Allowing felons to vote

Posted on January 9, 2010 by Michael

Maine and Vermont are currently the only states which allow inmates to vote. A number of other states have laws allowing those convicted of felonies the right to vote after release or after probation is over. Still, several states don’t allow it no matter what. Commit a felony at 18, serve 3 years, and you still can’t vote at 85. The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution allows this in the 14th Amendment, but the scenario I just gave would seem to at least violate the 8th Amendment. But that may be changing in Washington based upon a federal decision.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that Washington state’s felon disenfranchisement law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.

The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state’s justice system “cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

I’m not sure I find the reasoning here very convincing. These laws do disproportionately affect minorities, but that would seem to be an issue of law enforcement in the first place, not voting rights. One could say bans on ex-cons carrying guns also disproportionately affect minorities, but that doesn’t mean the ban should be overturned.

There is one caveat to that, however. Some states (especially in the south, surprise surprise), specifically did institute these laws to disenfranchise black voters. I’m not sure how a court decision could tease everything out, but it would seem that the appellate court’s reasoning would apply to those states.

But under all this is a more important question: Why aren’t felons allowed to vote? Isn’t the goal to rehabilitate prisoners? Don’t we want to better integrate them into society? Even for lifers, don’t we want them to be a part of a process that isn’t self-destructive and destructive to the lives of other prisoners (and prison officials)? If anything, voting should be encouraged for felons. Disallowing their votes seems to be nothing more then petty revenge, not something remotely helpful to either the prisoners or society.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Reporter fired for responding to pro-gay press release

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Michael

Of course the Bible Brigade is going to jump on this as Christian martyrdom, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out.

Grard was fired by Bill Thompson, editor of the Sentinel and its sister paper the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, shortly after the Nov. 3 election in which Maine voters repealed a same-sex marriage law approved by the Legislature. Grard said he arrived at work the morning after the vote to find an e-mailed press release from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C., that blamed the outcome of the balloting on hatred of gays.

Grard, who said he’d gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response.

This is an obviously weak reason to fire anyone, much less an employee of 18 years (note: I heard 17 in an interview on the radio with Grard). The guy has no prior reprimands or anything else on his record. It would seem a massive over reaction by Bill Thompson.

I suspect the failings of the piss-poor newspapers in Maine is the big factor in all this: they need to cut expenses, so firing a long time employee with one of the surely higher salaries is one way to do it. But that isn’t to say the specifics of the incident are irrelevant. Grard shouldn’t have been responding to a press release from work, so he should get slapped around a little for that, but fired? Sure, he represented his employer unprofessionally, but so does the construction worker who doesn’t wear a belt. There needs to be some perspective here.

“They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’”

Offense? That’s it? Grard should feel shame over his prideful bigotry. He’s an ignorant mook who doesn’t want a group to have rights, and he has no interest (or ability) to show how that group having rights would infringe upon his own rights. That’s the definition of a bigot. Reality is a bitch like that. But I would be more amenable to an argument that directly said he should be fired over his bigotry. That isn’t to say I would buy into it – I wouldn’t advocate firing a racist who was able to avoid adversely affecting his job (or the jobs of his coworkers) – but it would be more convincing than the one Bill Thompson is giving.

And of course the Yes on 1 bigots are the ones doing the hating – they aren’t even hiding it! The argument that wretched side put forth all summer and fall long was that homosexuality was a bad thing. (Oh, but not homosexuals! It’s just the key defining attribute of certain people they hate, not the people themselves! Scoff.) Their sole/soul (hardy-har!) motivation was that a harmless action between two consenting adults is evil, personal liberties be god damned. I would love to see the paltry response Grard had to offer up in defense. Perhaps someone can enlighten me – who, exactly, was trying to take away Grard’s or anyone else’s rights? Anyone? Bueller? …Bueller?

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Another letter

Posted on December 14, 2009 by Michael

The Kennebec Journal (KJ) has done what has become rare and published something which is full of sense and science: a letter by me.

Naturopathic medicine is pure bull.

Let’s not beat around the bush on this one. Those who practice naturopathy are quacks. They may be sincere quacks, but sincerity does not translate to evidence — or your health.

The Ontario legislature is considering giving naturopathic “doctors” prescription rights. This presents a serious danger to the health of any Canadian ignorant enough to be duped into the “care” of these charlatans.

But it hits closer to home than that. Maine is just one of several states that give these vastly underqualified “doctors” such rights. This presents a serious risk. They have no relevant medical training for offering prescriptions; this makes them highly susceptible to blindly doling out contra-indicated drugs, among other dangerous possibilities.

I cannot overstate this fact: Naturopaths are not doctors and they are not qualified.

They cherry-pick evidence, often lie and misrepresent facts.

Recently, a local naturopathic “doctor,” Christopher Maloney, wrote a letter in which he committed himself to that third possibility. He implied H1N1 vaccination properties for black elderberry. The only relevant studies on black elderberry are for the regular flu, do not show vaccination properties, and far larger studies are needed (as noted by the original researchers).

I implore anyone considering naturopathic “medicine” to not do it and/or cross-check Maloney’s “facts.” Naturopathy is not a science in any sense of the word; it is not to be trusted.

A long laundry list countering false naturopathic claims can be found at the qualified page Terra Sig on http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/11/more_naturopathic_nonsense_in.php

If everyone began to demand evidence, we could do away with this naturopathic “medicine” malarkey. We’d be all the safer for it.

Michael Hawkins

Augusta

withoutapologyinmaine@gmail.com

I’m glad I was able to sneak that email address in there. Without Apology is my publication and the sister site to FTSOS. That little advertisement is probably the best I can do there since I’m sure the KJ won’t let me link back to myself.

Anyway.

I don’t know if it was because I recently laid out a short summary of the sort of antics this paper has been playing (and then subsequently emailed the link the head honcho), but it took me some time to get this letter published. I originally wanted a much more comprehensive letter published, but Jim Evans lied to me and wouldn’t admit that libel was his concern, so I settled for a pro-atheism letter. Seeing through Evans’ lies, I rewrote my letter so that I could call Maloney a charlatan without directly saying it and submitted that. And then resubmitted it. And again. It looks like persistence won the day. (And that’s fortunate for Evans because once finals were over I planned on paying him a personal visit to get him to just tell me the truth. I mean, goodness. Just say what you mean.)

In the comment section of this letter, “homesteps” of Chelsea speaks of his/her experience being treated by Maloney. S/he says this.

Chris is very good at looking at factors that may impact mysterious conditions. He helps patients with food diaries and elimination diets. He encourages them to embrace an all-around healthier lifestyle. On top of these qualities, he is focused on finding the true underlying problems and treating the whole patient. He often recommends that people see their regular medical doctors, as he recognizes the limitations of any one-size-fits-all approach. He is one of the most caring doctors we have been to.

Maloney is NOT a doctor by any reasonable measures – and Maine’s measures are not reasonable! He has NO qualifications which earn him that title beyond the state’s bogus measurements!** It’s all fine and dandy if someone wants to waste money on someone telling them to not eat crappy foods* (should I be charging you readers for that nugget of advice?), but let’s not pretend that these people are actually qualified to be doling out medical advice. As I note in my letter, people run the risk of taking contra-indicated drugs if we start treating naturopaths as real doctors.

*I’m not disparaging true nutritionists or implying that their advice is a waste. My comment is more specific; think of going up to some random schlub on the street and asking him for dietary advice. He may rightly tell you that eating a lot of trans fat is bad for you, but that doesn’t mean that he has done anything to earn payment from you.

**Maloney whined to WordPress to make me change this. I originally said he was not a doctor at all. Under the technicality of Maine law, he is a doctor. But he’s a dangerous one because he lies about the efficacy of treatments to suit his purposes. And, again, he is not allowed to practice naturopathy in two states.

Filed under: News, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Bad news

Posted on November 4, 2009 by Michael

It looks like outright contempt for civil liberties will be victorious tonight. I cringe at the interviews where these fucking bigots are so proud of their ability to oppress a minority. It’s utterly disgusting. I have seriously run through my mind the likelihood of being able to move out of state to a place where my civil liberties are not so at risk. (This rejection of rights is not merely a rejection of rights for one group; my neighbor’s rights are my rights.) In all objectivity, it’s anger which drives me to this consideration, but that makes it no less real.

The single consolation in the all-but-certain results from tonight is that they are not the end of this. Maine spent roughly a decade fighting to protect sexual orientation in education, housing, employment, and other areas. Voters rejected this fight multiple times until it finally won in 2005. Soon after, another petition was generated to yet again attempt to repeal these protections and it had to be aborted due to lack of support. The exact same thing will happen with same-sex marriage – unless of course someone brings the issue to court. I hope that doesn’t happen for a couple years since it could trigger a constitutional amendment vote; it’s too early for that.

But I think it’s important to start asking certain questions. Those who voted to repeal Maine’s bill on personal liberties as they pertain to marriage have no concept of the gravity of what they have just done. Where does this all end? They have just affirmed that marriage is a religious institution that is to be legally sanctified by the state. Religion is such a dangerous weapon always, but that is especially true here. If marriage is a religious institution, then it is only really valid in the eyes of these bigots if it is done in front of their particular sky fairy. So what group faces the chopping block next? Muslims? Probably not too soon since Lewiston has a large black* Islamic population. Hindus? Not enough of a threat, really. Buddhists? Too amorphous to attack. Atheists? That’s a good target. It’s an unpopular group (even more so than gays), and not only do they not have the right god, they have no god at all. Why not take away their rights to marriage? And really, it isn’t taking away any rights. Marriage is now legally defined as a privilege. It can be taken away by the whim of the majority at any time, principles, rights, and liberties be damned.

*I specifically mention that they are black because a disproportionately high number of blacks in California voted against same-sex marriage. In Lewiston they went 3:1 against it. It’s astounding. This is a group with a still relevant history of oppression and discrimination against them (which specifically includes marital rights), yet they go and pull these tremendous stunts. They should know better. Stupidity knows no racial bonds; it is ubiquitous.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Tremendous honesty

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Michael

I have lately found myself hammering people with certain points. See, it is one of the most common tactics to ignore the points of an argument that are inconvenient, so I have found it expedient to only address counter-arguments as long as I also include my most important issues. Namely, I have been presenting Yes on Oppression people (those who seek to deny rights to people by outlawing same-sex marriage in Maine) with a scenario. Since I keep hammering the point, it comes in a few different forms, but it is to this effect:

A group says public prayer is immoral. They are a majority and have codified their morality into law. They have violated your concept of morality. Do they have this right?

Other forms involve me specifically saying ‘Humanists have deemed public prayer immoral (for whatever reason) and they have a majority. With this majority they outlaw public prayer on a moral basis. Have they stampeded over your rights or not?’

The point is that if the person answers that, yes, the hypothetical humanists have trampled the rights of others, then it isn’t logically tenable to say that morality is the core issue. That is how it has been framed by the humanists, but it is not the important reason why their actions are wrong. They can always maintain that public prayer is immoral. To force everyone else to acquiesce to that position, however, is absurdly wrong. It demonstrates no understanding, or at least no concern, for the rights of individuals.

Well, it’s obvious I set up my scenario as a sort of trap. Obviously I know what the response is going to be, so once I get it I can just connect the dots to same-sex marriage. Right? Nope. Here’s the response I got from one person.

You asked me if I would make you a deal… If I would not impose my morality on you if [sic] you would not impose your morality on me. Right? I think I got it close… well thats [sic] a bad deal for me. I want to impose my morality on you. I want to impose my morality on Maine and America. Im [sic] thinking world domination. Why? Because the reality of sola scriptura (the truth of scripture) burns in my heart. I don’t take it as a good idea but the entire purpose of my being. And Christ’s last command to me through scripture was “Go fourth into all the world and disciple nations”… disciple aka teach them what I taught you. Christianity and its morals was never meant to be a “laid back for whoever wants to believe it” religion, but was to go to every ear, and invade society and government and culture as we know it.

Now I am not some radical terrorist Christian, I have just been possessed by the truth and I will lay my life down for the cause of that truth. I will lay my life down for the homosexual to come into the saving knowledge of Jesus, to see them saved, healed, and delivered. Because I absolutely love them, because God loves them.

So I know you wont understand why I do what I do, and stand for what I stand for, I cannot not be talked out of my stance, because I have been possessed by the truth of scripture, and its the greatest reality I live in. Not once have I emailed a homosexual and tried to talk them out of their lifestyle. Not once have I asked you to vote differently than you are planning to vote.

I love you man, now leave me alone.

Emphasis mine.

The honesty is, frankly, frightening. This person believes his morality should usurp my freedoms. This sort of talk is more well-suited for the Middle Ages or the Middle East than 21st America. But the most terrifying thing of all is that this view isn’t so uncommon. Sure, quite a few people won’t be so daring as to outright state hostility toward personal liberties like this, but that is what close to 50% of Mainers (hopefully less) will do November 3rd.

My favorite part, however, is the last paragraph.

Not once have I emailed a homosexual and tried to talk them out of their lifestyle. Not once have I asked you to vote differently than you are planning to vote.

This is far from the point. Trying to convince someone of something through words is far different from what the Yes on 1 people want to do. “Please don’t have sex with other men, sir” is not the same as saying “You are not allowed to do X.” What’s more, if this person had his way, “X” would not only include marriage, but homosexual sex (and probably anything outside the missionary position), not to mention whatever other harmless action his god tells him to hate.

~~~

Update: I came across this written on another person’s page by the same person.

regardless of your belief everyone has an opportunity to vote for what they believe to be right, thank you bill of rights… unless you want to remove that freedom than let the man stand for his convictions.

The Bill of Rights says nothing of what he speaks. In fact, the 9th Amendment destroys his unsubstantial case where it says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. His right to vote does not mean he should also be allowed to piss all over the rights of people who wish to marry another person of the same sex.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Rights and why they matter

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Michael

I have found descriptions of this blog and myself on the Internet where I am labelled a defender of gay rights. That is only superficially true. I am no less a defender of gay rights than I am a defender of straight rights. It is the same fight.

That said, here is a piece I’ve written specifically for those likely to vote Yes on 1 on the upcoming ballot in Maine.

~~~

I want you to really consider the concept of rights. They are far more important than any personal beliefs one may hold insofar as government is concerned. You violate one individual’s rights and you’ve violated the rights of all people.

James Madison espoused a separation of church and state in much the same manner as Thomas Jefferson. He is recorded as expressing these views in these Congressional minutes,

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

And we can go one step further into Madison’s mind with more recordings from the same session,

Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

It’s hard to see how a reasonable person could misinterpret this. Madison obviously rejected the notion that religious beliefs should be codified into law, thus establishing them as the moral directives of other individuals. That is, religious beliefs should not be made law because that essentially makes government an enforcer of religion – and that is far from its role. Good government doesn’t dictate morality.

Moving beyond Madison, a discussion of the concept of rights needs to happen. What is a right? A succinct definition is hard to formulate, but I think a good idea can be created. Something which does not infringe upon another’s rights should be a right. This alone isn’t much of a definition because it assumes the existence of rights, the very thing we want to define. But within a certain context it does give a good approximation of what a right should be; we already have established rights (free speech, religious beliefs, protest, etc), so assuming we agree on many of those, we can ask ourselves, does X infringe upon these? If the answer is “no”, then there’s a good chance that X is a right.

But more is needed. I think it is eminently appropriate to include safety and security as one defining piece of rights. Does X cause bodily harm to me or others? Does it cause me undue financial hardships? Does it put me at risk of life or health? If the answer is “no”, we again have another good indicator that X is a right.

I hope it hasn’t escaped anyone that the previous two paragraphs are speaking of natural rights. These are rights which extend to all peoples, not merely Americans or Europeans or Russians or any one particular group. They are effectually based upon the idea that rights are to be based upon humanity and the human condition (which may extend to other animals, but I digress).

So why are rights so important? I think it should be obvious. If a society (or the world as a whole) goes about imposing restrictions upon minorities or the meek, then the statement that some people are not equal to others is being made. This seems like nothing less than a superiority complex manifested.

Yet restrictions go beyond this statement of superiority. They implicitly say any group can be superior to another. The reasoning behind the superiority isn’t important (whether from religious doctrine or philosophical notions). What matters is that (usually unknowingly) there are people who do not accept the idea that rights are universal. They can’t. They believe that the very concept of rights can be ignored if it runs counter to some other line of thought. Does Religion X say public prayer is immoral? If so and if Religion X’s followers are a majority, they can stampede the rights of those who wish to publicly pray. This can only be because the teachings of Religion X are being claimed to be superior to the rights of others. And this can only be true if rights are not universal and if we agree that morality trumps individual rights. I, for one, disagree.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

More dumb newspaper

Posted on September 16, 2009 by Michael

I recently wrote about the stink of dumb coming from my local newspaper. The new, conservative editor, after months of talking about health care and days of mentioning an upcoming speech by Obama, placed what was clearly the lead story (said speech) on the third page. The front page amounted to an advertisement for same-sex marriage bigots opponents. The editor has followed up with more inanity.

Law’s opponents gather in Augusta for strategy session

Christ. This was a closed-door, routine political campaign type meeting. It was not front page news. The editor – Richard L. Connor – is just a bigot pushing an agenda. That’s pretty much the norm for conservatives. But I have no problem with him voicing his silly little ill-begotten opinion in his unfortunately dwindling newspaper. As long as he does it in the editorial section. That’s where it belongs. He put his Christian-based bigotry on the front page at the expense of an actual news story. That makes him an awful editor with little to no common sense.

Ya know, this guy has a history of this sort of rubbish. When he first bought the paper, he made himself front page news to introduce himself. Okay, fair enough. But then a couple days later he did the exact same thing, except he took up something crazy like 46 inches to do it. I don’t think people subscribe to their local newspaper because they want to read about some egotistical conservative who has enough money to get his view out in the forefront.

On the upside, a reader wrote a letter making the same complaint I did.

The Sept. 10 edition of the Kennebec Journal devoted 30 column inches to the “anti-gay vow rally” planned for the following Sunday, featuring a banner headline on page one. President Barack Obama’s address on health-insurance legislation to a joint session of Congress rated 20 column inches on page 3.

Is something wrong with this picture?

A cynic might guess that the new owner of the KJ favors repeal of the law allowing gay couples to marry, and doesn’t support the president’s push to find a way to end our tragic health-care mess.

That viewpoint should appear on the editorial page, not in lopsided coverage on the news pages.

Jon Lund

Hallowell

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Katahdin

Posted on September 7, 2009 by Michael

Here are some recent photos from a hike up Mount Katahdin, the highest peak in Maine at 5,267 feet. FunFact: It was not formed in the past 6,000 years. It is a cirque, meaning it was formed through a long process at the head of a glacier.

From the summit of Mount Katahdin, looking across The Knife Edge

From the summit of Mount Katahdin, looking across The Knife Edge

Looking toward the inner side of the cirque that is Katahdin. Summit photo.

Looking toward the inner side of the cirque that is Katahdin. Summit photo.

The Knife Edge

The Knife Edge

After The Knife Edge

After The Knife Edge

Descending the Helon (hee-lon) Taylor Trail

Descending the Helon (hee-lon) Taylor Trail

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

The pride of bigotry

Posted on August 1, 2009 by Michael

090801-lg_918099455

These are some of the wholly ignorant individuals who are seeking to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage bill before it officially becomes law. They’re actually proud of themselves. It’s gross.

Bob Emrich is a hateful, stupid man. He has absolutely no idea that he’s actually advocating for discrimination against himself. He thinks homosexuality is icky or perverse or just like having sex with a dog or he’s uncomfortable in his own sexuality or he’s just another mook propping up the bible for his own ends (which is easy because that is one of the most morally malleable books ever written) or maybe it’s all of those things. Ultimately, he has no universal justification for denying people the right to marry on the (purely legal) basis of sex/gender. I doubt he’s smart enough to come up with many principled arguments for his beliefs in the first place, but even if he was capable of that, such an argument does not exist for his absurd position.

It’s an utter disgust that people like this are given legitimacy. Why don’t more people just lash into crap like this? Bob Emrich has a lot of bad ideas predicated on a lot of bad bigotry. I hate to be redundant with “bad bigotry” but aside from the grammatical flow, it supports the notion that Emrich doesn’t even understand the true basis for his hatred. He has no idea that through his outright bigoted, hateful views of homosexuals (what did they ever do to anyone?), he is taking legal aim at absolutely everyone. And that’s what this all is: a legal issue. Emrich has no logical basis to be demanding that the state of Maine discriminates against everyone on the basis of what chromosomes they have (again, go here).

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Infuriatingly silly

Posted on July 29, 2009 by Michael

Jerry Coyne has a post about why Francis Collins pollutes science with religion. It’s a succinct piece that basically nails Collins for all his silly, childish, superstitious, frankly stupid beliefs.

The most inane and disingenuous part of Collins’s argument is his claim that without religion, the concepts of good and evil are meaningless. (Collins’s slide 5 in Harris’s piece: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”) That’s palpable nonsense. Good and evil are defined with respect to their effects and the intents of their perpetrators, not by adherence to some religious code. It is beyond my ken how a smart guy like Collins can make a claim like this, even going so far as to argue that “strong atheists” like Richard Dawkins have to accept and live their lives within a world in which good and evil are meaningless ideas

It’s inconvenient for Collins or any other religiously-driven person to admit that morality is a purely human affair. And really, it’s getting to be a tiresome argument. Explanations abound for how morality could have naturally evolved. That should be good enough to force any reasonable person to admit that, no, morality need not have a god, it need not adhere to the whims of one individual entity, and it definitely is not universal. Our ideas of morality change with the times, with cultures, with known facts, with context. The only real constant is that every human society has developed a moral system. The details within each system may vary wildly – in bin Laden’s, the death of most of America is just – but they are always put within some sort of construct. That does not mean that bin Laden’s version of morality is equal to any other version which may exist. One key component in any moral system is basing premises on facts. That’s the main reason that god-based moral systems tend to fail or be wacky (see inane hatred of homosexuality among, well, almost all the religions). It’s one of the reasons bin Laden’s system doesn’t work and is not equal to mine or yours or most Americans’ or other Westerners’ (or even most Muslims’).

Collins, like most Christians who think they somehow own the moral high horse, despite all the contrary evidence, does not understand that morality is not universal. It is only moral systems. His is broken and can only work because he’s made it malleable to the progression of secular values and understanding. Indeed, if religions weren’t so agreeable to such change, Christianity would be as much a relic as slavery. Of course, that isn’t to suggest that religion so easily moves along with reason. It doesn’t. It usually comes kicking and screaming, forced by the hand of rationality.

There are, of course, also statements made without evidence, including this one: “God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the Moral Law), with free will, and with an immortal soul” And this (slide 4): “We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God.” How does he know? What’s the evidence? Isn’t the distinction between the science slides and the faith slides being blurred here?

One thing I’ve been forcing myself to ask myself a lot lately is “Where’s my evidence?” I recently went on a big hike through the 100-Mile Wilderness, the most remote and difficult section of the Appalachian Trail. I recall passing a tree root that had made a sort of rainbow shape. Each end was in the ground, but the middle was up in the air (as opposed to laying against the ground). It was unusual, but I quickly thought “It must have been buried at some point before being exposed, thus causing it to pop up”. I had to stop myself right there. How did I know that? I didn’t. It was a plausible guess, but other explanations were also plausible. It could have grown that way. Another tree could have been there before being removed, long ago, by the Maine Appalachian Trail Committee (MATC). It could just be a brief, weird angle I had making me think it was a root when in reality it was just a fallen branch that appeared buried in the ground. All I had was a hypothesis, and one I wasn’t about to test. I had to settle with “I don’t know” as an answer. Sometimes that isn’t just a temporary answer. Every single claim/question about the after-life that Collins makes deserves a permanent “I don’t know”. He doesn’t have the evidence. As a scientist, he should value that above all else in his work.

But then again, he is a Christian. Religions do not value evidence.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »