The Atheist News Podcast

The Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, in a speech at the Brookings Institute this morning, said that the FCC would be taking a greater interest in enforcing net neutrality in the US in light of developments both recent and longstanding. “I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet.”

The idea of net neutrality is anything but new. It is essentially what we enjoy now in that broadband internet service providers must give equal access to all content. In recent years, the internet has exploded in terms of usage and versatility. Several people, like myself, have abandoned television entirely because of this. For these reasons, major providers such as AT&T and Comcast have shown interest in new business models wherein other companies can purchase from providers the capability for their websites to be favored in terms of accessibility and bandwidth. This development would put a strain not only on small businesses operating online, but it would absolutely strangle any non-profit that couldn’t pony up the costs (any non profit that doesn’t take massive weekly collections from it’s members that is). Free speech becomes much more expensive.

Genachowski proposed regulations that stress “nondiscrimination and transparency” in broadband providers network management practices meaning that providers cannot discriminate against, block, or favor any content and that they must clearly demonstrate this. Although taking a stance on this issue shows prescience for what will inevitably become a bitter conflict, caution must be exercised. If the case for net neutrality is defeated here, then it will open the doors for an internet where independent media outlets and small businesses have to subsist on the scraps of bandwith left over from the major media conglomerates expensive feast.

How the FCC plans to do this exactly hasn’t been spelled out yet, but the idea is already drawing opposition from the right. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas said “The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace,” as he introduced an appropriations bill amendment to deny FCC funding for exploring ways to regulate broadband providers in a way to enforce net neutrality.

Net neutrality is in the balance and broadband providers are biting their nails. Let’s all hope for the best.

For more information:

Openinternet.gov
NPR report

The Pew Research Center recently compiled a lengthy and exhaustive study on the state of science education in the United States.  The project–which sampled about 1,000 randomly selected US citizens–tackled a variety of issues in the public perception of science.  Some of the results were surprising–84% of Americans think that science’s impact on society has been almost entirely positive–and some where less surprising (that is, more disheartening): fewer than half of those surveyed knew if an electron was smaller or larger than an atom.  The Pew Center correlated the results with a few different factors, including education (which, not surprisingly, correlates very strongly with scientific literacy), age (the 30-49 age group was the most scientifically literate, while the 65+ age group was the least literate), and sex (on average, men know more than women).  They did not, however, bother to correlate the results with religion, which would yield some interesting results, I suspect–specifically, my (perhaps unfounded) suspicion is that religiosity will correlate negatively with scientific literacy: I’d be willing to wager that the strongly religious know less about science than the irreligious.  At the very least, I imagine that atheists would do better than average on a quiz like this–now, thanks to the pure awesomeness that is the Internet, we can test my hypothesis.

Since the official results have already been compiled, the Pew Center has made the original literacy quiz available on their website: you can answer the same questions that the original respondents answered, and see where you score for your gender, education, and age.  The quiz is short–only 12 questions long–so I’d recommend taking it, if just for the inevitable ego boost that it will give you.  If you do decide to take the quiz, post your score (as well as whether you identify as an atheist, agnostic, Christian, &c.) in the comments; let’s see if my hypothesis that atheists will do better than average–the average score overall was a bit less than 8 out of 12.  I got all of them right, which means that I don’t have to commit seppuku, at least not today.  How’d you do?  Were there any questions that gave you pause?  Anything about the results in general that you find surprising?

Link to the quiz.

Link to the study analysis.

Today I watched a show called Breakthrough With Rod Parsley, who, if you didn’t know, is John Oregano’s little brother.  He looks and sounds like a nice good ol’ boy from Kentucky - apparently they have a saying down there, “don’t straddle the fence, especially if it’s barbed wire.”  He once wrote a book called Silent No More which was a, “shot over the bow of humanistic non-believers,” which raises the question: who the hell is this guy?

So, Rod cuts us to a clip from a 2005 sermon entitled No More Parades, where he is talking about not just drawing a line in the sand but invading the other side.  Now, I really don’t understand why all these pastors want to take what Jesus said, and flip it on its side.  You see Jesus DREW and line in the sand and then said, “he who has not sinned, throw the first stone,” he didn’t fucking invade anything.

Parsley then goes on to talk about John Harper.  Harper was (allegedly) a pastor who was on the Titanic, how this story ties into not having parades, I don’t know.  But this horse’s ass of a man goes into this great description with, I shit you not, tears.  He talks about how John Harper started preaching as the ship was sinking, he was the guy who caught Jack and Rose screwing in the cars, remember?  Anyway, Harper was preaching and there was an extra spot on a life boat and he turned it down because there were other people on the other side of the boat that hadn’t heard the “Word of Christ.”  He didn’t turn the spot down to physically give it to the people who need actual saving, nope, he turned it down so he could yell at them about pretend saving.  Needless to say, John Harper dies in the end of the (ok, alright, it was touching) story; but this asshole Hot Rod Parsley was crying and yelling and doing this whole song and dance about Harper being possessed by the spirit of the lord (hypothermia is another option, oddly not mentioned by Parsley).

The program brought us back to Hot Rod outside, and as he’s babbling about something he starts to prove to everyone that he is a vain, cocky, jackoff when he says, “but I can’t start preachin’ now there’s a road out there and all the cars will slow down just to hear me preach.”  DICK HEAD!  First it’s No More Parades, then it’s cars slowing down to hear him talk?  I thought that was the basis of a parade.  This guy is like on of those car salesmen that pisses you off to no end and the next clip get under my skin like nobody’s business:  Parsley is all about numbers and money, which is obvious since he is talking about how we must pack all the churches with people.  He goes into an elaborate rant about opening up new churches, how every time he passes an open lot he prays that Jesus will send a church so the homosexuals of the neighborhood can repent (shit you not).  Leave it to the superchurch pastor to solve all our problems, if our only problems are that our hair stylist was a total bitch that last time and we really want him to meet Jesus so he won’t work there anymore.

But wait, there’s more!  If you give TBN a, “gift,” of $79 you can get the 8 disk set of Hot Rod’s, “best sermons.”  To be honest I couldn’t care less what you believe as long as you don’t contradict yourself, demean others, or force your ideologies on me.  But when people like Hot Rod show up and say shit like this, it feels like they are almost purposefully trying to piss me off.  It’s not right to make a living off of people looking for a faith, it goes against pretty much the whole bible.  Hopefully, someday I will be able to run out of material for this site, but with people like this struttin’ their shit everyday I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.

Welcome all to the first of what may or may not become the first in a series. In each of these I’ll be taking a look at a prolific religious zealot, fundamentalist, or whathaveyou and give a brief look at who they are, some of their more extreme stances, and (this is the really fun part) any extreme displays of stupidity and/or hypocrisy. I’ll start off with an obvious and easy target: Glenn Beck.

Glenn Lee Beck was raised as a Roman Catholic and after the age of 30 converted to Mormonism. He began his broadcast career as a top 40 DJ in Florida. After a stint on CNN, Fox News scooped him up in 2008 and he’s been steadily growing more arrogant and divisive since. He currently hosts a television and radio news show and also works on the as a political activist, author, and current holder of the Grand Master Smug Crown at the Fox News channel (he inherited it from Sean Hannity last year.) His most recent endeavors include the 9/12 project and the book Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine.

This book is once case of Beck relying on his audience’s lack of familiarity with history and blind nationalism to make a quick buck. In Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, he argues for the necessity of independence by citing examples of mercantilism, malicious rule, and entanglement in unnecessary wars. Several of Paine’s stances go radically against what Beck supports such as abolition of private property, rejection of religion, and support for social equality.

The 9/12 project was a stew he left on the pot for six months to ferment support for his viewpoints based on nine principles and twelve values. The basic idea was to bring the country back to the place it was the day after the September 11th attacks. In his mind, the country was at it’s most unified and powerful state during this time. The mindless fear and violence against innocent muslims that marked this period must have slipped his mind.

His programming typically consists of rapid fire streams of ad hominem attacks, conservative talking points, logical fallacies, and scare tactics. He typically borrows from Bill O’reilly’s playbook, only instead of the occasional temper tantrum he’ll have spontaneous fits of crying from being overwhelmed by love for his country. His enemies, particularly liberals (whom Jesus commands him to love), can apparently go fuck themselves though. On his show in 2005, he said that he would choke the life out of Micheal Moore for $50 million dollars. In 2006 he referred to Jimmy Carter as a “waste of skin”.

Recently, he caused an uproar when he said he thinks that President Barack Obama is a racist who has a “deep seated hatred” of white people. After this, ColorofChange.org started a campaign to bring attention to this. To date, over 30 companies have pulled their advertising from his show as a response. Some of these companies include Sprint, UPS, and Wal-Mart. When you’re so conservative to the point that even Wal-Mart tries to distance itself from you, that’s impressive.

The influence of religion (or at least what passes for Christianity these days) on his editorializing is not subtle. The second of the nine principles for his 9/12 project is a belief in God and it’s centrality to one’s life. He has repeatedly attributed religion as the only thing that keeps him moral and was able to give up drugs and alcohol. He adheres to religious political stances like Jesus to a cross. He said on April 14th, 2009 that he thinks that gay marriage is a conspiracy to attack the church. On several occasions he’s had guests on for the sole purpose of promoting intelligent design.

Truth be told though, I’m actually in a way grateful for people like Beck. He’s a brilliant demonstration of Christian Fundamentalism and if he’s brought up in any discussion I’m having, the context can be an excellent barometer for how the conversation will go and if it’ll even be worth it. His platform of anti-intellectualism and fear mongering will continue to garner large audience’s for him though even as he continues to bleed advertisers. He’s sticking to his guns though, refusing to distance himself from his comments. There has to be some threshold for cockiness and he’s bound to reach it at some point. It should be either hilariously entertaining or horrifically tragic when he does.

In the second of what I suspect will be a scattered series of posts on Darwin–I’m TAing a class on him this semester–I bring you some facepalm-worthy news on this godless Sunday morning.  The UK’s Telegraph reports that a new drama about the life and times of Charles Darwin has recently made its premier at the Toronto Film Festival to much acclaim.  The film–which, judging by the trailer, looks quite good–is titled Creation, and is apparently centered around a portrayal of Darwin as a father, husband, naturalist, and human (rather than as an almost legendary scientific figure); it seeks to depict Darwin’s “struggle between faith and reason” as he wrote the Origin of Species, and throughout his life.  The producers have had no trouble finding distributors for the film in most of the world, but have been unable to find a single distribution company willing to take the film on in the United States.  The reason?  The film’s central topic–evolution–has been deemed too controversial in the United States.

As shocking as this might seem, I suppose the distribution companies are on firm statistical ground here: a Gallup poll conducted in February (to mark Darwin’s 200th birthday) found that fewer than 40% of Americans endorse the theory of evolution even in the broad strokes, and the number falls to just 24% if only those who regularly attend religious services are considered.  That makes for some reasonably fierce opposition to the topic of Creation, and perhaps some good reason to think that the film might struggle to find a wide audience in the United States.  Even still, though, I find it hard to believe that there’s no audience here at all: Bill Maher’s Religulous, after all, was able to find enough of an audience for a release, so it can’t just be that Creation offends America’s religious sensibilities.  Is there a deeper opposition at work?  Perhaps.  Much of US culture is profoundly anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, so perhaps the fact that Creation is about science (or, rather, about a scientist) is as off-putting as the fact that it covers evolution specifically.

Whatever the reason, I hope that the film’s producers are able to strike a deal soon: this looks like a really entertaining and well-done look at Darwin the man.  I was happy to see hints at the inner turmoil he must have experienced as he pushed his theory to its limits and yet still tried to maintain a close relationship with his highly religious wife Emma, for whom he cared a great deal.  It also seems to deal with the tragedy that was the death of Annie Darwin, the scientist’s favored daughter, at age 10–the event was to haunt Charles for the rest of his life, and may well have helped shape his waning religious sensibilities as well.  Non-American atheists can expect to see the film soon; my fellow Yankees and I may have to wait a bit longer.  Still, I suspect it will find its way here eventually.

Charles Darwin was 200 years old this February–or, rather, he would have been 200 years old if he hadn’t been ejected from the gene pool in 1882.  Moreover, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his magnum opus, On The Origin of Species, is right around the corner: it was first published on November 24, 1859.  I’m not sure if he’d be shocked or completely nonplussed about the fact that his ideas are still being publically debated today; he was never much for the public intellectual spotlight himself, though, and likely would have been happy to cede his role in the vigorous discourse to Richard Dawkins and the other modern-day Thomas Huxleys of the world.  In the spirit of this auspicious annum, I offer the following book recommendation: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith, by Professor Philip Kitcher, is absolutely fantastic.

Kitcher is a professor of philosophy at Columbia University (and, in the interest of full disclosure, is your not-so-humble blogger’s advisor, so this review might be biased); he works mostly in philosophy of science, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of literature.  He’s been a strong voice in favor of reason and evolution at least since the publication of his 1982 book Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, and Living With Darwin marks a triumphant return to that topic.  While he has received less attention than the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennett crowd, Kitcher has, it seems to me, produced a work that is far more balanced, thoughtful, and scholastic than any of the work by the “Four Horsemen” (with the exception of Dennett).  Living With Darwin is far less shrill, condescending, and strident than (say) The God Delusion or God Is Not Great.  It is clearly a piece of careful scholarship, not a polemic designed to inflame as many opinions as possible; the whole work drips with the charmingly reserved English-gentleman wit that Kitcher exudes in person.  If you’ve tried some of the works by the “New Atheists” and have found the tone hard to swallow, I’d doubly recommend this book.

Kitcher’s approach is unique with respect to more than just tone, though.  As he points out in the first chapter, the common position to take with regard to the intelligent design/creationism/evolution debate is simply to deny that the first two are science at all–most opponents of intelligent design will argue that it ought to be kept out of the classroom because it fails some unnamed test on the basis of which science can be discriminated from pseudoscience.  Kitcher, with a philosopher’s typical sensitivity to tricky problems like this, disagrees.  He points out (quite rightly, in my opinion) that making this kind of move–the “ID isn’t science” move–requires us to solve a notoriously tricky problem in the philosophy of science: the so-called problem of demarcation. This is no small order.  The demarcation problem–the problem of how and where to draw the boundaries of science so that all cases of “legitimate” science are included within the boundary and all cases of mysticism or pseudoscience are excluded–is one that philosophers and scientists alike have wrestled with for centuries now.  Even some of the giants of the field–Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn for instance–have found themselves stymied by this problem.  Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that this line is very difficult to draw in a consistent and not ad hoc way: it is difficult, that is, to articulate a general criterion (or even a general set of criteria) which invariably lines up with our intuitions about what should be science and what shouldn’t be.  Most people immediately go for testability as a criterion, for instance, but that would seem to exclude much of what theoretical physics does.  The problem is likely not insoluble (I’m inclined to think that very few puzzles are unsolvable), but it is difficult enough that I think Kitcher is wise for trying to find a way to make the evolutionist point without leaning on a tacit solution to the demarcation problem.

This, then, is Kitcher’s move in the game: let us admit (if only for the sake of discussion) that both intelligent design and young Earth creationism might count as valid scientific theories (whatever those might turn out to be); still, however, that is not enough to get them into the science classroom.  There are many theories that have been, in the course of human history, valid scientific theories (the theory of aether as the medium through which light waves propagated, for instance) but which are no longer taught in the science classroom.  Why are they no longer taught?  Precisely because (says Kitcher) they’ve been shown to be incorrect scientific theories; even if we admit that they pass the mysterious demarcation test, we can also admit that they’ve been shown to be false.  They’re science, that is, but they’re bad science.  Kitcher contends that ID and creationism both ought to be counted, along with aether, alchemy, flogiston, astrology, heliocentrism, and a whole host of other dead (but once respectable) theories about how the world might work, as scientific ideas that have, in light of new discoveries, lost their status as “good science.”  This is a clever move, I think, and one that turns out to be immensely profitable for him: it lets him argue that ID and “creation science” might belong in a history of science class (alongside alchemy), but that they have no place in a science classroom, which should communicate only our best–that is, our most explanatorily powerful–theories about the world.

There’s a further strength in that position too, though: it makes for much better public relations.  Rather than accusing the parents pushing for intelligent design in (say) Kansas of being stupid and unscientific, Kitcher takes the more even-handed approach of arguing that almost all of them are well-meaning people who have been taken in by a very few religious and cultural leaders who seek to exploit the debate for their own gain.  As a result of this stance, the book–including its somewhat more polemical final chapter–ends up feeling far less condescending than (say) the work of Dawkins or Hitchens.  Kitcher is happy to operate on the assumption that most people legitimately want the best for their children but, because they lack the education and experience to evaluate the status of one theory relative to another, are being manipulated by politicians and pastors who assure them that intelligent design is on just as firm scientific footing as it ever has been.  Most ID proponents, that is, are neither stupid nor evil, but rather just misguided.

This is not to say that the book is perfect.  Kitcher’s spiritual tolerance, I think, is not entirely misguided–still, I don’t agree with him on all points.  The last chapter is primarily dedicated to advocating a more “spiritual” interpretation of traditional religions; his point is that if we can encourage (say) Christians to hold onto the message of the Bible while throwing out literal interpretations, we can have our cake and eat it too–people can keep their religion, but will cease to try to use it to outcompete scientific explanations.  This spiritually tolerant position is one on which he and I have verbally clashed before, and I still think he’s wrong about it.  Kitcher’s position (both in the book and in person) is that we ought to encourage people to look at religion like they look at poetry–as just a beautiful way of expressing truth about the world, or as metaphor.  He seems to think that this shift can happen rapidly–within a single generation–and that it will largely eliminate the problems with religion.  I disagree.  While I think it might be possible to get to a point like this in the future–a point where we can encourage people to read the Bible and see it as literature with a good message–it seems to me that this shift will not happen unless and until the populace at large recognizes that religious and spiritual explanations for the world are fundamentally bad explanations.  To that end, we ought to strive for the complete elimination of spirituality, not a kind of nebulous middle ground of mutual tolerance and respect.  This is but one flaw in an otherwise very good work, though.

All in all, this book is, I think, incredibly successful.  Kitcher masterfully weaves science, philosophy, history, and social commentary together to create a compelling narrative.  He carefully considers the evidence both for and against intelligent design theory, and rehearses the discoveries in geology, physics, biology, and philosophy that have led all serious thinkers to abandon both ID and creationism as legitimate explanations for the diversity of life.  He shows a great sensitivity to the social and cultural issues surrounding the debate, and takes great care to write in a tone that is both accessible and respectful to all concerned.  The science is simply and clearly presented without being dumbed down, and the philosophy is so woven throughout it all that you’re scarcely aware that you’re reading a professional philosopher at all; technical vocabulary is almost entirely absent, and the tone is conversational.  This book is a must-read for anyone who is concerned about science education, evolution, or religion: it belongs on your shelf next to (or perhaps even in front of) the works of the more well-known atheist authors today.

It’s just like a movie, but much more violent, a hell of a lot shorter, and with crumby metal music playing.  What is it?  You guessed it - heavy metal Christian music videos!  Nothing says, “I love Jesus and I genuinely care about the well being of other people,” like death metal and disturbing images of murder and mutilated animals (you know basically everything the Christian Church stands for).  But I do have to give the bands props for finding a new way to, “praise the Lord,” by getting a bunch of crazed teens to punch each other in a mosh pit.

The first band up is called The Reaping.  Everyone in the band is thrashing around playing their music, but in-between the fantastic shots of the would-be-singer, “singing,” there are disturbing images of a decapitated pig.  Eventually, after more headbanging, it is evident that there is some sort of butchering going on for a feast; so the pig head was for dinner, it’s ok!  Then the man at the head of a table keels over and dies.  Oh no it’s a poising!  Just like the twelve apostles did to the Pharisees right?  Did I miss something here?  Why does a, “Christian,” music video have someone being poisoned in it?  Oh, sorry, I forgot that Jesus poisoned people all the time, that’s what the Sermon on the Mount was all about, right?

I’ve never been a big fan of music videos; short, plotless, confusing films have never really been my bag, but i have to say the next video intrigued me.  It’s by a rather popular band called Norma Jean.  The video isn’t necessarily violent but has a what-the-fuck-is-going-on feel to it.  I can just see the producer pitching the idea to the band: “Ok, so there is this underground bunker, right?  Yeah and there are two really skinny boys riding stationary bikes that are powering machines and there is a screen on the back wall showing weird plants and animals.  Rad, right?”  There are some mild torture scenes where they inject the kids with hypodermic needles and what-not, but nothing too bad.  Although, one has to wonder what an underground testing facility would have to do with Jesus, maybe Nike was in charge of this video?

The church I grew up in used to brag about how they, “loved everyone,” and that violence is not the answer, yada, yada, yada; everyone has heard this schpeil.  I understand that in order to convert all the young guns they need to be hip-for-Christ, but I thought most of the time the Church tried to hide all the horrible violent acts they committed in the past.  The really ironic thing is that one of the commercials in between videos is about being a, “peaceful warrior.”  So why the violence?  Why decapitated animals and tortured kids on bikes?  Do these videos have anything to do with religion at all?  I turned off the television confused at the meaning behind the videos.  So if I am missing something here, if there are biblical references that I am missing out on, please let me know, let me in on the secret.

This week I have philosopher and Atheist News blogger Reality Apologist (AKA Jon Lawhead) riding shotgun. We talk a bit about the Atheist News Blog Project and, of course the news.

This week: The French get tough on child rapists, Bill Donahue publicly perpetrates the largest instance of copyright infringement known to man, fundies make being in the band cool again, a judge has some things to say about home schooling, the UK makes getting to school tough for the religiously wrongheaded and I attempt to get you hot and bothered with a creationist porno reading. Whatever the hell that is.

Look, it’s a good week to NOT allow your children to listen to the show… that’s all I am saying.

Stream this episode!

A friend of mine I haven’t seen in years texted me out of the blue asking if I would ever want to get married and have kids. I figured I had two options at this point: turn the question back on her and find out what she was worried about or give a knee jerk answer without any tact. I opted for the latter, saying that I had no desire to ever get married or have kids and this sentiment was borne of a combination of cynicism, atheism, and pragmatism.

This seemed to answer her question sufficiently, but it got me thinking. Why is it exactly that I see no reason to adhere to these social norms. In just about any organized faith, pairing with a mate for the purpose of procreation is viewed as the end all be all of living a virtuous life. A lot of fundamentalist dogma is informed by this. Discrimination against homosexuals, restriction of birth control, pro-life (which in my mind equals anti-woman); all of these human rights non-issues are being politicized by religious organizations who want their vision of right and wrong compulsory for everyone. In the eyes of God (which one seldom matters) you are not a complete person unless your ideal life is getting married to someone of the opposite gender and steadily producing children.

So in the absence of any spiritual or religious requirements, what case remains for marriage and procreation. Since the former is often seen merely as a means to the latter, I’ll be focusing child rearing. The first argument is the oldest: propagation of the species. This one can pretty easily be discounted since it doesn’t look like humanity is going to die off any time soon. A lot of environmental and social problems stem from the fact that there just doesn’t seem to be enough resources to go around. Some have and some go without as a result. Of course there is the old Judeo-Christian ideology that how many kids you have is a sign of divine favor that goes hand in hand with the acquisition of wealth (curious since Jesus clearly had neither.)

After this last argument, some of the others seem downright selfish. Carrying on the family name is one I hear often. This plays off the fear that after one is dead and buried the world will go on as if they didn’t exist. It will be as if nothing they did mattered and no one will remember them. Well I’ve got bad news for them. It’s probably going to turn out that way anyways. Unless you’ve invented, discovered, written, or done something else that has shaken the world, there’s probably no one who will know (or really care) who you were one hundred years from now. It’s cold, it’s scary, but it’s the truth. How many people do you know who continuously extol the virtues of their great-grandparents, and honestly, don’t you find them kind of annoying? Having kids won’t make you famous.

I can’t even go on about the other reasons without starting to seethe with resentment at those who consider them valid. You want to pass on what you’ve learned in this life? Write a book rather than spawn a captive audience. Maybe it’s because you think it’s the natural next step after getting married. Fuck that. Start a charity; do volunteer work; get politically active; find SOME way to improve the state of humanity in some way besides its sum total. I’m sorry if it isn’t as instantly gratifying and intuitive, but that should make it that much more rewarding. You say you want to take care of and nurture something? Then adopt. There’s nothing as lost and in need of nurturing in this world than an orphan with nothing in the world and no one who cares for them. There are fewer things that would be as noble and charitable as such an act. This isn’t enough for some people though. They feel the need to have a little them staring back up at them assuring them that they’re influence and ideology will survive them.

Comic courtesy of xkcd
Other images courtesy of the internets

Recently I had the distinct pleasure of viewing a skateboarding documentary on television.  The channel was “JCTV,” and the documentary was called “D.O.P.E.”  At first I was turned off to the whole concept simply because it was on the cool young adult version of TBN, but as I forced my self to watch the whole thing I was pleasantly surprised by the first hour and the second hour wasn’t half bad.

The film follows young professional skateboarders in the 70’s and 80’s when, “sidewalk surfing,” morphed into the sport I know and love today.  Blah, blah, blah, all the skaters spiral into a heavy drug addiction - and it all started when they took that puff of weed (if only they hadn’t inhaled, they could have became governor of California).  Their lives take a one-eighty, they start hitting harder and harder drugs like meth and coke; I really shouldn’t have to explain this part, all anti-drug documentaries have the same middle section where they interview the mother and father and they say something like, “I couldn’t believe my son/daughter  was taking __________(insert drug of choice here), I had no idea until it was to late.”  Then the friend is interviewed and he says something along the lines of, “yeah I saw him taking _________(drug) and I told him to stop but he wouldn’t.  The _________ had such a strong hold on him by that point…..”  But instead of blaming it on the person’s addictive personality and the mental bond said person’s brain made between the drug and happiness, the narrator decides that it is all Satan’s fault for giving these poor kids a crack pipe.  Now the movie was all fine and dandy until this point. But at that pivotal moment I realized why it was showing on “JCTV”.

I assume everyone has been preached to at one point in their lives, if not I salute you for avoiding the mega-church scare tactics I preached for the majority of my young life.

Getting back to D.O.P.E… By this point in the film Satan had a grip on all the young skateboarders through drugs and, by golly, he was not going to let go without a miracle.  But he only saved a couple guys.  Some of them had to hit rock bottom like normal people and go to rehab and relapse and go back to rehab, I think a couple of the non-influental characters actually died, but God forbid the director focus on them - if Jesus didn’t save them, they’re not important.

So God miraculously saves these, “survivors,” from their addictions, and replaces that empty hole with another addiction: preaching in prisons, or doing crummy documentaries.  But don’t mind that they all get together at the end for a friendly BBQ to reminisce about that one time they were famous and had money, and women, and really really good crack.