Author: rfhurley

I’m kind of partial to this one. Funny thing, though: I was packing my camera away after taking numerous photos, and was thinking of where I wanted to take photos next, when this Magnolia Tree snuck up on me & bit me in the rear! (I almost bumped my head on this very branch when I stood up)

(don’t forget to zoom)

NY Post Defends Cartoon, Slams Al Sharpton

Here’s the full statement by Col Allan, editor-in-chief of the Post:

“The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”

More from Mr. Rupert’s Neighborhood:

The Wall Street Journal???

Oh, how the mighty have fallen…
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

AP – NEW YORK – A New York Post cartoon that some have interpreted as comparing President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee gunned down by police drew outrage Wednesday from civil rights leaders and elected officials who said it echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkeys.

The cartoon in Wednesday’s Post by Sean Delonas shows two police officers, one with a smoking gun, standing over the body of a bullet-riddled chimp. The caption reads: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

The cartoon refers to a chimpanzee named Travis who was killed Monday by police in Stamford, Conn., after it mauled a friend of its owner.

Some critics called the cartoon racist and said it trivialized a tragedy in which a woman was disfigured and a chimpanzee killed. Others said the cartoon suggests that Obama should be assassinated. Many urged a boycott of the Post and the companies that advertise in it.

“How could the Post let this cartoon pass as satire?” said Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists. “To compare the nation’s first African-American commander in chief to a dead chimpanzee is nothing short of racist drivel.”

A Christian schoolteacher from Roseville (Placer County) who takes the Bible literally says a UC Berkeley Web site about evolution is unconstitutional, like a cross in a public park.

The Web site, “Understanding Evolution,” is supported by government funds and violates the constitutional separation of church and state, according to the suit by Jeanne Caldwell.

Rebuffed by lower courts, she has appealed to the nation’s highest court, and UC joined the battle this week, saying in its response that the Internet is not like a park and that, in fact, Caldwell has no right even to file the suit.

The sides wait to see whether the justices will take the case and tackle the unsettled issue – not of evolution, but of whether the Internet is a public space that needs new principles to enforce the state-and-religion barrier.

…

At issue is one page, out of 840 on the Web site, that says Darwin’s theory and religion can co-exist. The page – titled “Misconception: ‘Evolution and Religion are Incompatible’ ” – also features a drawing of a smiling scientist holding a skull and shaking hands with a smiling cleric holding a book with a cross on it.

Caldwell says UC’s government-funded assertion contradicts a religious belief that evolution and religion are incompatible and amounts to a state position on religious doctrine. This violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment barring Congress from making any law respecting the establishment or exercise of religion, she says.

The page in question, Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible,” says:

Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

It includes an illustration which I did find a little patronizing:

But the thing that bothered me most was the fact that scientists even find it necessary to answer to every “flat-earth” fundamentalist that comes down the pike. The page in question is an admittedly clumsy attempt to “reach out” to those atavistic individuals who have closed their minds to the 17th Century onward, and clearly have no desire to discuss the matter further.

But the fact is, that science really has nothing to say about religion, either. Nada. Science is a system of propositions that can either be proven or disproven. Religion, by its very nature, resists such criteria: it is a matter of faith. One believes, or doesn’t believe; it is not a subject for debate. Christ’s admonition, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,” is a statement of such faith.

(This admonition may also be viewed as a cautionary warning, intended to spare his followers grievious self-injury– not that this exhortation has subsequently been heeded: witness Christian Scientists and others who deny themselves and their children medical care, believing that to do otherwise would be an admission of lack of faith. But I digress…)

Science should steer clear of the religion business (and remove, or perhaps drastically modify, the existing page) for the same reason that religion should steer clear of science: the two are neither compatible nor incompatible– they are entirely different subjects! Carl Sagan was correct when he replied to a question as to why he wasn’t willing to debate creationists: “There is nothing to debate,” he replied.

Finally, the article ends with a sobering thought (on the general anti-rational leanings of American discourse):

On the eve of Darwin’s birthday last Thursday, a new Gallup Poll was released showing that 39 percent of Americans believe in evolution, with 25 percent not believing in it and 36 percent holding no opinion. Among weekly churchgoers, 24 percent believe in evolution and 41 percent do not.

Remember: Galileo was nearly killed for asserting the now-obvious fact that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

In the words of Fredrick Nietzsche: “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”