To Massachusetts, License to Carry

Begin:

LTC applications in Massachusetts are approved or rejected solely by your local Chief of Police.

http://massgunpermit.com/

Brookline Chief of Police:

No person shall, in any public area, have possession of, or discharge, any weapon, firearm

http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?searchword=gun&ordering=&searchphrase=all&option=com_search

Contrary to US Constitution, 2A -JEB

Effective immediately, chapter 140, sections 122, 122B, 129B, 131, 131A, 131F and 131H have been amended to change the fee schedule for Massachusetts firearms licenses. The fees collected from the licenses are generally allocated as $50.00 for the Commonwealth, $25.00 for the licensing authority, and $25.00 for the Firearms Fingerprint Identity Verification Trust Fund. Note that there is still no fee for applicants over 70 years of age, and no fee for the renewal of a restricted FID card (for possession of mace or pepper spray). The license fees are now as follows:

Dealers License (including Gunsmiths): $100.00
License to Sell Ammunition: $100.00
Firearms Identification Card: $100.00 (No charge for renewal applications for "Restricted" FID Cards)
License to Carry Firearms: $100.00 (Includes license to possess machine guns)

Applications are accepted by appointment only. Appointments and interviews are conducted Monday through Thursday from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm. For further information or to make an appointment, contact the Brookline Police Department's Identification/Firearms Licensing Unit at 617-730-2239.

http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=660:firearms-licensing&catid=618:procedures&Itemid=1120

Four Season Firearms can be reached at 76R Winn St., Woburn; 781-932-3133; or www.fsguns.com.

Self-defense in Massachusetts is a case for data locuta.

Shibboleth

I find the need to discern quickly which relationships are useful, and which not. I need to discriminate enemies from friends. I need a rapid field test method, as it were an intellectual litmus test.

This reminds me of the verbal tactic used in Judges 12.6. Let my test, my shibboleth be only: data locuta causa finita.

Debating Debate 2

In Debating Debate (1), I had ignored one thing: I often learn through debate. I did mention this, but ignored the data point. Therefore: I will debate, but only in such cases that I may learn something valuable.

To be fair and civilized, I will explain to my "opponent" that I am not trying to change his mind. I debate not to teach but to learn, as it were to change my own mind.

data locuta causa finita

The Bilocating Baptist

In my opinion as an ex-believer, who hid this information for years, this is equivalent to an evolutionist finding a human and dinosaur footprint in the same strata: a deal-breaker.

First, I will assume that the Bible must be internally inerrant. Then, I find these Scriptures (KJV, since it still is the most popular version).

Matthew

4.12 John was cast into prison

4.18 Jesus...called Peter and Andrew, his brother

Mark

1.14 John was put in prison

1.16 he saw Simon and Andrew

Luke

3.20-21 John baptized Jesus, then was put in prison -JB.

5.3 Jesus said to Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men

John

1.35 John stood, and two of his disciples

1.37 the two disciples...followed Jesus

3.24 John was not yet cast into prison

So according to the three synoptic gospels, John the Baptist was put in prison, and then Jesus called Simon and Andrew. But according to John's gospel, the Baptist was put in prison after Jesus called Simon et al. In fact, they were the Baptist's disciples; he was right there!

Did Jesus call his disciples before or after John the Baptist was put in prison? This presents an irremediable contradiction between John and the synoptics.

Christians can do with this information what they wish, in a free society. I would reject the Bible as inerrant, and begin to question Christianity.

More later, glad to chat with you...

J

Ha Ha Ha!

Enough of the jihads and genocides, the circumcisions and clitoridectomies. Enough of cutting babies' private parts and spanking children like Zeus with a thunderbolt. Enough of "sex-is-bad" education; enough of all unnatural indoctrination. Enough of people blowing themselves and everyone else up for the sake of some antiquated, angry anthropomorphic "almighty"! Enough of the foolish false cures, the false hopes, and all false things. Enough of Christism and Islamism and every other "Ism" (except, of course, Scientism). Enough of all this egregious, vainglorious godism!

Humanity, get a life! Get a sense of humor. The gods are so humorless . How to deal with all these gods, these bloodthirsty old sky-tyrants?

I propose a new tactic, actually a new approach entirely: the gods are funny. Funny? they're hilarious. Laugh at them! Foutre les dieux! The gods, their religions, and pious priestcraft also, are laughingstocks. It's time we started laughing!

What could be funnier than the majority of thinking adults bowing down and worshiping bones? Yes, it's true: religion teaches us to worship bones! And this, mind you, from the Orthodox Church, the most ancient church in Christendom:

They are worshiping, oops, I mean venerating, bones!

I used to get angry, very angry indeed, about all this, but I see that humor is a much more effective tactic in this war. And it is better for my health, too! The Dawkinses and Hitchenses are doing a good job of criticizing the absurd; they don't need my efforts.

I shall reduce the gods to ridicule; I shall slay them with laughter.

J Edgar Billings

I have noticed that the majority of successful teachers have their names, not the names of their teachings, as the title of their website or page. This is true for Drs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens.

It is also true for Bishop TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, and other Christian teachers. It also goes for Dr. Wayne Dyer, Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra, and other self-help gurus. Of course the political teachers, like Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow, also use their own names. Most often their sites also show a smiling picture of themselves.

Since teachers most often focus attention initially on themselves, through their names and faces, I must ask: why? I suspect that it's more effective because personal, than naming their doctrine or church would be. Also it allows them latitude in changing or diversifying teachings without losing name brand recognition. It's all about brand recognition.

From now on, Scientism will be under the brand J Edgar Billings.

Symbol of Scientism

Debating Debate

Scientism Example 2: Debate

1. Observation: Vocal or correspondent reasoning to prove a point, or to defend against a false idea, has a very long history. Greek and other philosophers debated, and Jeusus "silenced" the Sadducees in debate. Today, many people are debating about evolution and creation, etc etc. I find myself often debating, inwardly or outwardly. However, from my Christian and other experience, I suspect it may not be effective for changing minds.

2. Question: Is debate an effective way of changing people's minds (teaching)?

3. Investigation:

1. The Biblical debates are irrelevant, because mythological.
2. Academic debate is irrelevant, because an attempt to win points. The same is true of legal debating.
3. In teaching situations, debate takes time which could be used for clear teaching.
4. I have never convinced anyone through debate.
5. I have convinced by teaching open-minded students.
6. However, I myself have occasionally been convinced through debate. This implies I am unusually open minded.
7. Debate is often construed by the observer(s) as lack of assurance or defensiveness; one appears to be "trying to prove one's own point".
8. Essays, books, and other literature of debate require much time to read and to write. This time could be used studying evidence (investigating) and/ or teaching.
9. I am much more convinced by demonstration (works) than by argument (words). The evidence of my lifetime suggests that other people are also more convinced by works than by words.

4. Conclusion:

1. Debate is not effective for teaching; it has mostly a negative effect.
2. Teaching open-minded people is effective, especially when it includes examples (works).

5. Action:

1. I resolve not to debate from now on, mentally, verbally, or in writing.
2. I will seek out open-minded people as students.
3. I will teach persistently, firmly and patiently.
4. I will use my own example, demonstrations, and other works as often as possible.
5. I will not respond to debate challenges, but will "teach around" them.

First Action: Folio Weekly re: Creation Censorship

http://www.facebook.com/pages/CREATION-The-Movie/39212784860

Dear Mr. Citrone, Please consider the following letter as an editorial. Thank you, John Billings I recently asked David Blue, the owner of the San Marco Theater, if he would consider showing the movie Creation. He seemed taken aback, and began shaking his head. Mr. Blue said, No, the docudrama on the discovery of evolution was not worth his while; it was not "mainstream". Really? Creation stars Jennifer Connelly; is she not mainstream? The movie has received good, even rave reviews in Canadaand the UK; it is popular wherever it shows. In fact, only in the USA has the movie not found a distributor. The American censoring of Creation has nothing to do with the film's popularity and everything to do with its contents: the conflict between science and religion. Apparently, for the owner of a theater in Jacksonville, as for America in general, evolution is not mainstream. John Citrone's response: This enrages me beyond my normal levels of enragement. I will pass this on to our editor. You should pitch it to 5 Points Theatre. THEY would show it. And we need it to show here.

let slip the dogs

Sayings of Scientism

• Data locuta causa finita (the evidence has spoken; the matter is settled).
• The only thing keeping us from the Dark Ages is the scientific method.
• The garden is very beautiful without fairies in the way (after Doug Adams)!
• Religious teaching is dysinformation.
• Religion molests children.
• Scientism is the true religion, because the scientific method is the path to truth.
• All sayings of Scientism depend on the latest data.
• A Scientist is devoted to the scientific method in every facet of life.
• The debate about evolution and creation is really about reason, or the lack thereof.
• Science is a universal language; all intelligent people can understand it.
• Observe, question, investigate, conclude, and act!
• Evidence shows that the universe was not created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Okay, I'm Bright

This is the text of an essay I wrote some time ago. Because my methods may offend the Brights, I do not associate Scientism with them, but here is their website:

http://www.the-brights.net/

They are great people.

1-31-2010

It was fashionable in the latter decades of this last century, for gay people to “come out”; that is, publicly, and sometimes very bravely, to admit their homosexual orientation. In the first decades of this century, I would like to be part of a movement of secularists, atheists, and humanists “outing” ourselves with the same publicity and bravery. Necessarily, this movement must start with me.

The generic term bright is becoming parlance for those of us who hold a naturalistic, scientific worldview and have no supernatural elements in our thinking. All atheists, humanists, naturalists, and so on, can thus be termed bright.

Note that in this context, bright means that I am bright. It does not mean that others are dim (in the same way that being gay does not mean others are serious; or as sober does not mean that others are, well, unsober).

This bright coming out can be a serious business. Given that Americans hold atheists in lower esteem than Muslims, and that candidates for public office must pretend to some religious faith, being openly and publicly bright could prove hazardous to my health. But I think it’s time to challenge the sanctified status quo.

The final bit of data for this decision, the proverbial straw (although this one is more like a log) on the camel’s back, came just yesterday. I had learned of a wonderful dramatic rendition of Charles Darwin’s personal struggle with religion versus science: a movie called Creation.

This film (which is graced by the lovely Jennifer Connelly) has received rave reviews elsewhere in the English-speaking world, both for its artistic value and its intellectual stimulation. However, in the USA, Creation is almost unaccessible. To my knowledge it is being shown only in Boston, Los Angeles, and a few isolated places.

When I researched this strange phenomenon, I found direct evidence of censorship. Apparently this Christian Nation cannot stand the message of Creation, that is, the challenge of science to religion. On my back already laid heavy with the Islamic rape of Europe, “Jesus rifles”, and Israeli atrocities in Palestine, this straw was indeed a timber.

I already had rejected the supernatural, because there is no evidence for it, and because it leads people to gaze at their navels and to dwell on some indefinable “Energy”, rather than look to help the real world. I had adhered to reason and science, because the scientific method is the only thing keeping us from the Dark Ages.

Darkness is irrationality, superstition: the root of all evil. It is robbery, rape, and murder, all for the sake of words written in books. Religion is an orgy of human sacrifice, with a chorus of leering celibates, set to the music of wailing women and wandering orphans. Yet even this provoked me only to a stern critique.

However, when the religious powers censored Creation, they went over the line. They took my movie. Like a cherry on top of a sundae, this little act transformed me into an activist.

So okay, I’m bright. I have slain the gods. I have driven off all the fairies, and the garden is clearer for it. Now, how should I dwell in this demon-haunted world? I must first stand, and walk in the light.

If I detest all things irrational, then it behooves me to be mindful. If I claim to be bright, I need to shine.

Data locuta causa finita.

The Light of Scientism

This is the rising of the true light: Scientism, the religion of reason. Before this, all religions were shadowed, or in complete darkness; but now the light has come. May all people receive the light.

draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Carl Sagan (pbuh)

Spooky Science and the Magickal Circle

Glenn Beck, 3-10-2009

"I want to bring in Professor Robert George and talk a little bit about the fixing science in her seat again, as Barack Obama stated during his inaugural address, putting science right back on the top of the food chain, which is always a spooky thing."

-italics mine JB.

What does Mr. Beck want to be top of the ideological food chain, other than science? Religion? Politics? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I have heard that Mr. Beck claims to be a Libertarian, but he definitely is not. The Libertarian Party is rational.

Science, and nothing else, belongs at the top of our national, political, and personal food chains. Why am I getting hungry?

Anyway, I reiterate my challenge to the world: if you can find anything, any method of data gathering, or knowing what really is, that works better than the scientific method, please show me. Then I will believe you, and practice your method. Of course, once you have shown me, by showing me a large body of data, you will have used science.

This I am starting to call the Magickal Circle: to prove the spiritual, the mystical, the unscientific, you must use science. Behold the power of Scientism, mwahaha...

Scientistic Method Example 1

Abstract:

Personal data leads me to conclude that I am a straight (heterophilic) man in a gay (homophilic) body. This gender/ orientation, being attracted to women but being unattractive to them, I am currently calling sterl. The action step is still under consideration; possibly it will involve devotion to Scientism.

Scientistic Method: 1. Observe; 2. Question; 3. Investigate; 4. Conclude; and 5. Act.

1. Observe:

About 3 days ago, circa 2-17-2010, very early in the morning, I imagined myself and a black man with a white woman. Suddenly, I understood why white women often prefer black men physically. They are shaped like men.

• Black (phenotypically African) men have larger, more massive, and more well-defined muscles, especially on chest and arms, compared to white me.
• Blacks have deeper voices.
• Blacks are overall more massive and thus, appear more protective.

2. Question:

Why do women not like me? This I ask after approximately 40 years of experience, 3 marriages, 3 daughters, and numerous other women. One wife said, "You look like a boy", and another time, "You are not a man." Again she said, "I want an alpha male." The second wife also challenged my masculinity more than once. The first wife despised and insulted me in two languages. The question therefore is, why do women not prefer me?

3. Investigate 1: Am I physically attractive ("manly") to women?

• As noted above, I have had long and difficult experience with women of many ages, cultures and other variables. Women always leave me, often for another man.
• What about visual images? The few "porn"-type images I have seen which are definitely for women, always show "V" shaped men. The men's race does not seem to matter as much as their upper body musculature. I call this the "Superman" shape.
• Is it all about the money? Upper-income women often "play" with lower-income men, such as landscapers. These are always Superman shaped, as are gigolos.
• What about intelligent, upwardly-mobile Asian men? White women almost never choose Asian men. Asians are slender and less massive than either whites or blacks.
• What about sheer masculine force? I have allowed women to attack me with scissors and a knife (first wife), with vicious words (first and second wives), and to insult and offend me emotionally (first, second, and third wives), all without complaint or self defense. As to the physical attacks from No.1: I simply restrained her, or in one case ran away.
• I ran away from first wife, who was smaller than myself, when she was armed only with a small kitchen knife.
• What about rape, which the Feminists claim is about power rather than sex? I have a lot to say about this antiscientific idea, but for the present: I have never come close to raping a woman. I don't want to; it actually hurts emotionally to think of raping anyone. This appears to be a lack of what the Latinos call machismo.

Primary Conclusion: I am not a Superman type, which is the type women prefer. Given all of this data- and there is much more- I conclude that, compared to average men, I am not manly, and not likely to attract any woman physically.

Additional data:

• I keep a jumble of tools in a pastel pink, scalloped box T bought at a thrift store. I have a pink tool box.
• When I was young, gay men would "hit on" me, sometimes aggressively. I never responded, except to leave the area. Today I would treat them as predators.
• Gay men still hit on me, although not as aggressively. I understand how women feel.
• I am very sensitive, caring, kind, etc. I appear to be all the things women love; and with money I would be very "eligible", except that a woman will always want another man's body.
• All my exercise has resulted in ability to do 60 push-ups in 2 minutes, 12 chin-ups, etc., but no major bulk increase. I look like an athletic woman.

This raises an obvious orientation question.

Investigate 2: Am I gay (homophilic)?

• I cannot stand gay porn. I find it, not only anal sex but everything generally, very unpleasant.
• I did have a childhood relationship with a boy; however it was restricted to kissing and fonding. I have not been seriously attracted to a male since then.
• I do enjoy the company of gay men, as I find them more sensitive, intelligent, open-minded, and better dressers than (Southern) straight men.
• However, I totally love women, especially women with youthful appearance.

Secondary conclusion: I am not gay (homophilic), but almost completely straight (heterophilic).

4. Conclude: My body and overall attitude are homophilic, but my sex drive is heterophilic. I am a straight man in a gay body.

5. Act: Not sure at this date. It is highly unlikely that I will be successful in sexually attracting women. I could pay for sex, but that is not the issue. One option is to devote myself to Scientism.

Discussion:

I have not cited any web sites, since all of these data can be easily Googled or otherwise accessed. Many of the data are common knowledge, at least among those who can think beyond political ideology ad religion.

My rare gender/ orientation was decided when I was conceived; hence it is nobody's "fault". I am an unusual mutation: one which probably should not have reproduced. I have had three daughters, but I am sure not to have any more.

What should I name this straight man/ gay body dichotomy? In respect to the security guard at Reichold Inc., when she commented on my lack of wife or girlfriend, I will define my gender/ orientation as "sterl". A man who is attracted to women, but because of his gay physique/ attitude, is physically unattractive to them, is sterl.

I wonder how many other men are like me. Probably I should have been gay. Yet I cannot make my body into Superman, nor can I "gay" myself. Sterl appears to be a genuine sexual identity, if not a desirable one.

As I said, perhaps being sterl is an opportunity to devote myself to Scientism. I used to have a love-hate relationship with sex; I wondered if there were something more to life. It seems that biology has a sense of irony.

data locuta causa finita

Scientism: Emergence

Carl Sagan (pbuh) said,

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge. (Pale Blue Dot, 1994)

Perhaps I should contact Ann Druyan.

NOMA vs Scientism

Steven Jay Gould is a scientist at Harvard. He recently published an idea called Non-Overlapping MAgisteria, or NOMA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

NOMA means simply that religion and science do not really contradict, but complement each other in different parts of life. Therefore the conflict between religion and science is an illusion. Rationalists can break bread with "people of faith" (POF's).

To quote Arnold Schwarzeneggar, in Terminator (I), "Wrong." First of all, the POF's won't let that happen. They oppose the scientific at every step, even torture and kill us (Hypatia, Galileo), poison our children (and their poor children as well) with every kind of religious lie; and above all, they took my movie.

That wonderful docudrama, Creation, is censored in the USA. To see it, I must go to the Northeast, LA, or one of the very few independent theaters that dare to show it. Most theater companies are afraid of the patriotic, freedom-loving POF's.

Therefore, for taking my foreskin, and crippling my sex life, I am writing this blog. For the wasting of decades of my life in religulous la-la land, I am writing this blog. For all the Amina and Sarah Saids, girls raped and murdered by POF's, and the uncountable multitudes of precious people who have suffered and died under religion and all superstition, I am writing this blog.

Because of the Jesus Rifles, and all the "Christian soldiers" who hold the Bible over the Constitution, I am writing this blog. Because of "Intelligent Design", the Creation Museum, and the jihad taqiya affirmative-acting multicultural postmodernist pacifistic, hoplophobic, photophobic darkness of this dark world, I am writing this blog.

Because they took my movie, dammit, I am writing this blog. No more compromises; no more NOMA. I, John Billings, judge the gods.

The gods are guilty of myriad atrocities against humanity, but they are first of all guilty of being ridiculous. For if I tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, you will surely disagree. If I change the Creator's name to Zeus, or Ra, or Ishtar, I hope you will also disagree. Maybe you will even laugh.

But if I say, "Jesus Christ is Lord", or "There is no God but Allah", you may well agree and even defend the statement. You might even literally explode for the sake of your God,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/02/taliban-buying-children-to-serve-as-suicide-bomber/

and take other people with you.

For this "God", whom you do not know, you would kill precious people, whom you do know. I do not judge you, because like me you were deceived from a child. But the gods of unreason: them I do judge.

Let us grow up now. Let us leave Jehovah, Christ, and Allah with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Let us (with all due respect) shelve the Bible and the Koran with the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Legend of Beowulf. Let us study the brightness and newness of natural science.

I know you can do this, that you can use reason. Imagine a car that gets 15 miles per gallon of gasoline, and another car that gets 30 mpg. If the cars are otherwise similar, and I ask, "which car do you want?" you will choose the 30 mpg model (unless you believe in wasting fuel and polluting the environment). Excellent! This means you can apply critical reasoning; you can think.

You are intelligent, maybe even brilliant. You have found the path of Scientism.

What then is Scientism? Simply, the realization that all of your life, from sexuality to spirituality, is amenable to reason and the scientific method. No matter what is happening in your life, whatever problem or question you may have, science will provide the best answer.

To claim otherwise, as some do, is simply to deny reason. If there is another way to truth than through science, what is it? Show me intuition, mystical knowledge, "past life regressions", that I may believe. But once you have shown me, you will have shown a solid body of evidence: you will have used science!

This would be wonderful, that you could use the light of science to illuminate a mystery. May you forever embrace the light.

By Their Fruits

There are some useful sayings in the Bible (there are many more in Shakespeare). One I like very much is from Jesus, when he was speaking of teachers, "You shall judge them by their fruits." Need to get my Bible study up again. Speaking to Christians more nowadays.

Have been in a lot of debates, studies and so on, on all kinds of subjects "spiritual" and temporal. Many times people will keep arguing a point even when the objective, factual evidence says "Not so." This can be very frustrating, and I have ascribed it to lack of reasoning (ability or desire).

What if, instead, I begin judging an idea by its results? Back about Christmas 2009, at Starbuck's here in San Marco, I realized that ideas have no value unless they do something. In other words, ideas are not good unless they have good results. I think it's time to resurrect the Starbuck's realization.

There is so much "evidence" for reincarnation and other afterlife ideas, that it would take forever to examine all of it. What if someone then comes with new "evidence"? I should study evidence forever! My life is more important than that.

Therefore I will examine carefully how those who believe strongly in an afterlife implement their belief.

1. If afterlife belief causes civilized behavior, which would not occur based on nonbelief, or
2. if nonbelievers (atheists, Brights, etc) appear to be less ethical (valuable to civilization) than afterlife believers, then
3. afterlife is true.

I think the importance of this question is obvious. I hate and fear death, and would love to know, please note the word know, that I will live again.

However, I must have clear evidence. Right now I see no evidence other than a few questionable "past life regressions" and children's "past life memories", every one of which could have been cryptomnesia or other natural phenomena. A "regression" of my own would prove nothing, any more than being "cured" by a Voodoo healer would prove Voodoo.

But there is all that nagging "evidence". There are also very many other questions, such as "Is Islam a religion of peace?" and "Is there an Intelligent Designer?" and "Should I live in Boston or stay in the South?"

Therefore I propose a new standard for judging these personal and practical questions: the behavior produced by these ideas, compared to the behavior produced by the opposing idea. I propose to judge ideas by their fruits.

The old standard looks like this:

Abstract Evidence/ Statistical Data -> Proof

The "Starbuck's" standard goes like this:

Practical Evidence/ Behavioral Data -> Proof

Once again, religion works opposite science:

Idea (commandment, dogma) <- Evidence

Data (evidence, facts) -> Idea (theory)

This indicates that religion will always wage war against reason.

Using the Starbuck's standard:

For example, if I have a question about whether Heaven's Gate is a good religion, I would look at the lives of people who actually live that way, as opposed to anti-Heaven's Gaters. If I have a question about whether I should eat a lot of meat or mostly vegetables, I would look at the Okinawans and compare them to non-vegetarians (or Okinawans who have adopted a high-protein diet).

No further question is needed. We can argue all day about whether statistically gun ownership reduces crime or not, but I have read copious armed citizen reports, I have studied what happens to people who cannot defend themselves:

24 Aug 2007, ST. PAUL, Minn. — A security video from an apartment hallway shows at least 10 witnesses ignored a woman's cries for help for more than an hour as a man beat and sexually assaulted her, prosecutors in Minnesota said.

The surveillance video clearly showed men and women looking out their apartment doors or starting to walk down the hallway before retreating as the woman was assaulted for nearly 90 minutes, police spokesman Tom Walsh said.

Police said they responded to a call of drunken behavior and found Somali immigrant Rage Ibrahim, 25, and a woman lying unconscious in the hallway early Tuesday. The woman's clothing had been pulled up and she had fresh scratches on her face and blood on her thigh, according to the criminal complaint.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://pierrelegrand.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/rape.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pierrelegrand.net/2008/08/15/somalis-showing-gratitude-for-white-americansby-beating-the-crap-out-of-them-weeee-give-me-more-of-that-old-time-multiculturalism.htm&usg=__tpbGJXWyLWPNIeciI9rSRm4zUZs=&h=480&w=500&sz=54&hl=en&start=1&sig2=ObZbRfGx80FH3tGgCpetrw&itbs=1&tbnid=veJ7bNvTIKs89M:&tbnh=125&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlinda%2Brape%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG&ei=ub59S7OnDpPi8QaymLm5BQ

Therefore I bought a handgun, and a Concealed Weapons License.

By the way, that news story answers a question. They are doing it here now, too. "Yallah habibi."

PETA and Pudenda Power

What is more fetching than a female? Men want her, and women want to look like her. We are driven by the need to reproduce, and therefore by erotic imagery. Sex sells like hotcakes in a Boston winter. Call it pudenda power.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) uses pudenda power very effectively:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/sex/

People continually complain about these ads, which simply spreads them far and wide. More controversy, more popularity, more power.

Sex ads work even better when they include symbols of violence such as blood, which PETA also does. They also use dead animals, women apparently beaten or wounded, and suggestions of cannibalism. For this people keep criticizing them, and more people keep watching.

There are even women who use their bodies directly to influence men to become vegetarians.

"PETA’s founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk, agrees that vegans smell fresher. (“There’s science to prove it,” she says.) But Newkirk is all about the recruiting, even if it means one convert at a time. “When my staff members come to me and say: ‘Guess what? My boyfriend, now he’s a vegan,’ I say, half-jokingly: ‘Well, it is time to ditch him and get another. You’ve done your work; move on.’ ”

I need to study women's techniques.

They cannot use guns in PETA ads, of course, or very young women, but I have no such limitations. I will do whatever is needed (and not unethical according to my present understanding) to spread Scientism.

Scientism 2

Oh hated word! anathema of the postmodernist! aspersion of the ivory-towered, multi-degreed, and ever-so-sensitive politically correct intelligentsia! hated heresy of the creationist and all the religious righteous: "the false doctrine of scientism"!

I love you.

All evil springs from irrationality. All good arises from reason and science. Yet the beauty Reason and her lovely daughter, Science, go wandering the streets like beggars, while people bend their ears to every silly idea and bloody old book.

I will give Reason and Science a firm and lofty place, from which all people will see them and hear their sweet voice. I will give them a home: in my heart, on this blog, and in the public square.

Theistic religion teaches circumcision, spanking, sexual abstinence, and a host of other heinous evils; while freethought (atheism, humanism, etc.) teaches what is good for humanity. Why do we allow children to be taught religion?

The only religion we need is Scientism.

Scientism

It's a most despised word. Religionists use it to criticize the likes of Dr. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett:

http://www.crosswalk.com/11598780/

Scientism means that someone has "turned science into a religion". What the critics mean by that, since science is based on evidence and religion is based on ideas, is beyond me. See, we can produce a set of expressions that even a King James Christian would understand.

Religion takes an unfounded idea and tries to make the evidence fit:

Idea <- Evidence

Science takes evidence and rationally evolves an idea (theory):

Evidence -> Idea

So religion and science are actually opposite patterns of thought. How could science be a religion? Oh, I know! The critics mean religion as a paradigm, a world view, a "way of life". In this case I totally agree: science is (and shall be) my religion.

So call me a practitioner of Scientism. I confess! I totally accept responsibility for seeing the world through the eye reason rather than fantasy; for relying on proven theories rather than archaic commandments; for continually correcting myself with current data rather than insisting that "God's Word does not change".

This is the way of Scientism, the love of nature and naturalism, the way of truth, the data driven life. Dibs on that book title.

The method of Scientism is observation, question, and investigation, leading to conclusion and action. The creed of Scientism is data locuta causa finita. When the facts are presented, the matter is settled.

Whereas irrationality is the root of all (every kind of) evil, Scientism is the cure for evil and the source of all good. Scientism is what this dark world needs: a clear beam of light.

Comes the Sunrise

In the earliest morning, only a promise of light: in the sunrise, the glory is revealed for all to see. The Enlightenment was the dawn of science.

Now the fullness of the light will be revealed. No more shadows, no more superstitions: all people revel in the light of truth.

This is the eve of Valentine's Day, 2010. Tomorrow the sun will rise, the light will come in fullness, and the people will be illuminated.

"The future is bright."

What Religion Does to Children 2

Based on the current data, the effect of religion on children in terms of civilization must be considered negative. Religion is hostile to civilization. This calls for active interdiction on my part.

Keep and Bear Arms 2

This is true: we who bear arms protect those who do not. Examples:

• Military
• Police
• G-Class Security
• Private Security
• Armed Civilians

Without us protecting them, the pacifists would quickly find themselves saying, "Allahu naq'bah.." or whatever. But we have chosen to defend ourselves and them also. That is our job.

For this, the pacifists hurl insults at us, as on this site:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/opencarryguns

Yet we will protect their right to free (albeit irrational and insulting) speech. I will personally protect pacifists if it does come to that.

Again, as in my erstwhile Christian debates: the real issue is not baptism, or "born sinful", or whatever. The real issue is reasoning. We are all amenable to reasoning and to science, which keeps us out of the Dark Ages.

Christianity vs America

While reviewing current events, such as the "Jesus Rifles" affair, the covert evangelization of Afghanistan and Iraq, the slaying of abortion doctors, resistance to embryonic stem cell research, creation versus evolution "controversy" (the controversy is really about teaching mythology in place of science), oppression of gay people ("Defense of Marriage" laws), the military obsession with Israel, and most poignantly the censoring of the movie Creation, I realized something so disturbing it propelled me directly from bed to this computer. Christianity is at war with America.

I say this from a 20-year background of questioning the idea that "America is a Christian Nation". This was the first debate I had with the church, soon after I was converted. The more I studied the Bible, compared to what I knew about American history, the less I could accept the "Christian Nation" doctrine.

I got into some really unpleasant discussions with other church members, who were all into The Light and the Glory. I even had an online debate with Christian Right leader Frank Schaeffer (who has since reformed, see http://www.frankschaeffer.com). Given that this man fiercely contended that America was founded by and for Christians, the change in him is astounding. Wonder if he lost some sleep.

Anyway, as I have been studying the US Constitution and the writings of our founders, it has become clear to me that the USA should be a religiously free nation. America is based on the secular principle of the rights of man. Specific examples are freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and the right to self-defense, including defense against attack by the State. All of these are directly opposed to Biblical principles.

The Bible begins with these words: "In the beginning, God..." Gen1.1. This verse, and the entire Bible, says plainly that authority comes from "God". The Constitution of the United States of America begins differently: "We the people...".

This phrase is in large writing, at the top of the document, and leaves no doubt as to the source of authority in which the founders trusted. In this nation, "God" does not make the rules. "The people" make the rules, and thus America is a humanist nation. Any theistic religion that seeks political power stands against America.

Sexed-Up Atheism: Logos and Mythos

People cannot live on logos alone; we need mythos. The logos, rationalism and science, are like the builder of a house. Mythos, feeling and spirituality, are like the designer or decorator of that house.

First there are the foundation, the structure, and the roof. But who wants to live in a structure? So then there are the exterior paint, interior paint, flooring, furniture, and so on. Now the house is a home. Therefore logos builds the house, but mythos makes it a home.

Current atheism and secularism in general is too pure. It is all reason and science, and this is necessary. Rationality must come first. However, for people to enjoy this logical way of life, we must also have mythos: they smells and bells of religion. We want and need candles, chanting, and rituals. We need "sexed-up atheism".

Logos

Dear A,

I am opening this after some careful thought. You are the first person to view this blog. A few notes are in order, should you desire to read the posts:

1. The posts are like strata in the Grand Canyon. As you go down, you go back in time. Please be aware that my intellectual evolution is just that: evolution, an ongoing process and not a "creation".

2. In connection with 1., I accept only the best available data/information as evidence.

3. I will accept any proposition, for example that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, or that Jesus Christ loves me, given sufficient data.

4. This blog is currently entre nous. Thanks. J

I view the world in a new way. In fact, I appear to be establishing a novel paradigm: rationalism. I am aware of the Enlightenment, which began approximately in 1700 CE, and from which our US founders developed the Constitution.

I could write a book on this (once I would have said "sacred") document, which is in the top 10 valuable documents in history, but an essay on the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, will have to wait for another time. I also would love to discuss the Enlightenment, and how it has immeasurably helped humanity, both secular and religious. Right now, however, a more pressing matter demands my attention.

The Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," John 1.1. The original Greek text is shown in the image above.

This logos, or word, actually means logic. It originally did not mean Jesus or any other deity, but the universal reason, the raison d'etre, of the cosmos. This logos, as logic, dwells in our minds; in fact it is close to the essence of human consciousness. From a personal point of view, logos is the ability to think.

During much of Western history, the standard of proof was Roma locuta causa finita. This means, roughly, "The Pope has spoken; case closed." Indeed, for most of human history, some religious or political organization has wielded intellectual and spiritual power over the people. It has been Roma locuta, or Rex locuta, or Presbutera (the Elders) locuta, or Scriptura (the Bible) locuta...

What a plague of locutas! There is even a new species: "Korana" locuta...Enough with the locutas; I am calling pest control.

I am therefore ethically required to propose a counterpoint: a sort of anti-locuta. Since we all can use reason, which a priori establishes factual, natural information (data) as the standard for evidence leading to proof; no matter what our parents demand, or preachers declare or politicians decide, we are amenable to reason. We can in fact think.

Therefore, in the elegance of simplicity: data locuta causa finita.

When the facts have spoken, the matter is settled. Every belief and action is subject to critical inquiry, the scientific method, and plain reason. Every truth claim must be rooted in evidence.

I say these things after decades of study, experience, and debate. We can all apply reason, and with practice apply it consistently, so there is no excuse (for me or anyone else) to utter egregious errors such as "Jesus is the only true Way" or "Islam is a peaceful religion" or "rape is not about sex" or "guns murder" or "affirmative action" or "true love waits" or "this crystal bowl will balance your Energy" or "the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world." No excuse, I say.

What others believe personally is one thing; I have no quarrel with it. I myself enjoy listening to Byzantine chant. An excellent example can be found at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZP64eyXpM&feature=PlayList&p=C7D66A3C572AB4F3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

Personal beliefs are personal, but if anyone says, "you" or "we" or makes an absolute statement, more especially if they reference the supernatural, without any evidence, there is a logical issue.

It has been over 300 years since logos was fully revealed as the path to truth. It is time for the human race to get over the gods. It is time we put our statues and holy books on the shelves of history where they belong. It is time for us to grow up. The way of reason and science is clear and open to all.

Sexed-Up Atheism

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that pantheism is really "sexed-up atheism". The good Dr. means that when we say all of nature is God, then really nothing is especially God, so in effect God does not exist as a person. This reasoning is correct. The only difference between atheism and pantheism is the sexy idea that nature is God, or rather, Goddess. Always Goddess.

Following the Goddess comes all the Gaia worship, "animal spirit guides", etc. etc. The popular pantheistic thing is just a quasi-literate form of deep ecology plus New Age. It's pretty shallow.

Who will create a real religion of science, establish sexed-up atheism as an authentic, rational spiritual path? The world needs sexed-up atheism in a big way.

The world needs a bright path out of the current superstitious miasma, the swamp vapor that keeps us stumbling in the dark. The spirit of unreason is the root of all evil.

But logic and science alone are just not sexy. Along with data and rationality, we humans need what we call spirituality: a sense of mystery and wonder. We need smells, we need bells, we need candles and incense.

In addition to this, or in concert with it: PETA and a wealth of other advertisements show that sex sells like hotcakes in a Boston winter.

Both men and women come for sex ads: women because they want to look like that, and men because we want that. No one has used sex to sell religion yet.

We don't need gods, but we do need religion. We need a religion of reason with a great body. I nominate Jennifer Connelly (who stars in the USA-censored film, Creation)!

On the Value of Human Life

Consider the following:

1. I have the right to defend myself, including the right to use deadly force on a predator. Actually every citizen has this right, but now the State recognizes it.

2. In the USA as well as many other nations, an unborn biological entity (fetus, baby) may be legally killed at the mother's will. This (abortion) is justifiable homicide.

3. Islamists train their children, as in the image above, to kill people such as myself. Islamized children are potential predators.

Based on a wealth of data such as these, it becomes obvious that human life must be re-evaluated. The old "sanctity" or "inherent value" of life position is irrational. Life has no intrinsic value. Instead, human life must be evaluated based on its behavior and potential.

For instance, the children in the image above have much less value than four Russian street children of similar age. The Russians are less contaminated with religious ideology, and more educable. In fact, the Islamized children's value is negative. Based on this evaluation, the logistical and military decisions are obvious.