Sunday, December 5th, 2004

Time	Event
4:05a	. Critique: A warning about what you should believe. Doubt your allies as much as your enemies. Example 1 Frontpagemag: Yesterday's Jihadists In reading leftist literature on the political oppression of the left, I have never seen the reasoning behind the oppression laid out in such striking detail as in this Frontpagemag article. The reality seems to lie somewhere between "all leftist are terrorist" (the right's position) and "the right brutally suppresses innocent dissenters" (the left's position). Once again an example and warning to every person: You should not fully trust anything you read, even if it does fully support your own narrow ideology. Example 2 Another wonderful example: Is this the same interview? The conservative Media Research Center: Sawyer Hits Bush with Liberal Spin, Iraq or Aid Katrina Victims? The liberal Media Matters: News outlets downplay Bush administration's failure to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina Example 3 A warning about what you believe. In an article the author wrote the following: * In 1986, in response to a bombing in a German disco, 18 Air Force F-111s bombed Tripoli, even though there was little evidence linking Libya to the bombing, which was eventually traced to Iran and Syria. This is not the case. According to the Los Angeles Times November 14, 2001 Wednesday: 4 Convicted in '86 Berlin Disco Blast Justice: Trial ends with one acquittal for murder of two GIs and a Turkish woman. Judge adds that Libya's involvement was proved but not Kadafi's. A German court convicted a former Libyan diplomat and three accomplices on murder charges Tuesday more than 15 years after they bombed a crowded West Berlin discotheque, killing two U.S. soldiers and a Turkish woman. This just shows how important it is to check ALL of your facts, not only those facts which you disagree with, but those you agree with too. I have caught some of the articles I read at commondreams.org with highly inaccurate misinformation. I have personally found that usually the most angrily written articles often have the most inaccurate statements. I emailed the author and he was very cordial. I was happy that he took the time to talk to me. Just keep on guard. Example 4 Is the death of 500,000 Iraqis because of sanctions a fraud? Excerpt from the book: Into the Buzzsaw. Shouting at the Crocodile by CBS Maurice Murad ( Read more... ) (2 Comments | Comment on this)
4:19a	moved . . Web page about why we need trial lawyers: The Ford Pinto moved to: http://www.livejournal.com/users/bailey83221/19143.html (2 Comments | Comment on this)
4:59a	Articles on the Iraq war Topics What the Rest of the World Watched on Bush's Inauguration Day What would happen if the democratically elected government of Iraq wanted to kick out America? US Defense Department study: US 'alienating' world's Muslims: 'They hate our policies, not our freedom' Iraq elections What America has done to the social net in Iraq Iraq Sanctions, which killed 500,000 Iraqi's mostly children If this is a war on terror, then who are the terrorists and who are the terrorized? The Iraqi war : Counting the casualties From The Economist Government Support for our Troops Resistance to the War in Iraq American Occupation targeting doctors, clerics, journalists If America were Iraq, What would it be Like? US and Iraq Oil Sanctions Vietnam and Iraq Body Counts actually done What the Rest of the World Watched on Bush's Inauguration Day More photos of the deaths: BBC news My question: Why didn't we ever see these photos in America? From: National Catholic Reporter What the Rest of the World Watched on Bush's Inauguration Day, pictures from the BBC Dublin, on U.S. Inauguration Day, didn't seem to notice. Oh, they played a few clips that night of the American president saying, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." But that was not their lead story. The picture on the front page of The Irish Times was a large four-color picture of a small Iraqi girl. Her little body was a coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering, screaming madly into the dark night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small tight face were blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father and mother, shot through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers while she sat beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in the back seat. …In Iraq, for every dead U.S. soldier, there are 14 other deaths, 93 percent of them are civilian. But those things happen in war, the story says. It's all for a greater good, we have to remember. It's all to free them. It's all being done to spread "liberty." A Critique of the Most Misleading Statements in the Foreign Policy Segments of President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Address Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota): Grief for British, but none for Iraqis? What would happen if the democratically elected government of Iraq wanted to kick out America? What would happen if the democratically elected government of Iraq wanted to kick out America? I am no historian, but I think what happened in Iran is very illustrative of what would happen if the Iraq government tried to kick out America. Iran in 1952 and Iraq today Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, by the elected leader Mossadegh, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister. The CIA overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah in his place, an American puppet government. --New York Times: The CIA in Iran 'Democracy' in Iraq: quotes showing that the Bush administration will only accept a certain kind of democracy "If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. --Associated Press: Rumsfeld: Iraqis Free to Form Own Gov't as Long as It is Not an Iranian-Style Theocracy "A couple of days before the voting in Iraq, the lead story on the front page of the New York Times -- summing up the newspaper's exclusive interview with President Bush -- had reported his assertion "that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain." Logically, the president's statement should have set off warning buzzers -- along the lines of "What's wrong with this picture?" For instance: Public opinion polls in Iraq are consistently showing that most Iraqis want U.S. troops to quickly withdraw from their country. Yet Bush asserted that the Iraqi election would be democratic -- even while he expressed confidence that the resulting government would defy the desires of most Iraqi people on the matter of whether American military forces should remain. The easy way for journalists to reconcile this contradiction is to ignore it-- a routine approach in news reporting." --Iraq Media Coverage Too Much Stenography, Not Enough Curiosity Independent/UK: America Is Usurping the Democratic Will in Iraq US Defense Department study: US 'alienating' world's Muslims: 'They hate our policies, not our freedom' The full pdf file from the US Defense Department can be found here. What is interesting in this study, is there is no suggestion anywhere, that America should stop supporting the “Middle East tyrants” (this study’s own words) that Arabs identify America so closely with. This is a non-issue, something that of course would never be encouraged. Excerpts of the report... Excerpts of the study: If there is one overarching goal (Arabs) share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the “apostate” regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive. (p 43) U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself. Three recent polls of Muslims show an overwhelming conviction that the U.S. seeks to “dominate” and “weaken” the Muslim World. (p 43) The Cold War emphasized: Dissemination of information to “huddled masses yearning to be free.” Today we reflexively compare Muslim “masses” to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies — except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends. (p 44) An acceptance of authoritarian regimes as long as they were anti-communist. This could be glossed over in our message of freedom and democracy because it was the main adversary only that truly mattered. Today, however, the perception of intimate U.S. support of tyrannies in the Muslim World is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy. (p 44) -- Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. (p 48) Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. Media commentary is consistent with polling data. In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5 % of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive. Americans believe that while the U.S. necessarily shapes foreign policies to support our national interests, those same interests are not necessarily in opposition to the interests of other nations and cultures. To the contrary, Americans are convinced that the U.S. is a benevolent “superpower” that elevates values emphasizing freedom and prosperity as at the core of its own national interest. Thus, for Americans, “U.S. values” are in reality “world values” — exemplified by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the 1975 Helsinki Accords — so deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam — by overwhelming majorities at this time — sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical, and American actions as deeply threatening. A similar series of questions showed even more favorable opinion ratios in favor of U.S. culture and its values — in 2002. Thus it seems that in two years the Jihadi message — that strongly attacks American values — is being accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that negative opinion of the U.S. has not yet bottomed-out, but is in fact continuing to move dynamically. But the movement is now qualitative rather and quantitative, meaning that regular Muslims are moving from “soft opposition” toward “hard opposition.” In Saudi Arabia, a large majority believes that the U.S. seeks to “weaken” and “dominate” Islam itself — in other words, Americans have become the enemy. It is noteworthy that opinion is hardest over against America in precisely those places ruled by what Muslims call “apostates” and tyrants — the tyrants we support. This should give us pause. (p 54) Newspapers articles about the Pentagon report Los Angeles Times: Iraq War May Incite Terror, CIA Study Says The US is losing "the war of ideas" in the Islamic world, a Pentagon advisory panel has warned. A report by the Defence Science Board says official US talk of bringing democracy to Muslim nations is seen as "self-serving hypocrisy". It says if the US wants Muslims to move towards its understanding of tolerance, it must reassure them this does not mean submitting to "the American way". The report urges Washington to change its approach urgently. In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering The Defence Science Board's report However, it says that improving public relations is not enough. "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the report says. "The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. "Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report says. It adds that the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has actually raised the stature of radical enemies of America. "US actions appear... to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination," the report says. 'Information campaign' It describes US public diplomacy as being in crisis and urges the creation of a strategic communications apparatus within the White House. "The information campaign - or as some still would have it, 'the war of ideas' or the struggle for 'hearts and minds' - is important to every war effort," the report says, referring to the US-led war on terror. The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report may not be official policy, but it does highlight many concerns in official circles in Washington about how the US government can communicate its messages abroad. The Defence Science Board is made of civilian experts appointed by the Pentagon, and offers the department advice on scientific, technical and other issues. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4040543.stm --- New York Times: November 24, 2004 U.S. Fails to Explain Policies to Muslim World, Panel Says By THOM SHANKER http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/politics/24info.html WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - A harshly critical report by a Pentagon advisory panel says the United States is failing in its efforts to explain the nation's diplomatic and military actions to the Muslim world, but it warns that no public relations plan or information operation can defend America from flawed policies. The Defense Science Board report, which has not been released to the public, says the nation's institutions charged with "strategic communication" are broken, and calls for a comprehensive reorganization of government public affairs, public diplomacy and information efforts. "America's negative image in world opinion and diminished ability to persuade are consequences of factors other than the failure to implement communications strategies," says the 102-page report, completed in September. "Interests collide. Leadership counts. Policies matter. Mistakes dismay our friends and provide enemies with unintentional assistance. Strategic communication is not the problem, but it is a problem." The study does not constitute official policy, but it is described by the Pentagon's civilian and military leadership as capturing the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government. The debate centers on how far the United States can and should go in managing, even manipulating, information to deter enemies and persuade allies or neutral nations. There is little disagreement about the importance and utility of battlefield deception to help assure the success of a military operation and protect American or allied soldiers. But there is great concern among public affairs officials in the military at proposals for regional or even global information operations, especially if those efforts include falsehoods. The rub is that in an environment of 24-hour news and the Internet, overseas information operations easily become known to the American people, and any specific government-sponsored information campaign not based on fact risks damaging the nation's overall credibility. The Defense Science Board report, "Strategic Communication," proposes a permanent "strategic communication structure" within the White House National Security Council and urges elevated roles and responsibilities for a designated senior officer within other government organizations, including the State Department and the Pentagon. The report compares the national security challenge of the post-Sept. 11 world to the decades-long struggle against Soviet Communism. But the study then argues that the government's cold-war-era communications institutions have not understood that the Islamic world - and extremists operating in the Islamic world - present different challenges. The report scolds the government for casting the new threat of Islamic extremism in a way that offends a large portion of those living in the Muslim world. "In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity - an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' " the report states. "Today we reflexively compare Muslim 'masses' to those oppressed under Soviet rule," the report adds. "This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies - except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends." The report says that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." In the eyes of the Muslim world, the report adds, "American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering." The report also says: "The critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world is not one of 'dissemination of information' or even one of crafting and delivering the 'right' message. Rather it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none - the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam." Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, said the report had elevated the debate within the Defense Department, but he said no formal decisions had been made about reorganizing how the Pentagon and military communicate. "We're wrestling with this," Mr. Di Rita said. "But it doesn't change the underlying principle, at least with respect to the Department of Defense. Our job is to put out information to the public that is accurate, and to put it out as quickly as we can." Also: The Christian Science Montior Vast majority of foreign fighters are not former terrorists & became radicalized by the Iraq war. The Independent (UK): We Must Address the Root Causes of this Terror Los Angeles Times: Brutality That Boomerangs Iraq elections History News Network: The Iraq Election: First Impressions Needlenose: The elections Bush didn't want ( Read more... ) What America has done to the social net in Iraq Harpers: Baghdad Year Zero Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia Ralph Nader: Assault on the Labor Movement in Iraq A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now. The US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering. The Nation: Iraq: The Human Toll Iraq Sanctions, which killed 500,000 Iraqi's mostly children Harpers: Cool War Oil for Nothing: US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies Iraq: 1997-2001 See also: Iraq sanctions and the 500,000 dead, is this statistic all a fraud? If this is a war on terror, then who are the terrorists and who are the terrorized? [A]nti-American feeling, already rife in the Muslim world, is rising yet again in the wake of a recent report from Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. It concluded that some 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died between March 2003 (when the Bush administration with its British allies invaded Iraq) and September 2004; that the largest number of these deaths were caused by the unleashed air power of the invading and then occupying armies; and that women and children had suffered most. In other words, the invaders may have managed to kill up to a third as many Iraqis in a year-and-a-half as President Saddam Hussein did in his 24-year dictatorial rule. This comparison led the Riyadh-based, pro-government Saudi Gazette to ask rhetorically, "If this is a war on terror, then who are the terrorists and who are the terrorized?" --From: No Carrots, All Stick From the Chicago Sun Times: How Many More Iraqis Must Die for Our Revenge? The Iraqi war : Counting the casualties From The Economist http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3352814 Nov 4th 2004 The Economist A statistically based study claims that many more Iraqis have died in the conflict than previous estimates indicated ( Read more... ) Government Support for our Troops Press & Sun-Bulletin (Birmingham, NY): Gulf War pilots who were held captive sued Iraq and won The Bush administration sought to have the judge's ruling reversed and the case against Iraq dismissed. Several years ago, there was a movie called The Mouse That Roared, starring Peter Sellers. It was about the leaders of a tiny, impoverished European country who decided that their best hope of avoiding fiscal disaster was to declare war on the United States, get invaded, surrender as swiftly as possible and then qualify for rebuilding aid. CNN: Democrats slam budget cuts for veterans' services Ted Rall: "Private ______ died for his country's geopolitical interests." Doesn't quite have the same ring? They Fight and Die, But Not For Their Country Resistance to the War in Iraq The St. Patrick's Four and Resistance to the War in Iraq American Occupation Targeting Doctors, Clerics, Journalists Journalist from Democracy Now: There Was No Checkpoint, There Was No Self-Defense Italian Journalist Giuliana Sgrena said: 1) There wasn't a checkpoint at all, It was simply a tank parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. 2) Sgrena also says that the US soldiers fired at them from behind. The US military in Iraq has blocked the Italian government from inspecting the Italians' vehicle, even though the car is the property of the Italian government which bought it from the rental agency after this incident. 3) Giuliana wasn't on that road at all that the US claims she was on. They were on a secured road that can only be accessed through the heavily-fortified Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for top foreign embassy and US officials. 'It's a completely separate road, actually a Saddam-era road, it would seem, that allowed his vehicles to pass directly from the airport to his palace,' says Klein. 'And now that is the secured route between the U.S. military base at the airport and the U.S. controlled Green Zone and the U.S. embassy.' 'It was a VIP road, for embassy people, not for normal people,' Sgrena told Klein. 'I was only able to be on that road because I was with people from the Italian embassy.' This case sheds important light on the culture of impunity surrounding the US occupation of Iraq. If this is how Washington treats Italy, one of its closest allies in the so-called war on terror, when US soldiers kill the country¹s second-highest ranking intelligence official, imagine the struggle Iraqis face as they die in the tens of thousands. They don¹t have a powerful figure like Sylvio Berlusconi to advocate for them. The Guardian: In Iraq, US forces...are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies. My comments: Please note, nothing has been done with the noted tank firing on the hotel in Baghdad, killing two journalists. The military promised it would investigate, and just last month the US found that "no fault or negligence" could be attributed to the US army for an action that killed two journalists." (Also see articles below on this subject) On a related note, although low-level grunts have been prosecuted for crimes in Iraq prisons, not a single CIA agent who participated in the torture has been prosecuted. (See my web blog entry for more on this subject) This is typical. The American military has a shameful record of first covering up and then never prosecuting war criminals. Those it does prosecute usually get waved or reduced sentences. (See my web blog entry for more on this subject) Articles on the hotel killings by an American tank Reporters Without Borders "extremely disappointed" at US troops being cleared of all blame for attack on Palestine Hotel that killed two journalists Reporters without borders: latest news on Iraq freedom of press and journalist suppression International Federation of Journalists report on the Middle East The Independent newspaper: 'US Lied About Deaths of Journalists in the Palestine Hotel' The Scotsman newspaper: “We find no sense of outrage, no sense of concern in these (Iraq) cases,” White said. “The response from American authorities has not been positive. There is a culture of disregard for mistakes (by the American military) that have been made.” Inter Press Service: U.S. Government Accused of War Crimes Against Journalists Los Angeles Times: Innocent civilians are increasingly being killed by U.S. troops If America were Iraq, What would it be Like? (link) President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country. What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number. US and Iraq Oil Sanctions Nashua Telegraph / New Hampshire: US Had Hand in Violating Iraq Oil Sanctions Vietnam and Iraq Toronto Star: Bush's Liberty Song Echoes Vietnam Tune Robert Freeman: Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse Editor of Mediachannel.org: The Unreported Vietnam-Iraq Parallel Inter Press Service: Iraq War Costs Now Exceed Vietnam's NPR: The World (February 2nd, 2005): Listen now: Vietnam report US efforts to build democracy, a campaign of violence meant to disrupt elections, an historic vote...all these elements describe what's going on in Iraq today. But they also describe what was going on in South Vietnam nearly 40 years ago. Body Counts actually done . March 18, 2004: "Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times revealed that, twice a week, Captain Jonathan Tracy hands out "sympathy payments" to the relatives of Iraqi civilians killed or injured by the U.S. military. No admission of U.S. guilt, but you get $1,000 for an injury and $2,500 for a death. Now you know what Iraqi life is worth, in official U.S. eyes. Captain Tracy, who is only 27, says he is "getting pretty burned out." That is understandable. It's a hellish job. To make it worse, Tracy has to worry about cheaters. How does he know that the Iraqis who come asking for payments really deserve them? He "checks each claim a civilian files against a database of military incident reports," Gettlemen reported. "We do keep records of innocent civilians who are killed accidentally by coalition force soldiers," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander for the First Armored Division, which patrols Baghdad. "And, in fact, in every one of those innocent death situations, we conduct internal investigations to determine what happened." But earlier in the very same news story, Gettlemen wrote: "Military officials say they do not have precise figures or even estimates of the number of noncombatant Iraqis killed and wounded by American-led forces in Iraq. 'We don't keep a list,' said a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell. 'It's just not policy.'" We used to assume that what Commander Campbell said was true. We rely on websites like www.iraqbodycount.net because we thought that our government was killing and not bothering to count the victims. Now we just ain't sure, because our nation's newspaper of record says, in the very same story, that our government does and does not keep a list. (Comment on this)
8:14p	Mormonism is a fraud -As my web blog evolved, I removed the original political information found here to another location but retained this link because of unrelated comments attached to this posting. Later, after many people express to me their transition stuggles out of Mormonism, I decided to post information on how I left here, to help others - I built this web blog page because a lot of people I met on Mormon sites seemed to be going through the same steps that I went through, leaving the church, and needed the support and fellowship that I never had: I wish live journal was around when I left the church (mid-90's), the transaction was horrible for me, and very lonely, people need each other. Leaving Mormonism is such a big step and large transaction: Support groups and people who have taken the same path as you are taking right now People who are at the same point as you may be (See the discussion below with some other ex-Mormons and doubting Mormons) A site for those who are Questioning their faith in the Mormon Church "And for those who need support As they transition their lives to a normal life. We are not affiliated with any religion and we do not advocate any religion. 220+ Stories of ex-Mormons" How can I find other former Mormons to talk to? Post-Mormon Identity, the steps (from lj user menemni) http://atheists-of-utah.org/ Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon This book talks about how one of the most prominent Mormon archeologists lost his faith, but still stayed in the church, becoming a closet doubter. Doctrine of the church criticized The premier source that made me realize the church was not true is the scholarly quarterly journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought . The entire collection is available at the USU library, and I read every issue back to its start in the 1960’s. I spent three times time studying the church than doing homework when I was in college. A less scholarly magazine/journal, which has more essays and articles which focus more on social issues instead of doctrine, is Sunstone. Introduction to the book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, the most devastating book about the church ever written, the entire book is available online on this site. Mormon Polygamy: A History Very scholarly, evenhanded work (Found in Deseret Book), discusses how Joseph Smith would propose to married women. 2think.org (This guy took the same path I did in leaving the church) Richard Packham, former Mormon who is now an atheist Studies against the church from some fundamentalist Christians Funny You know you’re an Ex-Mormon when.... Filling the resulting Void in your life After I left the church, their was a “belief void” in my life, which needed to be filled by something Some people fill this void with other Religious beliefs, I filled it in with Science. Carl Sagan's books, such as The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark really helped me realize the supremacy of Science over religion. A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom/2 Volumes in One (Great Minds Series) (Amazon site) This is a classic on the subject showing how historically Science always wins, yet religion always continues despite being proven wrong. This book is available for free to download here: Project Gutenberg (downloads slowly) http://www.skeptic.com/ Penn and Teller’s series “Bullshit” on Showtime, the first few seasons are available at Netflix.com Economist: Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made Below is yet another article that flies in the face of religion's idea of "sin": "Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made". If a person is born to be a psychopath, just like a person is born to be a homosexual, indeed, if much of who we are is chemicals in the brain, doesn't this completly contradict the concept of "sin" and "choice" that most of Christianity embraces? If you are a psychopath from birth and your psychopathic rages are controled by your genes, where does "sin" and "choice" come in? Doesn't a backwards belief in "sin" actually hinder society from treating of these mentally ill? As Carl Sagan said: "It used to be believed that every event in the world-the opening of a morning glory...was due to direct microintervention by the Deity. The flower was unable to open by itself.God had to say “Hey, flower, open.” [Today]...because we know something about phototropism and plant hormones, we can understand the opening of the morning glory independent of divine mícrointervention...As we learn more and more about the universe, there seems less and less for God to do." --Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science by Carl Sagan, page 334-335 Of course, as history shows, Christian apologists, will first attack these findings, then Christianity as a whole will, slowly, over generations, find someway to bend their beliefs to fit the overwhelming facts. [For an excellent book on the history of Chrisitianty blocking important technological and scientific advancements see A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom, above] Economist, May 26th 2005 Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made RESEARCHERS at the Institute of Psychiatry, in London, are not shy about tackling controversial topics. One of them, Terrie Moffitt, was responsible for studies that showed how different versions of the gene for one of the brain's enzymes resulted in different predispositions to criminal activity. Another, Robert Plomin, found the first plausible candidate for a gene that boosts intelligence. Now, Dr Moffitt and Dr Plomin have been helping two other researchers, Essi Viding and James Blair, with an equally high-profile study—one which asks whether psychopaths are born that way, or are made so by their upbringings ( Read more... ) (30 Comments | Comment on this)

<< Previous Day

2004/12/05 [Calendar]

Next Day >>