Responsibility Peanuts

I just read a report about the peanut butter/paste salmonella outbreak at CNN's website. The wrap up bothered me, see if you feel the same way. For starters, here's the last few paragraphs, though you should feel free to click above or search their website for the whole thing:

... The outbreak highlights how food production has become more centralized, said Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. The peanuts come from a variety of farms, then are processed at a central location into ingredients disbursed for use in many products, he said.

"We should not have in the food system this level of contamination," Hanson said. "That's a failure of regulation."

The last inspection of the company was conducted by the state of Georgia in June, according to the FDA. Officials said some violations were found that were corrected by the company. No further information was provided.

"The food industry is really the responsible party for ensuring that the products that they produce are safe," Sundlof said.

"But it is not the responsibility of the consumer to make sure that the product that they receive is a safe product. That is the responsibility of the food industry and with the oversight of the Food and Drug Administration."

I agree with Dr. Stephen Sundlof, the director of the agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition that it is the responsibility of the food industry and the FDA to make sure food is safe. But that should not diminish the responsibility of the consumer. Ultimately it is the individual that decides to pick up food and put it in their mouth. That's where the buck really stops. Maybe if we realized our own role to maintain our health, the obesity epidemic would be a far more limited problem.

I like the informational campaigns for proper food preparation. I appreciate the testing the FDA does for known pathogens and contamination. Since I'm a wussy Libertarian, I don't mind this sort of government program (not that I don't think a private organization like a food Underwriters Laboratory wouldn't work better).

But, all that said, citizens of this country should not be considered children. This assumption that we need to be protected and taken care of percolates into the whole society. Our sense of self-responsibility diminishes so that when we are injured, or denied, or mistreated we react like children. It isn't our fault and we're going to throw a temper tantrum (by suing someone) and getting a candy (settlement) to make up for the injustice of societies neglect. We act like children, those we've given power to, treat us like children. And it repeats again.

There's my two-cents on that.

In defense of the article, I did admire the observation that the general population now knows what it's like to have a peanut allergy. It really is a pain in the ass to read all those labels. It has nothing to do with wanting attention or being picky. It's about health. On that note, I'll say I'm very happy we use soy butter at our house.

Anti-Abortion? Have You Thought It Through?

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/

I'll start this post with a caveat that the video at this link and the text do not indicate how many people were asked the question, where the questioning of the anti-abortion demonstrations took place, or what published positions the anti-abortion organizations have taken if any.

I was struck by the fact that many of the people interviewed fell back on the excuse that they were not lawyers and therefore could not make a decision about punishment for the crime of murder. I agree with the video's authors that the same people would quickly be able to come up with acceptable punishments for a murder that is unrelated to abortion.

I don't understand why an anti-abortion activist would not have thought about all the ramifications especially upon women, but also on the family in general. It seems unconscionable to take away the right of a woman over her own body and have not thought about that.

We had our own bit of mental dissonance here in Colorado this last election, luckily the constitutional amendment didn't pass.

http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article
II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include
any human being from the moment of fertilization.

An advocate being interviewed was asked about legal ramifications about this definition. She said that those could be worked out after the law was enacted. Either she hadn't thought about it and the definition was the only thing she cared about, or she had thought about it and didn't want to scare off potential voters.

I have these questions (among others):

1. How will the census deal with these 'persons'? Will other states accept our increased population and therefore increased representation in the House?
2. Is the following excerpt from Colorado Criminal Law acceptable to the general population had this law passed?

   If the defendant is convicted of knowing or reckless child abuse causing serious bodily injury or death, the court is required to sentence the defendant to the department of corrections for a term of at least the midpoint in the presumptive range (16 years) but not more than twice the maximum term authorized in the presumptive range for the punishment of that class felony. Probation is not an option.

3. Is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter?
4. How are property and inheritance rights going to be managed?

And I'm sure you can come up with a whole host of others.

Battery Labels

I can't remember if these labels are for C or D batteries. In any case, they're mostly just supposed to be humorous. :)

Commentaries and Opinions

Well, it's been a year since I posted. I've decided to spend a bit more time on this particular blog. Originally, I wasn't planning on posting links because so many other sites contain atheism links. I realized though that perhaps my opinions about these sites and news stories might be worthwhile to write about. I'm so self-important.

I plan to start following more focused websites. I recently joined GodTube. Cureently, I've been pointed to religious and atheist stories by FARK, like this story, and from Reddit. The story that I found most striking in my recent readings was this one:

Vicar takes down crucifixion sculpture 'because it's a scary depiction of suffering'

I wondered if this reaction was unique to protestants, maybe to Britain or Europe perhaps extending over the pond to Canada. Americans of all stripes flocked to Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Granted, Gibson is a Catholic, a franchise that purposefully displays the an extremely violent view of the torture of Jesus.

Maybe our reaction was due to the rise of Fundamentalist Christians and the recent administration's 'born again' fervor. Has this overwhelmed the sensibilities of our nation? Has the extremist conservative Christians desensitized the general public to the implacable nature of their views? Is this akin to the studied desensitization of our society to violence due to television and video games? While decrying violence in our society, we revel in a moment of tribal religious blood letting. The moderate majority then return to the prevalent, sterile warm and fuzzy view of Jesus who sports locks rivaling Fabio and cuddles the lambs and small children.

Regardless of our peculiar and contradictory American sensibilities, I understood the main theme of Christianity to be that Jesus brought a revision of the Old Testament laws and served as a sacrificial lamb to seal the deal. (Talk about great material for future massive emotional blackmail.) So, if Jesus' death wasn't terrible, wouldn't the sacrifice have lost its potency? If Jesus had died in his sleep, had a heart attack, developed a fatal illness or some other natural and unremarkable death, wouldn't his teachings have lost a certain amount of punch? If he hadn't had a violent death at the hands of others, would he have actually been a sacrifice? Would it have been more horribly obvious that God had essentially orchestrated a suicide mission for his only son? Couldn't he have just delivered another set of tablets?

Don't Christians need to acknowledge the terribleness of Jesus' fate and the obligation it puts upon those who have received the benefits of God's new found mercy and forgiveness? Isn't this the foundation of their religion? Isn't this the celebration, that by living with humans and willingly dying at their hands demonstrate in stark and clear terms the total love of God for his creation, despite their cruelness? Isn't it a heresy to avoid the harsh bloody details to focus on gentle love personified (or animal-ified) by an egg delivering rabbit?

Of course, I'm an atheist. I personally think it's a primitive and horrible thing that a god would ask for sacrifices of animals or more terribly, children (Abraham offering Isaac, Jephthah killing his daughter as an offering to God, and then most horribly God of his own son). In Luke, Jesus talks of hatred and abandonment of family, of being a bringer of war, and his wish that those who doubt him should be killed. It's all appalling and immoral in my point of view, but then again, it's not my religion.

Why do Christians profess to believe in Jesus as the "Prince of Peace" prophesied and then ignore the contradiction -- Jesus lacks of the quality of peace of the promised Messiah. Is the Bible's message too frightening and uncomfortable in our state of enlightenment?

I really can't resolve these conflicts in my mind. I don't know how Christians do it. It doesn't make any sense to me -- unless these religious people craft their god into the shape of the tool they need to get by in life. He would be a personal god then, a god created by the believer. This god is made using a framework of the Bible, of pagan traditions (bunnies and decorated trees), other faiths' wisdom and of our society's own awareness and sensibilities of right and wrong. This personal god has the same name as everyone else's and subsets of the greater pool of knowledge. As a society, we can then politely ignore the fact that this is not one god. This is a pantheon of at least as many gods as there are people on the earth.

Canard

While reading the judge's Memorandum Opinion in the Dover Intelligent Design School Board case, I learned some new words. Canard, which in English I'd seen and understood in context, but never looked up. In French, I knew it meant "duck" but didn't know what that had to do with falsehood. From Webster's:

Etymology: French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks

I found this really funny. Another word, arguendo, was brand new to me and so fancy, Webster's makes you pay for it in the unabridged version. I went to a law dictionary.

arguendo prep. Latin meaning "for the sake of argument"

I've had an enjoyable time thinking of sentences and situations in which I could use arguendo and innuendo together.

Judge Jones is a clear and thorough writer, and doesn't pull any punches. The opinion is lengthy but worthwhile read and minimizes law jargon. My favorite bit is the highlighting of the Platiniff's complete discrediting of Michael Behe's testimony.

Here's the canard quote in context from Judge Jones:

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

Funny

In 2004 he [Phillip E. Johnson] was awarded the inaugural "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth.

The Bible and Slavery

Here's a ridiculous comment on the Bible and slavery at Bible Questions Answered.

A few notes. The author of the answer writes:

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, let's put those bits up here.

Deuteronomy 15:12-15:

12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

I think we need a little more of Ephesians 6 than just 9. Note the bits not mentioned (5 - 8). Ephesians 6:5-9:

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 4

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

And just so we don't leave anything out here's some more bits Leviticus 25:39 -46 :

'39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

It seems to me that the Bible specifically gives rules about whom one is permitted to enslave, everyone but the Lord's chosen people. God only seems to disapprove of slavery when His people are enslaved -- not because slavery is wrong, but because they are His people, His slaves. Slavery IS racial in Biblical times, but the only protected race here is ultimately the chosen people.

From the directives above it is also clear that slavery was not as simple as a job or financial option. Educated slaves certainly didn't outnumber manual labor. Slaves must have been treated ruthlessly, else why would the Bible bother directing one about humane treatment of their slaves?

I'm not sure why a person reading the Bible, a person who enslaves themselves to this God would think that owning slaves is in any way wrong. The comment that the Bible is not intended to reform society and only intended as a map to personal salvation seems ridiculous.