy of a six-year old is, it's certainly fair to say that Obama lacks a lot of experience in leadership positions. However, isn't the simplest (and best) defense of this to ask what and how all that experience has helped Bush? Is it really necessary? It's hard to say going in - it's not as if there is a class to take, unless you count being a governor, which sounds valid enough to me.

Nevertheless, I'll be voting Obama in the fall with a clear conscience. Perhaps a lack of experience is what is neeeded - I can't anticipate it being worse."

Valid point that Obama's capabilities probably are not as ill suited to the Presidency as a six year old's to Toys 'R Us. However, I do believe that experience being a leader helps people be better leaders. The first time one gives a speech will probably not be the best time.

JerseyJack wrote:
"Hi this is Jerseyjack21 from my view I saw your comment and I came to your blog and I was wondering how you got the digg.com block to show up because i've tried it and it does not work. Please respond.
jerseyjack21@gmail.com"


Of course. If you go to Digg.com and go to the bottom you should see some text and images. Look for a digg tools link. It's pretty self explanatory from there, just click on the image with the desired button and they have instructions. We sent this to you on via email a couple days ago, also.


Ruby Wrote:
"The primitive man vs elk is a bad analogy. Firstly, what we regard as morals are a modern day pehenomena. Ethics, like all other aspects of humans, evolved. Thus, the hunter-gatherer in your story would have felt no moral dilemna, his instinct would simply have taken over.

Secondly, even if you did apply modern day morality to the story, you overlooked one simple solution. Since the competition for the elk is, in your own words, very young and unlikely to have a family of his own, then why not share the elk? Surely, there would have have been enough elk to feed one more mouth?

Live and let live, my friend. Live and let live."

I believe you proved my point, friend. And managed to add a little humor!

Cogito Ergo Sum

Why should anything exist? Since the beginning of time, man has always been preoccupied with the quest to assign meaning to the existence of the universe as we know it. We have searched endlessly for any kind of evidence that can confirm or characterize existence. We have fabricated myths that attempt to apply meaning to existence. We have approached the question scientifically, using mathematics and the laws that govern the physical universe to attempt to quantify the concept of existence. But nevertheless, we have always found that the more we discover, the more we discover the less we know. For all these ages of searching, what do we have to show? Are we really any closer to the answer than we were when we first began? Is it possible, perhaps, that all along, we have been asking the wrong questions? We yearn to know why there is existence, yet we have no definitive answer for what existence is in the first place.

Could it be that the physical universe is nothing but an idea, a construct of the mind?

Imagine yourself as a human being born into this world, but devoid of any form of sensory perception. With no knowledge, no memories, and no way of perceiving anything that is happening around you, you would have nothing but your thoughts and your emotions. But how could your mind function properly; what would your thoughts consist of, what would they be composed of, and what would your emotions be based on? How would you define your existence? Naturally, you would be unaware of even the concept of any form of physical existence; so what would there be? Perhaps your mind would fabricate a “physical” universe in order to put your thoughts and emotions into context.

Let us take a look at another example. In our dreams, our minds often create alternate universes that temporarily become our realities. So what is the difference between a dream and our waking reality? Well, we are certainly more lucid when we are awake, but then again, lucidity is relative. Dreams generally involve absurd and irrational themes, but they certainly make sense to us while we are still experiencing them, so is rationality relative as well? It seems inconceivable that something so concrete such as mathematics, which is the essence of logic and rationality, might be a humanly conceived notion; but what is the nature of mathematics that makes it so concrete, other than the mind’s own conceptualization of it?

Regardless of our efforts to define existence, it will always remain an enigma to man. So in world where we cannot even be sure of its existence, what can we hang on to so as to base our perceptions of reality on? It seems that the only definitive truth in the universe is, “I think, therefore I am.”

- Voice of Reason

Turkey to Issue Re-Evalution of Islam

"Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion" - BBC

Islam, as most people know or should know, is around six hundred years behind Christianity and other western religions(Judaism ect.) in terms of its progressiveness. And so, in a partially politically motivated attempt to dispel European fears and make a bid for EU membership, Turkey will issue a new interpretation of the Hadiths. The Hadiths, the second holiest texts in Islam, are basically a guide for interpreting the Koran.



The BBC because it is a European news agency, and pre-occupied with appeasing Britiain's(and Europe's in general) unruly Muslim minorities*, is understandably blowing it all out of proportion. Keep in mind throughout the rest of the column that this is one government agency, in one country, issuing a recommended Hadith interpretation.

The new interpretations are unlikely to catch on in countries like Saudi Arabia(where it is illegal to build a church), Iran(where the government is controlled by a non-democratically elected fundamentalist ayatollah) or Sudan(where Christians and non-Muslims are in the midst of a government sponsored genocide).



Even in the less fundamentalist dominated Muslim states(fewer and farther between) these interpretations will take at least a few generations to catch any fire. Muslim culture is arguably even more dominated by reactionary fundamentalists than pre-reformation Europe. In Europe there was not much worry of outside influences corrupting the Church; Islam's fundamentalists today have been weeding out horrible progressive ideas for at least a generation.

The Hadiths supposedly were all written by Muhammad. Felix Koerner, however, claims that some "can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society." The article then skips(the BBC does this a lot) to Koerner talking about how some Hadiths justify female genital mutilation; whether these were actually written by Muhammad the BBC conveniently leaves out.

Impressively, they didn't entirely miss the target. The realized that many of the 1,400 yr old Hadiths are no longer relevant and will be removed, an important step.

But basically the article can be summed up as this. A great thing, blown one thousand times out of proportion. The BBC is doing a disservice to the original Britons by publishing this type of article. People on the left will gobble it up, and it will be easier to ignore the fact that right now extra-legal Sharia Law Courts are being set up in the country.

We have a long way to go before we see an Islam committed to progressive principles, at least fifty years until the oil money runs out and from then probably a hundred years before we see a new religion. A religion not committing genocides around the world, subjugating over 50% of its population to discriminatory laws worse than Jim Crow in the US or sponsoring terror and honor killings.


- Spero


The BBC Reports - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

*

Introduction

I am thrilled to be the second columnist for In Cogito, and I believe my first post should offer an adequate introduction of myself, so that you know what to expect as a reader. My most important goal is to approach every issue I address as purely objectively as possible, of course while at the same time maintaining an appropriate level of rational human subjectivity. After all, one could always argue under any circumstances that all human logic and rationality is an illusion. Thus, even our perceptions of reality are utterly flawed, which would effectively render any issue and any discussion pointless and redundant. So, unfortunately, I must generally neglect such an abstract school of thought in my writings. But I digress.

I do not belong to any political party in particular, nor do I adhere to any kind of established general political ideology. I follow my own political agenda, which has been known to vary, and besides, is too complex to go into in this introduction, but you can be sure that you will hear more of it in the future.

I am an Atheist zealot, and will undoubtedly be attacking various theologies in my column, but I will focus primarily on Christianity. I have nothing personal whatsoever against Christians, but because I have been surrounded by Christianity for my entire life, as my own mother is a Christian, and Christianity is the most influential, imperialistic and widespread religion of all, I find that I am most knowledgeable about this particular faith, and therefore it is the easiest one to target.

For future reference, if any readers are religious, please do not be offended, as I am only advocating my “beliefs” in the same way that you would advocate yours. My beliefs are all based on my own rationalizations, not fairy tales, but I am ready and willing to listen to any counterarguments you have to offer, or even any attempts you may wish to make to convert me, as admittedly I have imposed my opinions upon you, so it would only be fair for me to allow you to do the same.

Thanks for reading, I am looking forward to writing more for In Cogito.

- Voice of Reason