Weird Religious Intolerance

Today I spent most of the day with my wife’s family celebrating my mother-in-law’s birthday. Returning home tonight, I checked my e-mail which contained a one-liner from someone I don’t know. The entire e-mail message was,

Shove your Bible up your ass…I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

Which is a bit odd considering I’m an atheist. I actually sent a brief retort to this, only to receive another e-mail asserting that because my correspondent was working on his second MBA, that he knew what he was talking about. Which was very odd, since he was angered by my animal rights site. I’m still trying to grok the connection between an MBA and animal rights.

Anyway, apparently in all those years of education, he never learned basic manners.

Pacifism is (Usually) Stupid

MSNBC has an article by National Journal writer Michael Kelly ripping on pacifism. Kelly essentially recycles George Orwell’s excellent debunking of the British pacifist movement during World War II. As Kelly notes, since Nazi Germany wanted to conquer Great Britain, pacifists were helping that effort even if it was not their intent.

Doc Searls seems to think he can refute this with the line, “Hey, it failed for Christ, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, right?” Unfortunately, his examples only illustrate why pacifism only works under a set of very circumscribed conditions.

The inclusion of Jesus Christ is a bit odd, since I believe Christ was eventually crucified. I think that’s a fate most of us would prefer to avoid.

But Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are the obvious exceptions to the rule. Why did their nonviolent policies actually succeed? The answer is that both were opposing liberal democracies who claimed to uphold certain values in theory, but, in fact, did not uphold those values in practice.

Ghandi and King put British and American hypocrisy on full display for the world to see. Ultimately each leader succeeded because their respective societies found the reflection in the mirror to be revolting.

Nonviolent movements, however, have a very poor track record in societies that are not liberal democracies. A group of brave students in Nazi Germany, calling themselves the White Rose, secretly distributed anti-Nazi leaflets in 1942 and 1943.

When they were finally caught, the Nazis didn’t let them sit in jail to write inspiring letters as King was allowed to do. Only four days after their arrest, the three students at the core of the White Rose movement were put on trial. After a trial that lasted only four hours, they were convicted and sentenced to death. All three were beheaded later that afternoon.

Another student, who evaded arrest for a short time, was also tried, convicted, and executed just as swiftly, while others who played less important roles in the organization were sent off to forced labor camps.

I am not arguing that the White Rose was a failure because they stuck to leafletting rather than taking up arms against the German state. What I am arguing is that it is sheer delusion to think that nonviolence and pacifism will bring down states like Nazi Germany.

Is Jorn Barger a Racist?

Dave Winer wrote something on his web log yesterday which I had been thinking, but hadn’t gotten around to reading — in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Jorn Barger’s RobotWisdom web log has really descended into a rather bizarre mix of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories involving Israel.

Last December I mentioned that I was a fan of Robot Wisdom and visited it regularly, but Barger’s posts have become so bizarre that I rarely visit the site anymore.

The Israeli embassy made a minor error in releasing estimates of how many of its citizens were missing or dead in the attack, for example, and Barger has spun that into a huge conspiracy theory in which Israel allegedly knew about or even planned the attack and evacuated its citizens from the building beforehand. The average “X Files” episode had more credibility than that.

Barger had always flirted with the line between anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, and in my opinion completely crossed over that line a few days ago with his, “Leading White-House hawk Wolfowitz is also highest-placed Jew” link.

It’s bizarre to see someone who is otherwise so intelligent go off into this sort of nonsense.

HSUS' Michael Fox on 9/11 Attack: Humans Need to Recognize "Our Collective Violence Against Nature"

Yet another prominent animal rights activist has decided to weigh in with a nutty diatribe linking the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States with the plight of animals. This time it’s Michael Fox of the Humane Society of the United States who circulated a brief appeal, “Forms of Violence and the Attack on America.”

After an introductory paragraph in which Fox hopes that the terrorists attacks don’t lead to an ongoing cycle of violence and “a world at war,” Fox offers the following,

Where I do my volunteer work in India, I have killed rabid dogs with compassion, sadness, and precision, and I continue to seek donations from caring people to vaccinate them to prevent outbreaks of this natural horror of rabies. But what vaccine is there to prevent outbreaks of evil from rabid human souls? What are caring people to do? I would say that our faith, hope, and salvation are in simple acts of loving kindness, and in finding less harmful, and often less violent ways of satisfying our needs and wants.

. . .

Our collective violence against Nature and against human nature, from the plight of endangered cultures, wildlife and the environment, to the sufferings of indigenous peoples and of domestic animals, especially in factory farms and commercial laboratories around the world, needs to be acknowledged. Until we find atonement with Nature and all beings, human and non-human, how can human nature find peace an not annihilate all that our better natures embrace?

Apparently animal rights not only offers a way to alleviate suffering, but now we’re all going to find atonement and perhaps even a bit of redemption! All pray at the altar of animal rights.

Aside from Fox’s bizarre pseudo-religious view of Nature, it is odd that he mentions efforts to vaccinate against rabies in the same piece in which he complains about “our collective violence against Nature” and the suffering of animals in “commercial laboratories.”

Vaccination against rabies goes back to the late 19th century and the great French scientist Louis Pasteur. As early as 1804, researchers in Europe had hypothesized that something in the saliva of rabid animals caused the disease to pass into those bitten. In 1879, Victor Galtier became the first man to successfully pass the disease from dogs to rabbits and then from rabbits back to dogs, confirming that rabies was some sort of infectious disease.

Only two years later, researchers working with Pasteur proved that rabies infected the central nervous system and, in numerous animal experiments, proved the disease could be transferred by injecting material from the central nervous system of an infected rabbit into the central nervous system of an uninfected rabbit.

And those researchers noticed something else which would change the face of human health forever. If, instead of injecting material from an infected rabbit to an uninfected rabbit directly, they desiccated the material first and waited a period of days, the virulence of the disease declined rapidly. They had discovered a method whereby animals and humans could be vaccinated against rabies.

Pasteur himself demonstrated that vaccination would work by exposing 50 dogs to his vaccine and then exposing them to the virulent form of rabies. On July 6, 1885, Pasteur did something that no one else in human history had every done — he vaccinated a young boy who had been bitten more than 14 times by a rabid dog. The boy survived, and within 15 months more than 2,500 dog bite victims had received Pasteur’s inoculation.

Pasteur’s discovery was a godsend. The last known case of a human being contracting rabies in France was 1924. Although people still contract and occasionally die from rabies in the United States and other developed countries, their numbers are extremely small (almost all people who die from rabies in the United States do not realize they have been bitten by a rabid animal until the disease has progressed too far to halt the infection).

Thank goodness Pasteur did not have to contend with folks like Fox, who has said not only that, “The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration,” but that genetic research, which promises to help rid us of other horrible diseases, violates “the sanctity of life and may be regarded as an act of violence.”

If Fox feels he needs to atone for his sins against nature, that’s his businesses, but some of us would prefer life saving medical treatments, like the rabies vaccine which he has no problem using despite its origin, which the animal rights movement is actively trying to prevent. Human society will “find peace” when the animal rights movement gets out of the way and allow biomedical researchers to get on with their jobs.

Source:

Forms of violence. Michael W. Fox, Undated e-mail communication, Accessed: September 24, 2001.

General information on diseases: rabies. Aventis Pasteur, Undated, Accessed: September 28, 2001.

Support for “All-Out War” Drops 9 Points In Zogby Poll

On September 17, Zogby International polled 1,018 people and asked them, among other things, “Would you support or oppose an all-out war against countries which harbor or aid terrorists?” An enormous 75% of respondents said that they would. But just 10 days later, on September 27, that number fell 9 points to only 66%.

I assume part of that is the very welcome restrained reaction of the George W. Bush administration. Like a lot of people apparently, I expected that cruise missiles and long range bombers would have been used very quickly to strike at Afghanistan. But Bush has been extremely restrained — far more restrained, in fact, than I think either Al Gore or Bill Clinton would have been (both of whom seemed to value symbols over substance in these sort of crises).

I almost couldn’t believe it when I read an interview with some official (I think it was Donald Rumsfeld) saying that whatever the ultimate military response would be, it was not the intent of the United States to overthrow the Taliban regime. Clearly the United States is doing everything it can to undermine the Taliban short of actual hostilities, but I was surprised they were ruling out military action specificlaly targeting Afghanistan’s government.

Would Encryption Controls Have Prevented the 9/11 Attack?

After the terrorist attack on the United States, politicians and security experts are emerging from the woodwork to essentially revive the Clipper chip initiative. All cryptographic systems, these folks claim, should have built-in backdoors which government authorities could use to decrypt messages if need be. Aside from the civil liberties issues, the main problem is that this seems to be based on a false premise — that the terrorists were able to pull of their brazen attack because, at least in part, they encrypted their communications.

Piecing together what little has been publicly revealed, it seems that rather than rely on PGP or other encryption schemes, the terrorists used plain old unencrypted web mail, public access terminals, and the ages old practice of code words to talk about their plans. According to a story in The Guardian,

FBI investigators had been able to locate hundreds of email communications, sent 30 to 45 days before the attack. Records had been obtained from internet service providers and from public libraries. The messages, in both English and Arabic, were sent within the US and internationally. They had been sent from personal computers or from public sites such as libraries. They used a variety of ISPs, including accounts on Hotmail.

According to the FBI, the conspirators had not used encryption or concealment methods. Once found, the emails could be openly read.

In fact, as a security expert told The Guardian, if the terrorists had used PGP their plot would have had a higher chance of being uncovered since the steady stream of encrypted messages would have stood out.

Terrorists and criminals who are not already known to authorities can hide in this way because of the sheer volume of communication over the Internet. The NSA, for example, is reportedly building one of the largest electronic archival systems in the world, capable of holding up to 20 million gigabytes of information … an amazing amount of information, but according to The Guardian, only enough space to archive intercepted Internet communications for 90 days.

And just think how much larger that traffic is going to be 5 or 10 years from now, as the rest of the world starts to become as wired as the United States and Europe already are, and new applications and uses for the Internet take off within the already Internet-saturated countries.