...On The Jew

The Jew is the greatest chameleon the world has never known. It knows of no situation it cannot adapt to, and consequently -- flourish in.

...On P.E.T.A

NORFOLK, Va. — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is seeking the suspension of Eight Belles' jockey after the filly had to be euthanized following her second-place finish in the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.

Gabriel Saez was riding Eight Belles when she broke both front ankles while galloping out a quarter of a mile past the wire. She was euthanized on the track.

PETA faxed a letter Sunday to Kentucky's racing authority claiming the filly was "doubtlessly injured before the finish" and asked that Saez be suspended while Eight Belles' death is investigated.

"What we really want to know, did he feel anything along the way?" PETA spokeswoman Kathy Guillermo said. "If he didn't then we can probably blame the fact that they're allowed to whip the horses mercilessly."

Eight Belles trainer Larry Jones said the filly was clearly happy when she crossed the finish line.

"I don't know how in the heck they can even come close to saying that," Jones told The Associated Press on Sunday. "She has her ears up, clearly galloping out."

Guillermo said if Saez is found at fault, the group wants the second- place prize of $400,000 won by Eight Belles to be revoked.

Saez, a 20-year-old Panama native, was riding in his first Kentucky Derby. He frequently rides for Jones.

A call to the jockeys' room at Delaware Park, where Saez raced on Sunday, went unanswered.

Eight Belles, the first filly since 1999 to run in the Derby, appeared fine until collapsing while galloping out after the finish.

The letter to the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority also sought a ban on whipping, limits on races and the age of racehorses, and a move to softer, artificial surfaces for all courses.

Naturally I am sympathetic to the cause of respecting animals - and to the horse that was needlessly euthanized. However, it would seem the hypocrisy and cruelty of P.E.T.A goes beyond whatever good deeds it may perform. For instance:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a group that complains bitterly when animals die accidentally in horse races or intentionally in slaughterhouses, killed more than 90 percent of the adoptable animals in its care during 2007.

Last year, PETA wrangled with the Virginia government for nine months before its 2006 records were finally made public. In a cynical bid to hide the outrageous percentage of animals that wind up in their giant walk-in freezer, PETA's leaders tried to lump the pets they spayed or neutered in with those they took in for more than an hour. That squabbling continues, but this year we decided not to wait for the dust to settle.

Instead, with the help of Virginia's public records law, we did a little digging. Responding to our formal legal request, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) has released PETA's 2007 "Animal Record" report. Although VDACS itself has still not relased this report, we're making it available to the general public.

PETA claims to be dedicated to protecting animals and treating them "ethically"—it’s right there in the group’s name. But killing animals that could otherwise be placed in adoptive homes isn’t terribly ethical, especially for a group whose $30 million annual income is more than enough to do the right thing instead.

In comparison, the Virginia Beach SPCA, right down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, managed to adopt out almost 70% of the animals in its care last year. And it did it on a relative shoestring budget.

Adding PETA's 2007 numbers to the mix, we can now document that the group has put down over 19,200 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens. While it's possible that some of these animals were too broken or sick to be rehabilitated, humane societies in Virginia managed to save an average of nearly 65 percent of their animals in 2007. PETA found adoptive homes for less than 1 percent.

One wishes that the members of P.E.T.A would admit to their own unethical treatment of animals before criticizing others. To quote the man they call Christ, "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." [Luke 6:41-43]

...On The Term, "Free Spirit"

Nothing more than a pleasant adjective used to describe a decadent whore.

Infant Dies, Given Prayer Instead Of Medicine

Ava Worthington is dead. She was only 15 months old when she died. The people responsible are her parents, who relied only on prayer as their child expired before their eyes. The question is whether they deserve to be put on trial for doing so. I think they do.

Ava succumbed on March 2 to bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, problems easily treated with antibiotics. But Ava’s parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington of Oregon City, Ore., do not believe in antibiotics. As Ava struggled for days to breathe, her parents prayed, never calling a doctor, an ambulance or 911.

The Worthingtons belong to a small fundamentalist sect, The Followers of Christ Church. The Followers believe that faith will heal all and that death, if it comes, it is God’s will.

In fact, death has come often to the children of the Followers. Before Ava, other children died in circumstances where simple, well-proven medical treatments might have saved them. According to an investigative report done some years back by Mark Larabee of The Oregonian newspaper, at least 38 young children lie in graves in the church’s cemetery in Oregon City. And the Followers have reported a suspiciously high number of stillborn deaths in recent years.

Ava Worthington is not the only child to become a victim of prayer in recent weeks. Madeline Neumann, 11, of Weston, Wis., died March 23 from an easily treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to rely on prayer. According to news reports, Madeline spent a month suffering from nausea, excessive thirst, vomiting and and loss of mobility before she died.

So far, nothing has been done to punish the Neumanns. Rarely do the authorities take action, because many states have laws that permit exceptions to required medical care if prayer is involved. That sad circumstance may be about to change.

Oregon authorities have charged the Worthingtons with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in connection with Ava’s death. They should. Not to punish her parents but to make it clear that Americans will not tolerate the neglect and abuse of children in the name of religion.

Any adult has and should have the right to refuse medical care. That option is sometimes chosen by Jehovah’s witnesses who refuse blood transfusions, Christian Scientists who prefer to rely on faith, or others who don’t want to use Western medicine and would rather follow another healing philosophy.

Such decisions make little sense in light of the data showing the ability of modern medicine to treat diabetes, acute trauma, deadly infections, and other life-threatening diseases and injuries. But they are decisions that ought to be respected nonetheless. The same legal and public policy stance should not extend to children.

Parents do not have the right to watch a child wither away while they pray. Parents do not have the right to watch a child convulse in pain while they pray. Parents should understand that if a child is in agony, if a child is slowly dying before their eyes, that they have an absolute duty, the same as any other parent — religious or not — to call the police, an ambulance or emergency services.

Society must make the protection of children a core value. The way to do that is to make it clear that child neglect is still neglect, even when performed under the cover of religious faith. So, the authorities in Oregon should prosecute Ava’s parents. It is important, even if they never serve a day in jail.

We need to send the right message to parents — you can rely on prayer, but not when your child’s life clearly hangs in the balance. When it comes to children, faith must have limits.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

I rest my case.

A Protestants Question

Prot: "I just wounder[sic] why if you don't believe in a god what dose[sic] it matter to you that anyone dose[sic]?"

Sin: It's not the belief in God that I'm attacking, it's you presenting that belief as if it's absolutely true - and attempting to prove God through logic or science. In the case of the positive religions, it's the ideas that come along with that belief in God. For instance, Old Testament states, "Disobedient children should be stoned to death." I'm going to attack anyone who believes that because their God or a book told them to. It's dangerous and it should be treated as such.

If someone were to say to me, "I believe in a first principal, the God of philosophy, the God of Spinoza, the God of Aristotle, The Prime Mover", I have absolutely no problem with that. However, when someone says, "I believe in the God of the Bible." Well, that God is a dangerous God and, ibid, should be dealt with accordingly.

Prot: It is not a dangerous God, the God of the Bible is a God of love.

Sin: Scripture states, "For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts [the Canaanites] so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." That in no way resembles a God of love. It resembles a racist, sexist, violent God.

Prot: Well couldn't that be construed as quote mining and possibly a straw man fallacy?

Sin: It is not a strawman. The Bible, especially Old Testament, is littered with a violent, racist, selfish, sexist God. Period. If you read that book without having any preconceived notions of what particular God it's about, or anyone telling you. "It should be interpreted this way", you will probably come away saying, "That God is an evil God."

If people insist on claiming their God is a God of love, which is an extraordinary claim considering the content of the Bible, then I would like them to show me how -- without attempting to explain away or rationalize every violent, genocidal, racist verse in the Bible with, "Well God in his infinite wisdom had to do this" - teleological suspension of the ethical rubbish.

Prot: Well, if it isn't a strawman it's definitely mining for quotes.

Sin: No it is not mining for quotes. You obviously have limited knowledge of how logic works, its' principles or its laws. The claim was made, "The God of the Bible is a God of love." That is an extraordinary claim. All I'm required to do to debunk such a claim is produce one single shred of solitary evidence from the Bible itself that does not support God being a God of love. Which I did, thus proving that he is not a God of Love.

The United States For Israel

Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the USA guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This Memorandum of Understanding is quietly renewed every five years. It commits U.S. taxpayers to maintain a strategic U.S. reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002 dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. Moreover, the U.S. government agreed to divert oil from the USA, even if this causes domestic shortages. The U.S. government also guaranteed delivery of oil in U.S. tankers if commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the USA to Israel.

Memorandum of Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and Israel - Oil, March 26, 1979

The oil supply arrangement of September 1, 1975, between the Governments of the United States and Israel, annexed hereto, remains in effect. A memorandum of agreement shall be agreed upon and concluded to provide an oil supply arrangement for a total of 15 years, including the 5 years provided in the September 1, 1975 arrangement.

The memorandum of agreement, including the commencement of this arrangement and pricing provisions, will be mutually agreed upon by the parties within sixty days following the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel.

It is the intention of the parties that prices paid by Israel for oil provided by the United States hereunder shall be comparable to world market prices current at the time of transfer, and that in any event the United States will be reimbursed by Israel for the costs incurred by the United States in providing oil to Israel hereunder.

Experts provided for in the September 1, 1975 arrangement will meet on request to discuss matters arising under this relationship.

The United States administration undertakes to seek promptly additional statutory authorization that may be necessary for full implementation of this arrangement.

M. Dayan
For the Government of Israel

Cyrus R. Vance [at the time, Secretary of State]
For the Government of the United States
Annex to the Memorandum of Agreement concerning 0il

ANNEX

Israel will make its own independent arrangements for oil supply to meet its requirements through normal procedures. In the event Israel is unable to secure its needs in this way, the United States Government, upon notification of this fact by the Government of Israel, will act as follows for five years, at the end of which period either side can terminate this arrangement on one-year's notice.

(a) If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where no quantitative restrictions exist on the ability of the United States to procure oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

(b) If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula, as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel's essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

Israeli and United States experts will meet annually or more frequently at the request of either party, to review Israel's continuing oil requirement.

Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry

One can't help but wonder how our great country can continually fund the state of Israel(65 Billion$ and counting) while our infrastructure continues to collapse, recession looms, and THEIR war is being fought with our soldiers lives.

Absurd Protestant Claims Part 1.

Prot: Albert Einstein died a Christian!

Sin: No, he did not.

Prot: No he did not? What kind of answer is that? Yes he did!

It is so often used by theists as a means to say, "See, even the most die hard non-Christian eventually saw the light!" Fortunately, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- So it makes it very easy for us who are in a perpetual state of suspended judgement to debunk such claims with solid evidence.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." [-Albert Einstein]

Let us not become confused -- Einstein is not claiming Buddhism as his faith and conviction -- merely pointing out that Buddhism is most open to scientific advancement than the other positive religions.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [-Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

An obvious denial of both theism and moreover, Christianity.

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
[-Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.]

Ibid.

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[-Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]

I'm not going so far as to agree with him on this subject -- but once again we see Einstein denouncing the necessity of religion.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." [-Albert Einstein, The World as I See It]

Sound absolutely nothing like something a Christian would say.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
[-Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.]

Check the link for a quick overview of Spinoza, his idea of God, and his general philosophy.

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [-Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]

Is there any more room for doubt in this matter?