Religion: Laugh Your Ass Off

I've been thinking lately. Maybe the reason that religion gets to cling on to it's social respectability despite all the vicious, maniacal, and just plain ludicrous stuff it tries to get away with--maybe the reason is that we all take it so seriously. I mean what would happen, if we just laughed our asses off whenever somebody said they believed in God? What would happen if we just doubled over with tears streaming out of our eyes whenever somebody even mentioned heaven, hell, Satan, Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha? I guess it makes it harder to laugh at people who are really intent on enslaving and/or killing you (though not necessarily in that order). Anyways, a world were we could just laugh those silly freaks away and not have to worry about them anymore, is a world worth working for. Until then, here's a taste of what it might feel like to be able to laugh them all away:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope-1Zb5t-k

George Carlin, Atheist Comedian, Dies at Age 71.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25322638/

George Carlin, a very funny man who made his living pulling the pants down on institutionalized hypocrisy, died on Sunday. He was 71. As a tribute, I hope you enjoy this clip of his routine on religion.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSZWDGLIKyY

The Origin of Life

Evolution does not claim to explain how life originated, it explains how life changes once it has come to exist. The study of the origin of life is covered by a little known phrase--"Abiogenesis". Here's an excellent YouTube video which describes exactly how life could come to exist without any supernatural hocus pocus.

Enjoy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

The Myth of Religious Moderation

For today's blog I would like to direct you to the following two news stories:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24919800/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139433

Now,　the first seems to be forewarning of growing rivalries and tensions within Islam. The second seems to be saying that there are seeds of moderation growing within Islam, that may lead it to become a more truly peaceful religion than it is today.

So, what's the point? Which view do we take seriously? Is Islam inherently dangerous and growing more internally divided as rival fundamental viewpoints wage very active and real war against each other? Or is Islam inherently peaceful, with modern Islam hijacked by a rabble of renegades harnessing the gullible with their political rhetoric?

The answer, I think is to go to the facts. And go to the source. Just as you can look at the bible to see what views Christian moderates are promoting to fundamentalists as the word of God, so too can you go to the Koran to see what views the moderates are promoting to fundamentalists as the word of God.

Well, fact #1 and the elephant in the room is that the only difference between moderates and fundamentalists is how much of their holy book they take to be the unequivocal holy word of almighty God. Moderates cut out the nasty bits. Fundamentalists take it all whole. You could almost say that the moderates are hypocrites in that they purport to follow a religion based on a text which is supposedly mandated by God, yet they have the audacity to say that they know better than their own God which parts are really really God's will and which parts are not. Because of this latent hypocrisy, fundamentalism will always have the potential to rear its ugly head. This is not because they are hijacking an otherwise peaceful religion. Fundamentalist, by definition means one who is adhering to the fundamentals of the religion. As such, the most sincere devotees of a religion must always be fundamentalist. Moderates are, for the most part, moral cowards. They are those who know well enough that the morality encoded in the literal word of their holy book makes absolutely no sense in the modern world, and yet are so terrified of their version of an ethereal boogie-man in the sky that they lack the courage to renounce their faith and set about defending and encoding a modern moral truth.

This is the kicker and it's what will cobble the efforts of anybody who seeks to negotiate their religion into supposedly "passive" forms. As long as the religion honors a text which encodes violence and immorality as ideals, then the religion will always bear the seeds of violence and immorality. So, let's check the sources and see if the Koran, and for that matter the Bible encode violence and immorality.

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

OK, you may say, but that's in a time of war and we all know that war is hell, right? So how about rape about town?

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Well, that seems pretty damn evil to me. But even if we just take that as hardcore justice, let's clarify what God thinks about some other stuff. How about child killing? I think we can all pretty much agree that there is nothing more evil than someone who hurts children willfully.

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Now, you try and tell me why I should be respectful of a religion in whose holy text--a text they proclaim as the holy word of almighty God--declares that butchering children and raping women is good? Bullshit! You can pick and choose as much as you like, but your very act of denying that these passages express Christianity means that you, yourself have declared that the Bible is not perfect, that it is not the unassailable word of almighty God. You can't have it both ways. And if you believe that the rape of women and slaughter of children is good, then you are a vicious, evil worm of a creature. So admit it, Christianity worships one sick bastard of a deity. Or admit it, you are one sick bastard.

Now that we've dealt with the flower of Christianity, let's take a look at what the pleasant poetry of the Koran has in store for us.

And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

Well, at least house arrest sure beats stoning. Let's see what else is in there...

Oh, wait a second, what's this?

And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

Oh, and this isn't so friendly:

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

And this:

You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.

And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.

I wonder what qualifies as a "just cause"? Fighting for the glory of Allah?

Say: Have you considered if the chastisement of Allah should overtake you suddenly or openly, will any be destroyed but the unjust people?

I guess that answers that question, doesn't it?

And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.

Mmmm....peaceful......

Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications; so We destroyed them with utter destruction.

And some even more destroying with utter destruction goodness:

And to every one We gave examples and every one did We destroy with utter destruction.

Like we need to make it dead, really really dead. Dancing on the dead, dead, hyper-deading dead dead. But, who really has time to sift through all this crap. If you would like, there is a searchable online Koran which is where I got all these lovely quotes. All you need to do is search for things like destroy, kill, etc. In all fairness, there was no mention of rape that I could find, so perhaps the Muslims do have a moral leg up on Christianity after all. But as for being a peaceful religion? No, I don't think so.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

(And in case you were wondering where I got all the juicy Bible quotes, they're from EvilBible.com. )

Dawkins and the Fallacy of the Meme

If you've been following this blog, then you'll probably have gathered that I hold Richard Dawkins in pretty high regard. After all, he's one of the people who has made it to my "Some people I admire..." corner. The reason is that he generally presents well-reasoned arguments supported by fact. I think this is why his argument for the gene's eye view of evolution is so strong. It is a strength derived from simplicity.

Genes propagate which are successful at surviving and reproducing. The twin pressures of survival and reproduction vary depending on the demands of the physical environment, the consumable resources available, and the level of competition between varying phenotypes for those resources. The genes--inherent in the genetic combinations embodied by the "gene machines" which carry them--are propagated in direct correlation to how well that body is adapted to the demands on its reproductive and survival capacity. Due to the imperfection of the reproduction process of genes and the cumulative effect of evolutionary pressures over time, diverse species come into existence. This is the essence of our modern understanding of evolution. Having reached this point, I can see how it would be tempting to drive the Darwinian argument even further. I mean once we have established the social behavior of animals as attributable to their genetic make-up and Darwinian pressures not only on their genetics but on their learned behaviors, then I can see how it may become difficult to draw the line on where Darwin ends and psychology begins.

It is at this murky middle ground that Dawkins introduced the idea of the meme. His argument runs that just as genes are units of genetic information which guide how a being is constructed, memes are units of conceptual information, ideas. He holds that evolutionary pressures apply to memes in a way similar to the way in which they apply to genes. This is basically proposing that ideas battle for survival in the same way as genes do. Ideas compete to be propagated by receptive brains.

The error in this analogy should be glaringly obvious and it frankly surprised me when I saw it wedged into his latest book, The God Delusion. I could understand the nature of the thought experiment when it was first introduced in The Selfish Gene back in the 70s. It seemed a playful hypothesis the intent of which was to illustrate how a Darwinian system could apply to other things than genes. Taken as a simple illustration or an analogy I suppose it's harmless enough. But put forth as a serious concept of how ideas come to be in our heads, it is blatantly irresponsible.

The force which eliminates faulty combinations of genes, or gene complexes, is death. The inability to sustain life sufficiently to procreate means that that collection of genes isn't passed on. If a gene complex is arranged such as it is ineffective at procreating it also fails to continue. Death and disfigurement are brutal adjudicators of whether a gene survives or not. The root of how they evolve is in their imperfect reproduction. But the measure by which inefficient genes are eliminated is death.

So, the basic fallacy of memes lies in this. Whereas genes require no conscious adjudicator to evolve, their ability to survive or not is purely decided by the factual constraints of their existence, memes require a conscious adjudicator to reproduce, modify, and also to be negated.
Dawkins vision of the meme paints us as passive receptacles for our ideas just as we are passive receptacles of our genes. The fault should be readily apparent. Whereas I have absolutely nothing I can do about the genes that I have in my body, I actively choose which ideas I adhere to, which ones I bother to propagate, and which ideas I reject and fight against. I choose this. This "I" is my consciousness. And even if this I is reducible to deterministic parts, the self-referential capacity of people's minds to modify and monitor their own internal content is not something which should be passed over so lightly or surrendered so readily as the argument for memes would have us do.

This self-referential capacity is what grants us the power to monitor our ideas, to select them by standards that we set ourselves. That is why it matters little what instincts and genetic persuasions are embedded in our genes. We have the power to choose the ideas, the beliefs, the ideologies we desire to pursue. We have the power to do this, because we are self-referential and self-modifying beings. We, in short, have the power to rise above our genetic limitations. This is what most prominently sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Memes also differ from genes in that memes are non-verifiable. You cannot isolate a meme. You can't test for it. You can't even define it. How much of an idea is a meme? Dawkins tries to cover this by broadening the concept to cover "meme-plexes" Well, this makes as little sense as memes. We arrive at the same question. What is a memeplex? How can you isolate it? How do you even begin to define what one would be in reality? As a scientifically unverifiable concept, it is strange that it should be introduced by an author who has a reputation for scientific rigor.

There is perhaps one possible circumstance under which the meme theory of the propagation of ideas may have some merit. And that would be to describe the manner in which ideas come to be in people who either do not have the ability or lack the capacity to be self-referential or self-modifying, if such people truly do exist. Children , perhaps, could be considered to be in this state and that is a good argument for having special rules to protect them from abuses of their burgeoning conceptual system. For everyone else, the acceptance and survival of ideas is something which is actively decided.

Even as is the case with bad ideas that we held prior to receiving some new piece of information or being introduced to some new perspective that we hadn't been previously aware of, we make a choice as to whether to continue holding our prior belief or to discard it in favor of something new. Yes, this can be traumatic, especially the more deeply held and fundamental the belief in question. But it is done on a regular basis by people every day. The whole long history of science is a documentation of this process. Things which were not known before, were discovered. Answers were actively sought and explanations obtained.

To render the whole history of human thought as a passive process inacted on our brains by some vague undefined process of memes entering our brains without our consent and potentially reworking our mental processes, is to spit in the face of every scientist who has ever contributed to the advance of knowledge, to every person who has ever attempted to advance our comprehension of morality.

In short, it annihilates the very concept of morality. Something which becomes less surprising as one continues reading the God Delusion to see Dawkins' argument for evolutionary morality. He does not waste much time before referring to Kant to back up his claims that altruism is somehow an evolutionary imperative. Something which is ironically diametrically opposed to his entire argument for the gene's eye view of evolutionary theory.

What he insists on calling "reciprocal altruism" may just as easily be labeled "natural capitalism" for it has the same net effect and apparently the same motivations as any parties which would come to work together for mutual advantage. He makes the subsequent logical misstep of sliding between definitions of altruism. He starts with "reciprocal altruism" something which arises out of different creatures developing symbiotic relationships in response to evolutionary pressures and then proceeds to equate this with moral altruism, the belief that it is good to sacrifice oneself to strangers. Cooperation between friends and family which has obvious survival benefits cannot be directly connected to anonymously altruistic behavior. And in order to explain this away, Dawkins says that this is perhaps due to a misfiring of the altruistic protocol in our genes.

This could, perhaps, have saved him from stumbling into the trap he'd set for himself, but he repeatedly marches into the morass of claiming how much better altruism is than selfish pursuits and how science and all creation back him up on it. Unfortunately for Dawkins, his argument for altruism is bound entirely to his careful merging of definitions and a kind of lexical sleight of hand. Despite the word "altruism" being used in two ways, there is absolutely no similarity between observed "reciprocal altruism" as perceived in the biological world and "moral altruism" as promoted by Kant and company. This connection is false, and if an argument is to be made for it, it must be made explicit. I do not accept at face value that altruism is "good". This is simply a clever way to try and avoid justifying the claim.

The unfortunate thing is that this casts a shadow over the entire book. One that I thoroughly enjoyed until I started getting into where Dawkins starts grasping for moral straws from evolutionary science. His arguments against religion are succinct, logical, and damning. Theists will have a hard time convincing anyone who has read this book of the existence of God. And I wager that it will be an encouragement to many others to renounce their belief as irrational.

That is why I cannot understand why he had to try to foist this arbitrary Kantian nihilism into another perfectly salient critique of religion. The only possibility that comes to mind is that he has an ideological agenda apart from that of removing religiosity from its dominating hold on people's lives. Just like Sam Harris had to squeeze in an arbitrary assertion for the legitimacy of torture into his End of Faith, so too has Dawkins had to try and squeeze in an argument for moral altruism into a book on the same subject and with the same goal.

What baffles the imagination is that the issue of severing our subservience to religion is too important to risk in harnessing it to pet political and ideological pursuits especially those which effectively harness the morality of most organized religions and swallows them whole without question. Altruism is the morality of the religious. And religion cannot be swayed effectively until the proponents of reason learn to reject altruism as axiomatic of good. As long as the moral high-ground is effectively surrendered to the institution if not the literal word of religion, then all we can expect is a replay of the tragedies of the 2oth century as many critics rightly point out.

The reason why Dawkins, Harris et all cannot effectively combat the criticism of Stalin, Hitler, Zedong, etc, as being atheists is because they are all inherently committed to the idea that altruism is the moral ideal. Religious institutions are often committed to expressing the same values that they are proposing as being good. Their argument is that the literal teachings of religions are usually brutal, incoherent, and incompatible with modern society, which is true. They handicap their arguments because they don't want to accept the alternative to altruism, which would be objectivist rational self-interest.

They could easily repel the accusations that Stalin, Mao, and Polpot were all atheists. They could do this by pointing out that yes, they were atheists but their brutality was not a factor of their atheism. It was a factor of their altruism and the altruistic systems which they were manipulating. They were thrust into power because of movements that cried for sacrifice for the common good. They were revolutionaries seeking to establish a collectivist utopia on earth, and the sick thing is that they succeeded. Apologists come afterwards to say that well, that's not really how socialism is supposed to work. But the dedication to an altruistic moral ideal is the only unifying explanation that can be used to condemn both the horrors of religious authority and the horrors of secular collectivist authority.

Avoiding this argument leaves proponents of atheism in the much weakened position of claiming that religions are brutal because of their ideas, but that the brutality of atheist regimes stems from their leaders. It is obvious that the brutality stems from the ideas on both sides. The thing that Dawkins does not accept is that the true terror is one that is deeper than religion, it is rooted in altruism. Altruism is the death cult. Altruism is the cause greater than oneself that all can be sacrificed for. Altruism is the greater good for whom Jihad is deemed necessary. If only Dawkins would shift his arguments just a bit deeper and aim at the heart of the problem, then his arguments would be stronger and the cause of atheism would be greatly furthered. Unfortunately, he still chooses to cling to the morality of Christian tradition, even having renounced Christian fables. And the choice he leaves us with ends up not to be that much of a choice after all.

Yet Another Pastor Who Proves How Moral Religion Is

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24686805/

Yep, the above article is another vivid portrait of just how effective religion is at keeping our society on a moral course. I mean really, if preachers, pastors, holy men cannot be led to a path of moral righteousness by their devotion to religion, then just how is it that they expect it to keep the rest of the world on a moral footing? Isn't this just one more proof of how morality has nothing to do with religion?

Morality is a choice. It is a framework of choices built upon values. And a person's values are what make them either good or evil. God cannot save you, because there is none. Belief in god cannot make you moral. Understanding WHY something is wrong is what makes one moral. And you don't have to be religious to understand why it's wrong to solicit little girls on the internet (Baptist), rape choir boys (Catholic), or sentence rape victims to death because they commit adultery (Islam).

What you have to do to be moral is to THINK about your actions, to THINK about your values, and to THINK about what values are good for yourself in the long term. If you really think about these things then you will find that moral decisions are easy. But you will also lose the pleasant reassurance that your evil will be forgiven. Evil cannot be forgiven. The best you can do is to work to undo the damage you have done and never do it again. In the worst cases where there is no sign of rehabilitation or remorse, or where compensation is impossible, you must be removed from the company of civilized men and women forever. There is no easy way out of your responsibility. If this seems harsh, then let it be a warning to whoever would shirk the awareness of their own actions. Ignorance of morality is not a defense. Defaulting to religious doctrine to defend you is not a defense. You must KNOW whether your actions are right are wrong. And if you still do evil things then all will KNOW that you are evil.

Religion Illustrated

Here's another brilliant lecture by Christopher Hitchens. It's accompanied by artistic imagery so it comes off as an integrated performance art piece. Check it out:

Penn & Teller Expose Mother Teresa

I really think that I have to read Hitchens' book now. This video eviscerates the illusion that Mother Teresa was somebody even worthy of respect. If people such as this are revered by a religion, then surely that religion must worship the most profound evil imaginable. If you are a Catholic, save your soul and renounce the church.

The Cult of God and Ethical Racism

This video made me furious. And the reason isn't because an atheist was discriminated against. What enraged me was that the community was so complicitous that they bound together to cover over any investigation into the charges made. How can you investigate discrimination when the investigators are all bigots? If the reason for my candor here seems unclear, I challenge you to do a little thought experiment. Just imagine that instead of Oklahoma, this story was set in Alabama, and that instead of being excluded for being an atheist, she was being excluded for being black. Then, you would see how horribly unbalanced, how viciously skewed that system is. Religion leads to bigotry and those bigots need to be exposed for the vicious scum that they are. Do Nazis have the right to hate Jews and black people, of course they do. Do they have the right to preach that hatred in the schools and from official office? Hell, no!

Religion leads to cult-thinking. The group amasses and is confident in their moral superiority for no other reason than that god tells them so. Defending their "morality" is a matter of course. Anyone who does wickedness for god is forgiven because doing for god must be noble, mustn't it? It's disgusting. And it underscores how insidious the religious contamination of our infrastructure has become. We need to kick god out of school and out of government. If you live in Oklahoma, write your representatives and senators in Congress. Write the school board of Hardesty, Oklahoma. Challenge any such decisions in your own community. Challenge creationism. Challenge intelligent design. Challenge Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And speak up! Don't let their propaganda poison the world unanswered any longer. Your voices will help form the future. Get out there and fight! Run for office if you can. At least vote for reason if you can't.

Don't humor the madness thinking that well, the person spouting improbabilities is basically a "decent" person. If they had the opportunity and the influence they would have us all committed to that same madness. Wherever people of faith hold sway they create places like Hardesty or Saudi Arabia or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (if you include religious-like faith in society as a god). A society based on reason is a free society. A society based on god is totalitarian by definition. Why? Well, the only writer I've ever seen suggest a "Republic of Heaven" is Philip Pullman author of The Golden Compass, but he doesn't believe in god now does he? No, for all intensive purposes, the "army of the faithful" fights for the "Kingdom of Heaven". Well, we have no need of kings in America. Don't let them trick you into apathy or inaction. What religion represents in unabashed evil. And the horror is that it is an evil that smiles and promises you pretty things while asking you to sacrifice your soul and your mind to an impenetrable fog of fantasy and faith.

Don't be fooled! And don't give up! What we need now more than ever are rational leaders, men and women who will stand up to the challenges posed by wide-scale religious indoctrination in our communities and fight to keep those powers in check. Apathy will only hasten their victory. Action, even just at arm's reach, may be enough to tip the scales the other way. Don't let us be sucked into another dark age without a fight. We can't afford to risk the passive loss of all we have gained for reason in the last several centuries simply out of a misguided dedication to the tolerance of bad ideas. Anyways, check it out for yourselves. I hope it angers you as much as it did me. Thank you, Nicole for not giving in. You're an inspiration to us all.



And here is some info that could be useful for raising a fuss:

Hardesty School Board

P.O. Box 129
Hardesty, OK 73944
Texas County

PH: (580) 888-4258

District 3 Congressional Representative Frank Lucas


Senator Jim Inhofe (website was unreadable when I tried)

DC Office:
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3603

Phone: 202-224-4721
Fax: 202-228-0380
Web Email
Website

District Office - Enid:
302 North Independence, Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
Phone: 580-234-5105
Fax: 580-234-5094

District Office - McAlester:
215 East Choctaw, Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
Phone: 918-426-0933
Fax: 918-426-0935

District Office - Oklahoma City:
1900 Northwest Expressway, Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Phone: 405-608-4381
Fax: 405-608-4120

District Office - Tulsa:
1924 South Utica Avenue, Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104-6511
Phone: 918-748-5111
Fax: 918-748-5119



Senator Tom Coburn

DC Office:

172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3603
Phone: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
Web Email
Website

District Office- Lawton:
711 Southwest D Avenue, Suite 202
Lawton, OK 73501
Phone: 580-357-9878
Fax: 580-355-3560

District Office- Oklahoma City:
2250 West Modelle Street, Suite C
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: 405-231-4941
Fax: 405-231-5051

District Office- Tulsa:
3310 Mid-Continent Tower
401 South Boston
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: 918-581-7651
Fax: 918-581-7195