FreeThought Fort Wayne

        Be Reasonable

Posts Tagged ‘Religion’

She and her exes live in Texas

Posted by Andy Welfle on January 2, 2009

Marquis LaFortune and Benjamin Stakes

Benjamin Stakes and Marquis LaFortune

Score one for the Catholics. A Catholic high school teacher was fired for getting divoriced.

The reason for her termination turns on a theological tenet. According to Catholic doctrine, participants in a marriage must be an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. LaFortune told the principal that her fiance had been divorced – a proceeding not recognized by the Catholic Church.

The deacon was concerned with whether the first marriage of LaFortune’s fiance, Benjamin Stakes, had been declared invalid by a Catholic tribunal and thereby annulled. His concern, however, did not sit well with LaFortune, who refused to resign from her job or seek an annulment – a process that could reach to Rome and take more than a year.

It’s no secret the Holy See has a problem with change. They didn’t officially apologize for the imprisonment of Galileo until 1992. Hell, I remember when girls couldn’t be servers (altar boys). So the fact that they refuse to recognize divorice isn’t surprising.

And true, since over half of all marriages end in divorice, some of them should never have been married in the first place. But divorice protects people every day. It saves peoplel from spousal abuse, rape, exploitation, and even suicide. None of this matters to the Vatican — they live in a black and white world, with no room for exceptions.

No wonder their numbers are rapidly declining. They need all the teachers they can get.

Advertisements

Posted in Religion | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Couldn’t have said it better myself

Posted by Eye4Cards on December 28, 2008

I was reading some Bertrand Russell on Christmas (doesn’t everybody?).  What can I say, it was a slow day and religion is on everyone’s mind that day.

I found his short essay on The Essence of Religion.  It struck a chord with me.  Many people have said most of what he wrote, but Russell managed to say so much in such a concise manner.  In case you are interested, I got this out of The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, 1961, Touchstone.  I’m sure you can hunt down nearly all of his work online though, if you google him.  He might as well be required reading for everyone because he touched on so many facets of human thought, not just religion.  It is striking how little his works have aged:

THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION

The decay of traditional religious beliefs, bitterly bewailed by upholders of the Churches, welcomed with joy by those who regard the old creeds as mere superstition, is an undeniable fact.  Yet when the dogmas have been rejected, the question of the place of religion in life is by no means decided.  The dogmas have been valued, not so much on their own account, as because they were believed to facilitate a certain attitude towards the world, an habitual direction of our thoughts, a life in the whole, free from the finiteness of self and providing an escape from the tyranny of desire and daily cares.  Such a life in the whole is possible without dogma, and ought not to perish through the indifference of those to whom the beliefs of former ages are no longer credible.  Acts inspired by religion have some quality of infinity in them :  they seem done in obedience to a command, and though they may achieve great ends, yet it is no clear knowledge of these ends that makes them seem imperative.  The beliefs which underlie such acts are often so deep and so instinctive as to remain unknown to those whose lives are built upon them.  Indeed, it may be not belief but feeling that makes religion :  a feeling which, when brought into the sphere of belief, may involve the conviction that this or that is good, but may, if it remains untouched by intellect, be only a feeling and yet be dominant in action…

The animal part of man, being filled with the importance of its own desires, finds it intolerable to suppose that the universe is less aware of this importance;  a blank indifference to its hopes and fears is too painful to contemplate, and is therefore not regarded as admissable.  The divine part of man does not demand that the world shall conform to a pattern :  it accepts the world, and finds in wisdom a union which demands nothing of the world.  Its energy is not checked by what seems hostile, but interpenetrates it and becomes one with it.  It is not the strength of our ideals, but their weakness, that makes us dread the admission that they are ours, not the world’s.  We with our ideals must stand alone, and conquer, inwardly, the world’s indifference.  It is instinct, not wisdom, that finds this difficult and shivers at the solitude it seems to entail.  Wisdom does not feel this solitude, because it can achieve union even with what seems most alien.  The insistent demand that our ideals shall be already realized in the world is the last prison from which wisdom must be freed.  Every demand is a prison, and wisdom is only free when it asks nothing.

(The Hibbert Journal, Vol. II, October 1912.)

Posted in FreeThought, Philosophy, Religion | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

What’s the harm?

Posted by Eye4Cards on November 13, 2008

There have been many questions posed to me over the years by believers; some good, some bad.  There are also many of the same old chestnuts that make their regular appearance in my conversations.  Today I’d like to kill four of those birds with one answer.  And they are:

  • Why not believe in God?
  • What’s the harm in believing in God?
  • Aren’t outspoken atheists just as dogmatic and absolute as the outspoken religious?
  • How can you be so arrogant as to believe we are all there is in this universe and that we don’t need God?

Because of the close relationship of these questions, they often come up together in the same conversation in one form or another, often in a similar progression.  It usually goes something like this:

IE [Internet Evangelist]:  “You must be the only idiot alive to not know of God’s existence!  Why wouldn’t you believe?  What do you have against God?”

Me:  “All of the evidence we currently have overwhelmingly points to a lack of creator god in our universe.  All organized religions contradict each other and contain numerous inaccuracies.  We can also see how all of the different religions have evolved over the centuries.  We also know much about the psychological benefits and hindrances religions can cause.”

IE:  “Yeah, you might think you are smart, but what if you’re wrong?  Is it worth the risk?  How can you be so certain there is no God?”

Me:  “I’m certain no god of any organized religion exists.  Which god are you referring to anyways?  Yahweh?  Allah?  Zeus?  Anubis?  You are talking about Pascal’s wager.  The problem is you don’t know which god to bet the farm on, and if you’re wrong you’ve spent all of your time, effort and money on the wrong pursuit.  It’s a moot point anyway, because all organized religions are fallible and imperfect; hence, man-made.  Just because we don’t know everything about the universe, it doesn’t mean god is hiding behind everything we are ignorant of.  Although our ignorance is always the first thing labeled God.”

IE:  “Well, you can’t PROVE there is no God.  So you are just as bad as evangelicals preaching the gospel.  You preach there is no God when you can’t even prove He doesn’t exist!”

Me:  “The burden of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim of the existence of anything natural or supernatural.  There has yet to be a single piece of solid evidence to even come close to proving the existence of any God.  I can claim to have seen Santa Clause, but without the flying reindeer and elf factories I have no proof.  I talk about atheism and everything relating to it because I know there are many, many negative and horrible things that religions not only encourage, but thrive on.”

IE:  “Why would you take away what little comfort in life many people have left?  The only thing that gives many people hope is religion.  Why would you want to destroy that?”

Me:  “If we all sought education through reason, truth and enlightenment as the foundation of our societies, much of our suffering would be eliminated, and there would be more comforts and happiness to give people not just hope, but dignity, pride and reason to live.  No one wants to add to the misery and suffering of the human condition.  We all want to improve our lot in life.  False religions give false hope and security.  They make us live for a fictitious god and the fantasy of living forever in happiness after we are dead.  We can do much better than this on our own.  Religion feeds off of our fears, desires and suffering.  It is a parasite whose only real purpose is the illusion of peace and bliss for profit.”

IE: “What makes you think we can just cast God away and live for ourselves?  That’s just plain selfish and hedonistic.  It’s humbling to know that there is someone who created me and I have a special purpose in this vast universe of my very own.”

Me:  “It is the height of arrogance to believe we are the center of the universe created especially for us as a test before we live for all eternity bathing in god’s glory.  It is the irony of ironies that the most egocentric concept conceivable is considered humble and pious while the thoughtful realist is painted as a self-absorbed, sociopathic egomaniac.  I guess thinking this way makes swallowing the bitter pill of guilt and sin that is religion much easier to bear.”

I hope to cover more specific reasons for why religion is generally harmful in later posts.  There are many, and I couldn’t hope to list them all in one spot, let alone remember much of them off the top of my head.  Leave a comment if you think of some good examples of why religion is harmful, and I’ll try to include them in the next post on this topic.

miracleofchristianity

Posted in FreeThought, Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »

United they Stand in Fear

Posted by dystressed on November 3, 2008

Blogger/Journalist Rex Wockner chronicles “The Call” in San Diego, a religious rally to get people to vote yes on California’s Proposition 8. Proposition 8 will re-ban gay marriage in California by amending the state’s constitution.

Wockner is gay, and a former religious person himself. He likens his attendance at the event to a Jew taking a look at a concentration camp.

If I hadn’t once upon a time been a Catholic seminarian and hadn’t emerged from those days with near certainty that all this God/Jesus stuff is pure myth and mass delusion, it could have been dangerous to be there. It would have been dangerous for any gay person struggling with internalized homophobia or religious guilt, I think.

The proposition 8’s supporters feel that children will be forced to be indoctrinated into thinking gay is okay. The most damning (pun intended) thing about this event is that they don’t have any real evidence that gay marriage will ruin anything. They just drive everyone to think the way they do because they want everyone to be scared. It’s the same tactic religion has used for millennia to force people to believe in something that isn’t real.

Posted in Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Dobson’s Fib Factory

Posted by dystressed on October 25, 2008

I found this column on 365gay.com. I know Andy has blogged about this blithering idiot before, so I thought I would point this out. Dobson is getting inducted into the radio hall of fame.

Posted in Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

A Change is Gonna Come

Posted by Andy D. on October 21, 2008

Seal released a timely new video cover of the 60’s civil rights theme of Sam Cooke’s, “A Change is Gonna Come.”

For you freethinkers, there is a great agnostic line in the lyrics: “It’s been too hard living, but I’m afraid to die. I don’t know what’s up there beyond the sky.”

Here is today’s up-to-date polling from a fascinating and fun website intrade. Yes, you may trade the election.

I wouldn’t bet on Sen. McCain and yet I am saddened that we probably won’t be giving Indiana’s 11 electoral votes to Sen. Barack Obama.  I do remember a couple weeks back that Indiana was leaning blue which surprised the heck out of me so maybe it is tighter than this.  Who knows?

What I am certain of is that I will not underestimate the right-wing talk radio for the rest of the election.  I bet it gets very ugly because they are desperate and McCain/Palin are not running a consistent message.  The ad hominem unpatriotic attacks are all around and I think this may be the year that America has had enough of swift boating and voter scandals.  Palin is saying there are pro-America types of states and small towns.  So city people in blue states are not American?  America is smarter than that.  McCain’s choice of Palin is what took my vote off the table.  If McCain had chosen Sen. Joe Lieberman that would have been “mavericky” and impressed me.  Instead he chose Palin’s decisiveness and it is politics as usual.  McCain made a deal with the religous right to give them their judges even though I don’t think he is all that religious. Could you image if it was Thompson or Huckabee running now?  Even McCain would be an improvement over Bush and his anti-science politics.  Yet, could you imagine Palin as President?  Yikes!

One can be pro-business, pro-science, pro-civil liberties and be a moderate Republican.  Science education is the most important tool for innovation and we need to invest in it and fight the Religious Right’s anti-intellectualism campaign.  We need another space race like what happened when Sputnik launched which killed the creation science movement.  It is one thing to be ignorant but it is something much worse to be proud of it.

Fiscal conservatives are great such as Sandra Day O’Connor and Barry Goldwater.   These types need to take the Republican party back from these power hungry religious types who want to legislate their beliefs on everyone if they ever want to get my vote again.  How unpatriotic!  Too many of our young men and women have died for all of us to have freedom of conscience.  We need to deal with the “actual” problems on this material earth.  You know the one we all agree exists!  Let’s send a message to the far right kooks that America is not going to take it anymore.  Even if we cannot win Indiana (which there is still a chance) let’s send a LOUD message through the popular vote to the James Dobsons (who surprise, surprise, flip-flopped  on McCain) that enough is enough.

I will say Barack is an interesting mix between JFK and Barry Goldwater and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago which is Milton Friedman’s shareholder is everything economics.  He knows how important the market is.  He ran the Harvard Law Review with Federalist Society people (who think the post-Civil War 14th Amendment was a mistake and most decisions should be state’s rights) and he survived.  He didn’t play favorites in that position like others thought he would.  That is 180 degrees different than Bush or Palin and he doesn’t surround himself with yes men.  He has left and right leaning economic policies and here is a great article explaining it.  For you fiscal conservative moderate Republicans, it’s Ok, the water is fine. The economy will be fine under Democrats.  It certainly cannot do as bad as Bush and his failed kingdom presidency.  Please, get out and vote!

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Irreconcilable differences?

Posted by Eye4Cards on September 12, 2008

Earlier I read an interesting article from edge.com called What Makes People Vote Republican? The author had a few good points along with some things that I either didn’t agree with, or would like to elaborate on, so I figured I’d break it down here and add my thoughts as you read along.  It’s a little lengthy, but well worth the invested brain cells and slight headache you will probably incur from the cerebral jumping jacks you will have to complete:

What makes people vote Republican?

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany’s best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer “moral clarity”—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

So far so good.  Although I hate using sweeping overgeneralizations.  I also don’t believe the current Democratic party is as reasonable or free-thinking as we are led to believe.  Modern Republicans lean so far to the right of the political spectrum that Democrats have unwittingly slid right as well in an attempt to remain relevant in the eyes of mainstream religious conservatives.  Because of this, Democrats are at best moderate in general, and true liberals are now seen as extreme leftists.

Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the “war on terror” and repeal of the “death tax”) that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

Perhaps I seem more cold and calculated than your average Joe, but, the personal pleasures of the author’s profession aside, I see little pleasure in figuring out the bigger picture concerning Republicans and religious conservatives.  It is agonizing to me to see so many people unwittingly dedicating their lives to hollow, empty and detrimental pursuits that they believe are in the best interests of themselves and everyone around them.  I’ve also no need of righteousness, shared or not.  It is the most useless of emotions as far as I am concerned.  I actually consider myself a very emotionally deep person.  I love to live life and experience every range of emotions, even if this means having to know the horrid with the euphoric.

Please click through to read the rest below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Her Faith Was Affected

Posted by dystressed on August 7, 2008

I’d like to pick up on one of the themes of Dr. Price’s discussion. Seeking prosperity.

I ran across this item about a flight attendant who was allegedly assaulted by Joel Osteen’s wife, Victoria. The flight attendant is now suing because her ‘faith was affected’ and she is now ‘traumatized.’

Putting on my skeptical hat, it smacks of a frivolous, desperate attempt to cash in on someone else’s good fortune. But then again, so is Joel Osteen.

By most readings of the New Testament, capitalism, material wealth, and outright greed are the antitheses of Christian teaching, but here is a pastor, now more a cottage industry, claiming that God’s ultimate plan is for believers to be rich and successful.

This doesn’t add up folks. To badly paraphrase Shakespeare, Something’s rotten in the estate of Osteen.

Posted in Humor, Religion | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Ignorance is nonpartisan

Posted by neuralgourmet on June 28, 2008

Phil over at the Bad Astronomy Blog notes an interesting Gallup poll that asked participants whether they believed:

  1. that God created humans exactly as they are now sometime in the last ten centuries,
  2. or that humans developed over millions of years but with guidance from God,
  3. or that humans developed over millions of years and God had no part.

As you might expect, more Republicans said they believed in the first option than did Indepedents or Democrats. About 60% of Republicans answered that they believed in the first option, while only about 40% each of Independents and Democrats thought this way. To be sure, that’s a significant difference but I’m not cheered by the fact that only two out of every five of my party mates is a Creationist versus three out of every five Republicans.

It gets worse though. Another way of looking at the poll choices is:

  1. Creationism
  2. Intelligent Design
  3. Evolution

If we then add the Creationist and Intelligent Design responses together we get a very bleak picture. Some 92% (greater than nine out of ten) of Republicans and about 77% each (almost eight out of ten) of Democrats and Indpendents believe in either Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Have I depressed you yet? Well, there is something of a silver lining to this cloud, or at least there is if you choose to look at it this way. You see, Gallup has been asking this three-part question of Americans for a long time; since 1982 to be exact. Just as one expects to find more Republicans than Democrats who believe in Creationism, one might expect that after nearly thirty years of the country veering hard right that the numbers are actually much worse than they were in the early 1980s. That we’ve become more ignorant as a country.

That’s not the case though. The truth is these numbers have been fairly steady over the past twenty six years with no sharp fluctuations either way. As Phil says, you can’t blame Newt Gingrich and you can’t blame Bush. As a nation, we haven’t gotten any more ignorant, but then we haven’t gotten any more knowledgable either. Yeah, this silver lining isn’t a very shiny one.

What does it all mean? Phil speculates that party allegiance is very strong so people stick with their parties even when the stated goals and policies of those parties radically change over time. Similarly, religious views are also very strong and thus stay the same from year to year. That seems like a good enough explanation to me.

I think there’s something else to take away from this Gallup poll though. Religious belief is thoroughly entrenched in American society. It is weaved throughout our social fabric in a way that we can never hope to prize apart the threads of our cultural history that value rational thought and Enlightenment principles and those that value tradition and religious faith. While more strongly religious social conservatives might prefer the Republican Party of the past thirty or forty years, it hasn’t always been this way. Remember that at one time it was the Republicans that were the social progressives and the Democrats the social conservatives.

To phrase it as I did in the title to this post, ignorance is nonpartisan. It’s also highly impervious to change. When ignorance is coupled to religious belief, ignorance tends to get carved in stone. Can we wear down that stone?

Yeah, I think so. And I think there’s evidence that, at least on the science front, this is happening even today. One need look no further than that institution most impervious to change — the Catholic Church. Fifty years ago Pope Pius II implied that evolution “isn’t inimical to Christianity” and in 1992, Pope John Paul II said both that evolution was compatible with faith and that the Church was wrong to condemn Galileo. Later on, in 2005 Vatican Cardinal Paul Poupard said that Catholics should listen to what modern science has to offer.

That’s the God of the Gaps at work. As science provides us with greater and greater understanding of our world and our selves, the concept of god shrinks until it can only fill in the gaps left unexplained by science. That might be small comfort to those of us who’ve watched in horror as fundamentalists and the Republican Party wedded themselves together over the course of the past thirty years culminating in the Presidency of George W. Bush, but religiosity waxes and wanes at various points in our history and I have no reason to suspect that the sort of fervent religiosity we’ve seen in the past couple of decades isn’t already on its way out.

Where does that leave us? Well, obviously with the need to continue to promote and defend secular government because if theocracy comes to this land then surely it’s game over. Beyond that though there’s no easy answers. It’s all education, organizing, fundraising, and community involvement. If that sounds remarkably like politics, well, it is. That’s the same formula success used by politicians for as long as the U.S. has been around. That and a healthy dose of propaganda, but we’re the ones trying to encourage critical thinking so maybe we should skip that. Although it never hurts to relate science on an emotional level. Carl Sagan was a master of that.

With all that being said though, I’m with Phil. We’ve got a long, long way to go.

Posted in Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Oil Prices, Climate Change, Objective Morality, and Evangelicals.

Posted by Andy D. on June 24, 2008

It certainly feels like fate when all of above have woven themselves together in my mind recently. That is how our pattern seeking minds work. I will talk more on personal relationships next week. I want to get these ideas into our zeitgeist while they are fresh.

Let’s start with crazy stuff. I shit you not. This appeared in the Journal Gazette:

Evangelicals question global warming
A coalition of conservative evangelical leaders wants to enlist 1 million Christians to sign a statement questioning whether human-caused global warming is a real threat and arguing that restrictive environmental policies harm poor people.
The “We Get It!” campaign is the latest development in an ongoing disagreement among evangelicals about climate change.The campaign’s materials argue that “recent, slight warming” is an unproven threat that could lead to restrictions in energy use and drive up the cost of energy and food for the world’s poor.

Can someone tell me what evangelicalism has to do with science? If some of those evangelical leaders are scientists or are economists, then they might have something helpful to contribute; clearly, they do not get it! If they have scientists then speak the science and not under the label evangelical and be open for criticism. Reality and evangelicals do not mix considering their hatred of biology, cosmology, geology and other sciences. Ironically, they will even enjoy the benefits of these sciences such as medical care and then credit God afterwards. These people may destroy the planet and it would be a big joke if it were not so common. The driving forces of this movement are the conservative think tanks. 90% of all books against the science of climate change have roots in conservative think tanks. (This reminds me of a bizarro world in which gay scientists isolate the Christian gene).

The topic of this weeks Enlightenment show is about ethics and morality. Ethics are derived from biological anthropology such as reciprocal altruism in animals. The Golden Rule and empathy are selected for and not against in evolution. Plus, we can overcome our urge to reproduce (selfish genes) and seek other pursuits such as learning and love. Stay tuned for more on that subject and watch the website for the show.

Apologists say non-theists have no objective moral code. Where do they pick and choose to follow the good bits of the Bible but ignore the nasty bits? (Is that still objective absolutism? There are Christians that are on both sides of abortion, capital punishment, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc).

Religion completely destroys any sense of objective morality. It gets the whole thing upside down. Look at the climate change mentality above. A naturalistic cosmic worldview sees the planet as an entire complicated ecosystem (Biosphere) and how vulnerable it is for us. (The planet will be fine without us). Religion says the entire universe was built for us. Can they be any more arrogant? Plus, all humans are wicked and sex is ugly. Yet, we are made like God. Come on, who designs a sewage system in the reproductive playground? Religions scapegoat their sins. Is that moral? Don’t get me started on the horrors of lying to kids about dinosaurs being on Noah’s Ark and calling that science and building a museum to ignorance tax-free.

This is exactly what Bill Cooke described about the lack of morality in religion in this very good debate with Wiliam Lane Craig. (Thanks to Debunking Christianity for the link and you will have to go to u-tube for the whole thing).

Back to global burning, I was listening to WOWO because I like to listen to them say silly things around lunchtime. Rush Limbaugh was going on and on about letting us drill on our coastline. I thought for once, we were going to let the market fix our problems like they preach so well. (I am a fan of Adam Smith) Yet, here is the right wing thinking short term by saying let’s just drill here in our coastlines. That is one way to handle it, but only short term. With oil being expensive we will have to change our ways, infrastructure and increase demand from alternative energy sources. That is good for the planet and good for energy independence. Isn’t that the market forces with that supply and demand stuff? This happened before in 1979 and 1983 with our power plants getting away from oil. However, OPEC now has demand from China and India so they do not have to respond to the US. I thought higher energy independence and climate changed were linked. Here is a very good article from The Economist saying that the two are now being separated politically. The right wing wants to reduce foreign dependence but doesn’t pay any attention to climate change. This explains Rush and the we get it campaign from above. Morality and good stewardship is thrown away by not paying attention to the total economic cost including the environment and only the nominal gain.

Let’s embrace this market change for both energy prices and environment. The right wing seems to count out American ingenuity and innovation. Even McCain said we should be thinking nuclear. I agree. (Richard Carrier just wrote a cool blog on McCain’s u-tube problem). Science and Technology are more important than ever and businesses are already thinking green and the trend will continue.

Here is an interesting take on oil prices and it really isn’t so bad. Green that isn’t economical such as biofuels is not the way to go until the scientists figure out a way to make it viable. It is driving up costs for no environmental or economical reasons currently. By the market keeping oil prices up compared to “normal”, we will see more R&D work done on alternatives, and decrease demand. Both are good for the environment and energy independence but apparently we have to fight for this.

Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »