Death Threats from a "Christian"

Well, I assume it's a Christian:

http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/2012/04/voicemail-death-threats-dear-persecuted.html

Apparently the commandment about not killing doesn't apply to atheists in this demented worldview.

Sick. Sick. Sick.

Insanity vs. Religion

Anatomy of Pseudoscience Bunk

A Facebook friend posted this link, which infuriated me so much I decided it was worth a blog post.  Right off the bat it smelled like blatant irresponsible pseudoscience to me, but as I read more of it (despite myself) I realized it is just so classic that it deserves to be taken apart piece by piece and the author, Gary Kohls, hung out to dry for all his googly fans to find.

 

This guy is or was a general practitioner who decided to specialize in mental illness without bothering to do all the bothersome training that the stupid "experts" do.  You know, three years post-medical school, training afterward, and for many of them studying for that "board certification" that we stupid people think means they know what they're talking about.   No.... this guy made up his own type of therapy which of course works just fine because he encounters his "patients" (i.e. suckers) in general practice rather than psych wards and emergency rooms.  So right there we have:

 

• Appeal to Fear
• Fallacy of "hasty generalization" and sampling bias or error : drawing conclusions from a small and skewed sample

First, the title: How Psychiatric Drugs Made America Mad

 

This is classic doublespeak:  the thing that hundreds or thousands of people have used valid scientific methodology to develop is not only ineffective, it's detrimental.  You'd think all those brilliant people would have seen that they were harming patients instead of helping them.

 

In case you aren't suitably alarmed by the hyperbolic title, the subtitle gives you a punch in the gut:  Many casually prescribed drugs are fully capable of disabling – often permanently – bodies, brains and spirits.

 

Dateline:  April 22, 2012
This is the date that the article is published to this site, but it's not the date most of it was written earlier.  It doesn't really matter, as the "science" of this seems stuck in the 1950s, or perhaps 1960s since the audience wouldn't buy any of this without first having seen Cuckoo's Nest.

 

Now let's scare you half to death:

Since the introduction of major tranquilizers like Thorazine and Haldol, “minor” tranquilizers like Miltown, Librium and Valium and the dozens of so-called “antidepressants” like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil, tens of millions of unsuspecting Americans have become mired deeply, to the point of permanent disability, in the American mental “health” system.

Many of these innocents have actually been made “crazy” and often disabled by the use of – or the withdrawal from – these commonly prescribed, brain-altering and, for many, brain-damaging psychiatric drugs that have been, for many decades, cavalierly handed out like candy – often in untested and therefore unapproved combinations of two or more.

Remember Cuckoo's Nest?  Doesn't matter if you do, really because this article will scare the shit out of you.  Your doctor is just waiting for his chance to suck you into an evil "system" and knock your brains out of your head with meds.  These "innocents" have done nothing wrong, and neither have you.  After all, the mental health "system" is a form of punishment, not a system dedicated to making sick people well.  None of the people who are receiving multiple drugs could be drug addicts gaming the system, oh no no no.  Forget Anna Nicole and Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston, and anyway people who aren't famous can't become addicted to prescription drugs.

 

Who would do such a thing to "innocents"?  Perhaps your kindly doctor is a victim, too.  He's been seduced by BigPharma & the FDA

 

Trusting and unaware patients have been treated with potentially dangerous drugs by equally unaware but well-intentioned physicians who have been likewise trusting of the slick and obscenely profitable psychopharmaceutical drug companies aka, BigPharma, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that is all-too-often in bed with the drug industry that they are supposed to be monitoring and regulating. The foxes of BigPharma have a close ally inside the henhouse.

Ding ding ding ding!  We have a

• Conspiracy Theory, de rigeur for bunk "science" because first before they can sell you on their "truth" they have to shake your trust in people who actually know what they're doing.

And here comes:

 

• Appeal to authority (their authority figures)
• Genetic fallacy

That is the conclusion of two books by a courageous investigative journalist and health science writer named Robert Whitaker. His first book, entitled Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, noted that there has been a 600 percent increase (since Thorazine was introduced in the U.S. in the mid-1950s) in the total and permanent disabilities of millions of psychiatric drug-takers.

 

 

That's right, don't just take my say-so, little ole' crackpot practitioner.  There are professional crackpots who are selling books claiming that things have gotten worse since we started locking up crazy people in "asylums" and throwing away the key.  Now I think this might be equivocation or perhapst it's straight-up bullshit, but how can there be an increase in disabilities of drug-takers from the beginning of drug-taking, when there were zero permanent disabilities due to drugs because....  read this part slowly:  600% of zero is zero!

 

The book's author is now portrayed the heroic John the Baptist character that every good pseudoscience needs:

 

This uniquely First World mental health epidemic has resulted in the taxpayer-supported, life-long disabilities of large numbers of psychiatric patients who are now unable to be happy, productive, taxpaying members of society.

 

 Whitaker has done a powerful service to humanity, albeit an unwelcome one for various healthcare-related industries, by presenting previously hidden, but very convincing evidence from the scientific literature to support his thesis: that it is the drugs and not the so-called “mental illnesses” that are causing the epidemic of “mental illness” disability.

 

Whattaguy!  He's taking on the case of "large numbers" (doesn't have exact numbers, conveniently) of people who can't be happy, despite supposedly being quite happy, productive and tax-paying citizens before taking thorazine or whatever.    First, millions of people have been helped by medications.  I am one and I know many others personally including my own mother.  My mother and I are relatively happy, productive and I pay taxes.  My mother paid taxes before she retired from her job.  If not for medications, my mom would not have been a productive member of society.  She was literally a blithering idiot, incapable of carrying on a conversation and an unmitigated complete mess.  My disease is depression, and unlike mom I have never been hospitalized, but I've been helped for sure by the psychiatric profession.

 

• So... we have the biased sample again.  If there really is a problem they should be able to present percentages and hard numbers, comparing institutionalized people in 1950 vs. 2000.  I can provide contradictory evidence from my even more limited sample, so how trustworthy can this be?

"Taxpayer-suppored lifelong disabilities" didn't come along until the Reagan administration in the 1980s, so there's no possible way to make a comparison of the current era and the "good ole days" before medication, or even the 1950s-1970s.  With no SSI stats before SSI was invented, the statement is meaningless.  Referencing taxes does give them the air of being unbiased, as liberals tend to worry about sick people and conservatives worry about taxes.

 

Next we characterize the good guys as "open-minded" and essentialize the "problem:"

Many open-minded physicians and many aware psychiatric patients are now motivated to be wary of any and all synthetic chemicals that can cross the blood/brain barrier because all of them are capable of altering the brain in ways totally unknown to medical science, especially with long-term medication use

Why be wary of chemicals that have been tested and described in peer-review literature?  And this "long-term medication use" has to be weighed as a cost-benefit analysis.  Bi-polar disease usually results in suicide or incarceration without medication, and the side-effects are minimal.  Even if someone has some side-effect in their 70s, aren't the 50 years of living a relatively normal life before that worth that risk?  A 20-year-old taking his first dose this year would benefit from an additional 50 years of research by his 70s anyway so today's 70-year-olds aren't any window to his future.  What these "open-minded" physicians are open to is pseudo-science.  Yes, some of them are gullible too.

 

The circumstantial ad hominem raises its ugly head:

 

Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness

 

In Whitaker’s second book, Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America, the author provides overwhelming proof regarding this sobering assertion.

 

He documents the history of the powerful forces behind the relatively new field of psychopharmacology and its major shapers, promoters and beneficiaries, namely BigPharma and those groups and individuals who benefit financially

Rocket science is also a relatively new field, and it does have its share-holders, admittedly, but we did go to the Moon (or did we?).  Sure, there's potential for big industry to abuse its power, but that isn't proof that it's happened.  The author (according to our author) documents the business end, but apparently isn't interested in actual data about patients.  That's a pity.

 

Next there's an issue that is valid:  off-label use for patients whose brain has not yet developed.  I will grant this, but what does that have to do with whether medications given to adults are safe and effective?  It's passed on briefly without any statistics or neurobiological grounding.  Just thrown out there.

 

The next authority figure is brought out:

 

More evidence to support Whitaker’s well-documented claims are laid out in two other important new books written by practicing psychiatrist and scholar Grace E. Jackson, MD. Jackson has done yeoman’s work in researching and documenting, from the voluminous basic neuroscience literature (which is often ignored by mental health clinicians), the unintended and often disastrous consequences of the chronic ingestion of any of the major classes of psychiatric drugs.

 

Jackson’s most powerful book, in my opinion, is her second one, Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime, which proves that any of the five classes of psychotropic drugs that are commonly used to alter the brains of psychiatric patients (antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, tranquilizers and anti-seizure/”mood-stabilizer” drugs) have shown microscopic, macroscopic, radiologic, biochemical, immunologic and clinical evidence of brain shrinkage and other signs of brain damage, especially when used long-term.

 

Long-term use can result in clinically diagnosable, probably irreversible dementia, premature death and a variety of other related brain disorders that can mimic mental illnesses “of unknown cause.”

 

Dr. Jackson’s first book, Rethinking Psychiatric Drugs: A Guide for Informed Consent, was an equally sobering warning about the many hidden dangers of psychiatric drugs, dangers that are commonly not mentioned to patients when they get their first prescriptions.

Okay, so now our esteemed author has cited four books by two alarmist authors.  That first book is cited without any specific information backing it up, just a string of Latin-Greek words to make it seem authoritative.  The one I find funny is : "clinical evidence of brain shrinkage and other signs of brain damage, especially when used long-term"   What?  How could I snigger at that?  Well, you have to know that old people's brains shrink because they're OLD!  You could look at a "long-term" patient on holistic woo drugs and find those brains had shrunk too, assuming the marks who took the snake oil 1) lived long enough to get an old brain and 2) didn't have a shrunken brain to begin with!

The second "book" seems like it could be subtitled "read the inserts that come with your medication." ... and then when the rare possible side effects scare the shit out of you, take this totally unstudied elixir that has no documented side effects because there have never been any actual studies!

I'm not going to copy the rest.  You get the picture.  I'll summarize though so you don't have to:

 

Three paragraphs about Thorazine ... with an actual mention of Cuckoo's Nest.  The final statement reverts to the genetic fallacy, saying that Thorazine was originally developed as a dye.   uhhhh (if true)  so what?
. 
By the way, Thorazine and 1950s psychiatry in general are targets of Scientology.  L. Ron Hubbard apparently didn't enjoy his stay in the Cuckoo's Nest so he made it his mission to attack psychiatry after he invented his religion.

 

Next, a few swipes at Depakote, which I'd never heard of, winding up with a case of a non-epileptic having a seizure after coming off of this epilepsy drug.  I think we can all agree that medications (including some woo forumulations) can have side-effects, and anything put into the brain can have withdrawal symptoms.  Withdrawal may indicate physical dependency technically, but it takes more than that to make something "addictive."  If you've ever known an addict you know they want an immediate high.  They don't get addicted simply by having something in their system that doesn't feel good on the way out.  They get addicted because they like the feeling they get going in.  Depakote would be all over the streets if it delivered a high.

 

The reason these things are being overprescribed is that people have been brainwashed by TV commercials.  It's a good thing you can't be brainwashed by pseudo-scientific nonsense splattered all over the interwebs!  People might think "safe and effective" is the same as "proven."  *whew*  Otherwise passages like the following might actually convince people:

 

After reading and studying all these inconvenient truths, mental health practitioners must consider the medicolegal implications for them, especially if the information is ignored by practitioners who are often tempted to dismiss out of hand new, clinically-important information that challenges or disproves their old belief systems.

 

 Those who are hearing about new data for the first time need to pass the word on to others, especially their healthcare practitioners. This is important because the opinion leaders in the highly influential psychiatric and medical industries have often been bribed or marketed into submission, without considering all the facts that might some day reveal that they are guilty of malpractice

From there the article devolves into more and more psychotic ramblings about conspiracies, "normals" being told they are "mentally ill for life" and that psychiatric drugs are the major cause (or one of) dementia.  ...and then we come full-circle to a reference to the 1950s:

 

Long-term, high dosage or combination psychotropic drug usage could be regarded as a chemically traumatic brain injury (cTBI) or, as “antipsychotic” drugs were known in the 1950s and 1960s, a “chemical lobotomy.”

TBI or chemical lobotomy can be a useful way to conceptualize this serious issue of drug-induced toxicity, because such neurologically brain-altered patients can be indistinguishable from those who have suffered physically traumatic brain injuries or been subjected to ice-pick lobotomies which were popular before psych drugs came on the market in the 1950s – and before the huge epidemic of mental illness that America is experiencing

America’s health epidemic in mental illness is grossly misunderstood. And the epidemic is worsening, not because of a supposed disease progression, but because of the chronic use of neurotoxic, non-curative drugs that are, in America, erroneously regarded as first-line “therapy.” 

So... other than his two authors and their five books, there are NO references to any authority, no references to studies, or to peer-reviewed articles, or even to any data.   The whole thing is pure bunk, based on faulty reasoning and intended to scare people.

 

Why scare the "innocents?"  What's in it for him/them?  Buying the books for one thing.  Suckering them into Scientology for another.  That, I believe is the source of this baloney.  The ending is the "tell."  L. Ron Hubbard's 1950s experience is the basis for their twisted view of psychiatry.  I will give them credit, though.  Their tactics are getting more devious. Having debated Scientologists before, when I saw the name "Breggin" in the references, I knew I was right. He used to be their hero before they came up with this new tactic.

The really sad thing is that they're the ones who are conspiring to hook "innocents" and convince them to do something against their own best interest.  If anyone has ever known a true schizophrenic or someone who has committed suicide, this kind of tripe is more than outrageous.  It's dangerous, which is why I decided to offer my debunking to the blogosphere.  I hope someone who is contemplating talking a loved one out of taking life-saving medication will listen to the real experts who have met their loved one and assessed his/her condition.

 

 

New Godspam

One of my coworkers received this pack of lies (debunked on Snopes):

God vs. Science

"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'


'Yes sir,' the student says.


'So you believe in God?'


'Absolutely '

'Is God good?'


'Sure! God's good.'


'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'


'Are you good or evil?'


'The Bible says I'm evil.'


The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'


'So you're good!'

'I wouldn't say that.'


'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'


The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'


The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'


'Er...yes,' the student says.


'Is Satan good?'


The student doesn't hesitate on this one... 'No.'


'Yes, but - where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'


'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'


'Yes, sir.'


'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'


'Yes'


'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'


Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'


The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'


'So who created them ?'


The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'


The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'


The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'


'No sir. I've never seen Him.'


'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'


'No, sir, I have not.'


'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'


'Yes'


'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demon-strable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'


'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'


'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '


' Yes'.


'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, no, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can get down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'


Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.


'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'


'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'


'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'


The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'


'My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'


The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'


'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'


'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'


'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'


The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.


'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'


The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'


Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'


'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'


To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.


If you read this all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'.


PS: The student was Albert Einstein.


Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921...

I love the graphic it came with.  What was she saved from?  Certainly not ignorance, stupidity, or gullibility. 

I saw the above graphic on Facebook yesterday and I grabbed it in case I might want to use it someday.  I thought I'd have time to photoshop the spelling but no, already today I have found something so stupid it deserves this graphic:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2012/apr/21/science-and-common-sense-point-gods-existence/

After raising the Kalam cosmological argument and the argument from complexity as supposed proof of a scientific explanation of god, the author ends his claim that science makes god's existence probable with this zinger:

But if you wish to be more than just a rational theist whose belief is based on science and common sense, there is a way to know God more intimately. It is by personal revelation. If we sincerely turn to God, he will reveal himself in our hearts. He told us so himself: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Okay, so personal revelation in your heart is scientific just how exactly?

Just yesterday I posted about the part of the brain that is most probably the location of "revelation in the heart."

So science says "god" is a product of quieting one part of the brain.  Justifying your faith by referring to "science" apparently requires the quieting of several more parts of the brain.

Oh, and what a "win" for Christians that Dawkins is willing to use the word "agnostic."  Apparently they are too lazy to read his book, or the dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."

What Really Happened to Paul on the Road to Damascus

Recent research may have given us an answer to the question of what really happened to Paul:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html?ref=topbar

“We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

In the most recent study, Johnstone studied 20 people with traumatic brain injuries affecting the right parietal lobe, the area of the brain situated a few inches above the right ear. He surveyed participants on characteristics of spirituality, such as how close they felt to a higher power and if they felt their lives were part of a divine plan. He found that the participants with more significant injury to their right parietal lobe showed an increased feeling of closeness to a higher power.

Since Paul didn't have these experiences at random moments throughout his life, it's possible he had something like an ischemic stroke, or a febrile seizure located just there.  Or perhaps it was just the D.T.s.

The Huffpo article indicates that "spiritual" experiences need not be spiritual.  They can be aesthetic.  I have had aesthetic experiences that were downright spooky, but I understood what they were.  They happened at concerts and it's only happened a few times.  The first was a cello performance when I was in high school.  The second was a jazz performance when I was in college.  The third was the Tokyo String Quartet.  The author of the study has these experiences while listening to Led Zeppelin. 


Is it any wonder that most cultures use music and sometimes dance to induce "spiritual" experiences?  The Huffpo piece mentions "meditation" which is actually less common around the world than music and dance as a tool.  Could the black church in America and other African-influenced religious practices survive without music?  Is it any accident that Rick Warren has a "praise band" and evangelicals use Christian rock to keep the young'uns in line?

Now I have only one more question:  would Jesus play a Fender or a Gibson?

What I've Learned from Watching Eagle Families

I have often taken offense to claims that Americans, or Christians, or Midwesterners, or our team are "the greatest" when we come to the aid of neighbors or are altruistic in any way.  If you watch (rare in the U.S.) television coverage of floods or earthquakes in other parts of the world, people act pretty much the same as they do in saintly U.S. of A.

Then there's the Christian claim that we would all be horrible people if not for their purported influence on our behavior.  They have been so brainwashed to believe that they're sociopathic rapists, killers, and thieves that without their Ten Commandments they'd be running rampant.  They blame the lack of prayer in the schools for whatever evils they see around them even if the actual amount has declined.  (such as the teen birth rate, except in fundy states, where it has increased).

So when I indulge my current addiction of watching eagle nestcam, I can't help but notice how many of their "instinctive" behaviors are as altruistic as some of ours.  Then I've been reading up on the species and found out some other facts.  I've especially learned about what good parents they are.

First, eagles mate for life. They are probably more loyal to each other than human couples are, and they don't have any Commandment about adultery to worry about.  They build a nest and raise clutch after clutch there, making the nest bigger each year.   If a nest blows down in a storm the next year they will rebuild, sometimes choosing a different tree.  This week a nest burned in a forest fire.  There was no hope for the babies, but the parents will probably return and start over next year.

They feed each eaglet equally.  They may feed one first, or a bit more during one feeding or another, but they don't play favorites.  None of this "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated" shit.  Score one for eagles over humans.  (My brother was my mother's favorite, and don't let him tell you otherwise!)

They will take in eaglets that have been placed in their nests.  If a strange child showed up in a human home, it would be taken in.  Tie there.

The Decorah pair of certain roles but they share duties.  Dad does a lot of hunting and fishing.  Mom keeps the babies warm at night.  Dad watches over the nest from above while Mom sleeps.  Both of them will fight off raccoons or other animals that get too close.  One year the mom died and conservationists worried whether the babies would survive.  Dad took over the duties and the eaglets grew up just fine. 

The pair do some behaviors I would not have expected in birds.  Dad will bring home a fresh fish and start chomping away at it and then feed Mom the way he would feed an eaglet.   It looks real sweet, or perhaps he's learned to always give her the eyes of the fish or she'll peck him.  Yes, they bicker.  But they get over it.  They're adults.

They arrange their nest, usually just making sure the kids are warm unde mom.  But sometimes seem to bring in a twig or corn husk with no particular reason, then put it right in front of a baby.  "Here baby, play with this."  Of course, the baby will need to learn to manipulate twigs to make his/her nest one day.  The parents seem to "know" this.

When rain is on the way, dad will bring in extra fish.  When the rain arrives, mom makes sure all their little heads are under her (they're all too big to fit in the nest bowl they hung out in as newborns).  Does Dad know they need extra energy to fight the cold?  Does mom know that heat is lost through the head?  Do they know that the babies have down, which is not waterproof, before they have feathers?  Seems like it. 

Eagles are very large birds.  Are they "thinking" with larger brains than say, a chicken?  Well, I rather doubt that brain size is why they do all the "right" things.  Several years ago my zebra finches had a clutch of babies and they were also excellent parents.  In their case, Dad made sure that each baby got a little of each of the goodies I put in their cage:  bird food, hard boiled egg bits, chopped kale, and water.  He would do the rounds of all these goodies and then go into the nest and feed the babies.  Why did he do this?

Because being good to others (or at least our babies) is instinctive for many species.

...and then the babies are old enough to fly and eat on their own, and they have to leave and start the whole cycle over.  The parents don't send them to Hell forever for saying "I hate you."  They don't require the babies to follow artificial rules that don't make sense.  They're good  parents.

God "the Father" is a bad parent.  He lets his "children" starve.  He lets his children get cold.  He plays favorites.  He rejects the "children" of other gods.  He lets predators get hold of his kids.

Comparing the parenting qualities of eagles to the parenting of "God the Father," it's easy to see why tribes might worship an eagle god or goddess.  Wouldn't an eagle feather on your headdress be a better symbol of trust in a good parent than a cross pendant, the symbol of a parent who abandoned his favorite child and made him a sacrifice in exchange for the lives of his brats?  'Look how my good father chose to let his best kid suffer?  Whattaguy!

Who would you rather have as a parent?  God?  or an eagle?