My good old (1968) copy of Chambers Etymological English Dictionary defines BLAS­PHEME as "to speak impiously of, as of God; to curse and swear" and BLASPHEMY as "pro­fane speaking; contempt or indignity offered to God." (From the same Greek root word as BLAME.) To blaspheme is thus to offend some religious sensibility. AFAIK, simple blasphemy is no longer a crime in the USA, although speaking any of the seven dirty words loudly in public may lead to charges of disorderly conduct or something. They're mostly OK on tee-shirts, apparently. But religious blasphemy? Go right ahead.

As noted in Reason, too many cowardly EuroPols bend over and condone censorship of 'blasphemous' expressions that offends certain religious sensi­bilities (too often Muslim). Apologists "tag critics of Islam as racists. Of course, Islam is not a race but a religion whose ideology should, in a democratic society, be entirely open to criticism — and, for that matter, to parody and mockery."

Nobody likes to have their sacred cows gored; but in a free society, TOUGH! Learn to live with criticism. Stupid beliefs should be mocked. Followers of lying religious-political-economic leaders should be told of their stupidity. Ancient religious texts, faiths, prophets, are too often irrelevant in the face of modern com­plex­ity; these should be ridiculed. Trying to silence one's critics is a coward's and liar's approach. The brave believer faces criticism honestly and responds squarely. One need not be a Boy Scout to know this.

Questions: Is blasphemy only applicable WITHIN a faith, by current or ex-members of a faith, like apostasy and heresy? Sacred laws-injun­ctions-command­ments are binding only on belie­vers; Xian rules don't apply to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Or is blasphemy a cross-border thing? Do Xian jibes at Muslims, Jews, Pagans etc count as blasphemy? How about Muslim slanders of Xians, Jews, Hindus?

Which religious and quasi-religious figures should be blasphemed, and how? In Florida, Homeowner Hangs Bound, Blindfolded Santa From Tree. There are stories of crucified Santas. Clear blasphemy? How about tales and images of Mohammed's and Joseph Smith's harems, Jesus' and Mother Tereas's hot gay adventures, Buddha's killing sprees, Moses and various popes and ayatollahs diddling with temple whores, Mary Baker Eddy's drug-taking, etc? Or noting the real Nazi back­grounds of Pope Benedict and Yassar Arafat and the Bush family?

Is blasphemy bad? Should you always show respect for others' beliefs, no matter how stupid? Should you show respect only when others are armed and dangerous? Should you be armed and dangerous when you blaspheme? Should everyone be armed and dangerous anyway?

In EXILE #227 (a retrospective on the lousy 1990's), the glorious War Nerd informs us that We Watched the Wrong Wars. "There were three kinds of wars in the 1990s: 1. Gulf War One, a glorious, magnificent war; 2. A lot of small, crummy wars that hogged all the media attention; 3. Four big, serious wars that nobody noticed." The Palestinian Intifada was just a slow riot. Ulster troubles were even slower. Bosnia-Kosova-etc bodycounts were much lower than originally claimed. Minor stuff. And the biggies? The Taleban taking Afghanistan, and the slaughters in Sudan and Congo (multiple millions dead in each). And the Eritrea-Ethiopia war was GOOD. But western media only likes to cover wars with hotels nearby, and isn't much interested in messy fights between dark peoples. So says War Nerd. GLORIOUS and GOOD wars? Is he serious?

The bloodshed in Israel-Palestine gets a pile of media coverage mainly because Israel doesn't shoot too many reporters, unlike nearby Arab-Muslim countries where media controls are strict and violent, and whose nasty tyr­an­nical regimes constantly emit great steaming heaps of anti-Israel propa­ganda to distract their populations from their own shitty lives. We don't see much about repression-oppression from Algeria to Egypt to Syria to Pakistan, et al. But we know what it takes to make Islamic suicide bombers and how they resemble Japan’s Kamikaze pilots. And we know how to put together conspiracy theories that explain the crap we bother to take notice of. Right.

We should all worry about news that the US government is pushing for cellphone tracking without prob­able cause (more). With older phone tech­nology, the cell company knows where you are, as close as the nearest cell tower, whenever you use the phone. New phones with embedded GPS can locate your phone to within maybe ten yards, whether it's on or off. Future tech­nologies can pinpoint you even closer — and maybe have micro­phones switched on remotely, so you can be listened to at any time.

I have seen reports (more) that antiwar activists and voci­ferous admin­istration critics have had their names added to no-fly lists. It would be very simple to emergency-justify the cell-tracking of all those named on no-fly lists, as possible 'terrorists' or otherwise being threats to public order or whatever. What will prevent such political misuse of cell-tracking? How much do you trust your government?

Long ago I served in a California Army National Guard medical battalion. One member of my unit, in his day job, was an under­cover police officer, a narc. He told me that common police jargon for 'suspect' was 'asshole,' as in, "Yeah, I'm keeping track of a couple assholes." If you are under surveillance, you are a suspect. If we are all being tracked wherever we go, whatever we do, then we are all suspects. We're all assholes. Get used to it.

MISQUOTING JESUS: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by bible scholar Bart Ehrman tells how early Xian scribes changed biblical (especially New Testament) texts almost every time they hand-wrote another copy. The earliest surviving manuscripts all differ widely; every scribe told a different story, often tailored to their local audience. (Jews had much higher standards for copying Torahs.)

Some well-accepted stories just don't exist in early copies. Jesus and the adulteress, with his injunction, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," first appears around CE 1200. Some scribe heard the tale and wrote it in a margin; the next scribe saw that and included it in the body of the text; and that text (or its descendent) was used in the King James version. But you won't find it in an Orthodox bible.

In the Luke 23 crucifixion story, Jesus is calm, chatty, unsuffering. He says, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do;" Ehrman says this forgiveness is for the Jewish leaders who condemned him, erasing all pretexts for anti-Semitism in later centuries. In the cruci­fi­xion accounts in Matther 27 and Mark 17, Jesus suffers silently except to cry, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" and to later cry out and die. Ehrman says the addition of the suffering text, and removal of the forgiveness text, supported specific theological views: that Jews were to blame for Jesus' death, and for the necessity of suffering. Without suffering for redemption, why bother following this religion?

Bible 'literalists' claim that their favorite biblical version (usually the King James, whose translators didn't have access to the earliest manu­scripts discovered in recent times) is the inerrant word of Jehovah. Ehrman shows that biblical texts are all the product of human hands, with human error and intent and revision written across every page. His close studies took him from fundamentalism to agnosticism, a test­ament to intellectual honesty.

Today's hot legal decision on Intelligent Design makes the news and burns up bandwith on discussion forums. The judge (appointed by Dubya) makes the point that ID/cretinism may be correct but it ain't science. Questions still remain.

Do you support Intelligent Design (but then who/what designed the designer?) or Incompetent Design (and why do I have bad eyes-back-tonsils-brains etc?) or something else? If we're created in a deity's image, does that deity have acne, hemor­rhoids, epilepsy, Alzheimers? Hmmm...

ID (cretinism repainted) has two (or three) basic flaws when claimed as science. The first is theoretical, the other(s) be pragmatic.

  1) Scientific theories are workable, testable, falsifiable explanations (models) supported by a preponderance of data, and ID contains no such model. How does one test for the (non)existence of one or more creators?

  2) Real scientists do research work and don't just criticise the work of others; no research has emerged from the ID community, none.

  3) Real science produces results that can eventually be put to some use. If any ID notions actually WORKED, greedy-grubby capitalists would exploit the hell out of them. Follow the money.

That last point also distinguishes the paranormal — if people actually had psychic powers, somebody would be making lots of money off them.

Cretinists will not be dissuaded from their fantasies. People will believe exactly what they want to believe. I believe I'll have my daily beer now and go to sleep. But remember, those that don't evolve will be devoured by those that do. Just ask the dodos how it works.