TF - Resurrection Time.

It has been awhile, but I am back to working my way through this book.  I am still in Chapter 6 and this section is called Resurrection.  It is a case study in logical fallacies.

He starts off giving a brief overview of the Resurrection story in the bible.  He claims that two Mary's went to the tomb to sprinkle spices on Jesus.  So here is what the Bible has to say:

Matthew 28:1 - After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

So far so good.

Mark 16:1 - When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Okay the two Mary's came but apparently someone named Salome came also...

Luke 23:52-56 - This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.  The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.

Okay so it is just the women here, no names.

John 20:1 - Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

Now it was only 1 woman...

Well Mary of Magdalene was possibly in all the stories...

Next Colson says that Mary and Mary were met by two angels, that told them Jesus was risen.  Again going back to the Bible to see what it says:

Matthew 28:2-And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it

Well that only says one angel, maybe "Matthew" just left one out...

Mark 16:5 - As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

Well that doesn't even mention an angel, just a man in white robe and only 1 man...

Luke 24:4 - While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them.

Well at least there are two guys here in dazzling clothes, I guess you could assume they are angels and not just two guys coming from a rave...

John 20:1-3 - Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.’ Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went towards the tomb.

John 20:11-12 - But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet.

Well here it was two angels but two disciples were present too...

So Colson just mashes these four different stories together and claims it is one continuous perfect story.

The next statement by Colson makes me laugh:

The ugly crucifixion, the most hideous symbol of death and shame ever devised, was converted  in that instant into the holiest of holy symbols.

Well first it took several hundred years before it was considered a real holy symbol (when Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the state religion of the Roman empire, for more about Constantine I suggest reading this).  Second I think Eli Roth and James Wan have the cross and crucifixion beat in the most hideous and shameful death devices ever devised.  They are masters of whole movie genre based on torture, shame and painful death.

After that sentence, Colson begins to make his dive into logical fallacy land.

All true Christians believe that Jesus Christ has been bodily raised in victory over death.

We start with a No True Scotsman.  Colson mentions an example of the Anglican Bishop of Durham, who, Colson claims, claimed to doubt the bodily raising of Jesus.  David Jenkins is the Bishop.  David Jenkins is a Christian because he describes himself as such, no matter what Colson says.  That is the thing, whether Colson likes it or not, if someone claims to be Christian then they are a Christian.  I even know a few people that call themselves Christian Atheists.  They are still Christians.

I was in Sri Lanka shortly after his widely publicized statement and was told by an Angelican priest that the Buddhists and Senegalese and Muslims were using the statement to lure believers away from Christianity.

Yet more racism from Colson.  To quote Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other things."  Buddhism is a religion.  Islam is a religion.  Senegal is a country in Africa. Apparently there are 0 Christians in Senegal and apparently all Senegalese try to deconvert Christians.  No need for anything like facts to get in the way:

Muslim 94%, Christian 5% (mostly Roman Catholic), indigenous beliefs 1%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sg.html

Next Colson contradicts his "All true Christians" statement:

Still, many who call themselves Christians today share Bishop Jenkins's skepticism, embracing the argument that many have made through the centuries that Jesus' followers simply played upon the ancient myths about a god rising from the dead, hid Jesus' body, and the created the Passover Plot.

You know the first time I heard of this plot?  The Bible.

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, “After three days I will rise again.” Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, “He has been raised from the dead”, and the last deception would be worse than the first.’ Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.’ So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone. - Matthew 27:62-66

And

While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, ‘You must say, “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.” If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day. - Matthew 28:11-15

Amazing how the pharisees could understand what Jesus was saying when they barely saw him.  Yet, his disciples, whom have been traveling with him everyday, are completely caught off guard by this whole resurrection.

Weird that the authors of the Bible had to insert this...

All the apostles recognized that if the resurrection was not a historic fact, there could and should be no such thing as Christianity.

Option B, making this claim made it seem like what they were saying was more true.  Colson quotes Paul of Tarsus before this.  There are many things I can say about Paul.  Paul seems to have taken over Christianity and determined the path it was to go.  The earliest known writings on Christianity are from Paul, not any of the disciples or even the Gospels.  Paul was the first truly educated person to take up the banner of Christianity.  He claims this because of a vision on the road to Damascus.  Paul had the classic traits of someone with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.  I do not doubt that Paul believed everything he wrote, but belief is not evidence.

Which brings my next point, 'All worshipers of Thor recognized that if lightning was not real, there could and should be no such thing as Thor' or insert your own favorite deity.  Doesn't make as much sense.  Really all it takes is belief that it is true.  Once there is belief then the religion can take off, whether it actually is true or not doesn't matter.

My personal experiences in the Watergate scandal convinces me of the historic proof of the resurrection, as I've written elsewhere.  I was charged with being part of the conspiracy to cover up the Watergate break-in.

He still thinks he did nothing wrong during Watergate.  Colson, you were not just charged but convicted and you plead guilty.  That means you admitted to being part of the cover up. When I mess up, I admit it.  I screwed up at work one time and forgot to change back up tapes.  One of our servers crashed and we didn't have current back ups.  I admitted this was my fault.  Stop using this wishy washy language of 'I was charged'.

What most Watergate buffs have failed to note, however, is that the conspiracy succeeded for less than three weeks.

Yes, he is using a modern conspiracy to try and disprove the idea that the disciples conspired.  Not taking into account that there was far less communication networks then or literate people then.  Colson also somehow ignores the irony of saying things like this:

After all, Christians are rightly concerned that extremists have turned Earth Day into “Worship-Earth Day.”

Just listen to a few of these suggestions for Earth Day 2010 that some of the more radical groups are proposing: taking down “global eco-criminals” like Exxon-Mobil; having school kids meditate about the Spirit of Life (that’s “Spirit of Life” with capital letters); seeking international cooperation on reducing the human population; or working for, and I quote, the “ultimate, inevitable, and necessary dismantling of industrial civilization.”

Or this screed against Global Warming.

So those conspiracies can exist but any kind of conspiracy that happened during a time when most people were illiterate and we didn't have any way of electronically recording anything and no way to spread news really fast and if it goes against Chuck Colson's preconceived notions could not have happened.

The comparison of a conspiracy today to one in First Century CE is apples and oranges.   Also we have a nice example of a conspiracy working just recently in 9/11.  Several fundamentalist Muslims conspired to fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House and they succeeded (the US Government didn't do it).

Think of it: the most powerful men around the president of the United States could not keep a lie for three weeks.

Not just the most powerful, but also one of the most scrutinized group of people in the world.  Unlike a small group of fanatics in the mountains of the Middle East.

And you'd have me believe that the twelve apostles - powerless, persecuted, exiled, many martyred, their leader Peter crucified upside down - these common men, gave their lives for a lie, without ever breathing a word to the contrary?

Yep, they sound just like a group of radical Muslims who have done exactly the same. 

As we are seeing with Islamic radicals today, people will die for something they believe to be true; but men will never die for something they know to be false.

I now expect to see a press release saying that Chuck Colson has converted to being a Mormon or a member of Heaven's Gate or just admitting that David Koresh was the second coming of Jesus.  I would even be happy if Colson just said he missed out in Jonestown, among other cults.  All because no one ever dies for something they know not to be true.


Besides the evidence of people dying for something that they would have to know is not true, Colson is also making the assumption that disciples were all martyred.  The earliest known recording of the martyrdom was by Origen in the 3rd Century CE.  We have nothing before that.  How can one be sure that it happened as Origen said?  And not just stories passed down to help legitimize a struggling young religion?  Much like the Bible, it can only be done on faith.  The evidence is just not there.

For two thousand years the historicity of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection has been challenged on many grounds.  But no one has ever produced evidence of the kind that brought President Nixon down - "a smoking gun," that is, evidence that could contradict the biblical account.

Evidence, you are doing it wrong.  No, the burden of proof is on you Colson to prove that the Bible happened as it says, you cannot switch the burden of proof on the negative.  Your example proves that.  It was not up to Nixon to prove he wasn't part of the conspiracy but it was up to the prosecution to prove that he was.  Now your claim is that Jesus, lived, died and rose from the grave.  You have to prove that happened.  You will have a hard time proving that he even lived.

It also has not been challenged for two thousand years.  Most of that time, Christians ran the show and people were tortured and killed if they remotely challenged anything in it, including the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Is that not evidence of its veracity?

 I was abducted by aliens when I was in college.  Prove it didn't happen.  Is that not evidence of its veracity?

Can you think of any other event in history that has been so thoroughly examined, has not been disproved, and yet some still disbelieve it?

Alien abductees, Muslims, Mormons,  Bigfoot hunters, Loch Ness monster hunters, make that all of Cryptozoology, Zeus, Odin, Hindus, Buddhists, and countless others would like to talk to you.  Unless of course you have found some way to disprove them all.  Shifting the Burden of Proof is a logical fallacy.

The constant eyewitness testimony of the apostles and earliest believers to the reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection, given among those hostile to the claims of Jesus, clearly points to the resurrection as a historical reality.

If you think we have any writings from any direct eye witnesses, you are fooling yourself.  There is none, zip, nada, nothing.  We have people writing at least 30 years after the fact, claiming that they talked to a reliable source, who may or may not have been an eye witness, but won't mention the source by name.   Some even admit to just being made up of the stories being told among Christians (Luke 1:2).

The last bit of this chapter is just an appeal to authority and the authority being the Bible.  Colson just claims that since the Bible says Jesus is in Heaven then he must be in Heaven.  I am still waiting for any other reports of the many prophets that rose from the dead in Jerusalem that Matthew talked about (Matthew 27:52).  I am not holding my breath.

The next Chapter is an attempt to prove that the voting process that created the Nicene Creed and the Athanasius Creed were correct, about the Trinity.

TF - Chapter 6 - Penal Substitution and Racism

This next section is on Penal Substitution, but Colson does not even try to justify it.  He just asserts that it is good.  Colson is saying that it is good to kill an innocent man instead of the guilty party because the innocent man wants to be punished.  This goes against pretty much every one's morals.  The same morals that most Christians, and I am sure Colson himself, claim to be from God.  That would mean that Penal Substitution is an immoral act committed by God.

Often to get around this immoral act, Christians will say it is similar to someone paying a traffic fine.  Even if we ignore the difference between fines and the death penalty, this still does not make sense.  Jesus is God, so thus God is paying money to himself, in other words nothing is exchanged and thus the fine cannot have been paid.

These are the major issues with Penal Substitution, but Colson acts as if they don't even exist and that everything is nice and dandy.  Colson even starts off by claiming that Christianity is facing some sort of evil conspiracy working against it at all times.

When you understand, as inmates, the poor, and the marginalized do, the radical nature of Christ's message, it's no wonder that those opposed to God's rule ordered him crucified.  He was a dangerous threat to the evil world order.

This is not reality.  Colson has now entered fantasy land where everything and everyone that do not agree with him are conspiring against him.   I find this particularly funny considering Colson's past and his own involvement in an attempt to cover-up and conspire against Democrats.  One would think that with experience in how hard it is to conspire and cover-up something relatively small, that he would understand the impossible logistics of covering up something as massive as he is claiming here.  Then again he can always opt out of reality and claim it is supernatural in nature.

Next, Colson briefly describes some scenes from his favorite snuff and antisemitic film The Passion of the Christ.  He also makes the mistake of claiming that Jesus suffered the worst possible type of death sentence in crucifixion.  The Romans were amateurs compared to Torquemada.

If you can still imagine yourself as a prisoner, think about what the scene at Golgotha reveals.  Being nailed to a cross was an invention of the Romans, considered the most painful death imaginable, with prolonged suffering often lasting hours.  None of us can get out of our minds the grisly portrayal of the crucifixion in Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ.  Watching that film was one of the most sobering and convicting experiences of my life.

He even makes the mistake of claiming the Romans invented crucifixion.  It takes no time at all, especially in the age of the Internet, to research this claim.  It is patently false.  From Wikipedia:

Pre-Roman States

Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used by Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians, and Romans. Death was often hastened. "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."^[30]
The Greek writer Herodotus described at the conclusion of HISTORIES, BOOK IX (120-121), the execution in about 479BCE of a traitor; "they nailed him to a plank and hung him up...this Artacytus who suffered death by crucifixion." (Translation, Aubrey de Selincourt.)

This is yet another time that Colson seems more interested in emotional pull and less in facts.  I have to ask again, if I can't trust him with what I know to be true, why should I trust him about the unknown?  Or as Saint Augustine of Hippo said:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Colson goes on about how awesome God is for killing an innocent person instead of himself and how loving that makes God.  Near the end of all this comes this exact quote:

Everyone is like the first thief or the second, or perhaps one of the crowd, standing around with their hands in their pockets.  Remember the great Negro spiritual "Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?"  Well, you are.

Negro is still totally appropriate, right?  It does nothing to hearken back to the days of slavery and inequality, that many are still trying to fight for and against. This is just blatant racism out of no where.  Colson could have easily chosen any number of other words instead of Negro.  The most appropriate being African American, but slave or black would have been far more appropriate than Negro.  This just gives more of an incite into the mind of Colson, that he chose this particular word here.  All this talk of tolerance and love is shown to be for only those that look like Colson, disgusting.

Edit: If you want to read many different and in depth reviews of Penal Substitution, the cases for and the rebuttals against it, I suggest reading Ken Pulliam's blog Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity.

TF - Chapter 4 part 5

The next section of the book is just patently false.  It is called "The Rejection of Truth Undermines Cultural Development".  Really?  Wow, just wow.  Apparently, according to Colson, Christianity has created "the greatest society in human history."  It was during the 18th century that the enlightenment destroyed the truth and culture and led to the Holocaust, somehow.  He doesn't connect how these things caused the holocaust but that they did in his imaginary world.  He is also trying to rewrite history saying that America is a Christian nation founded by Christians.  This is such bullshit and I have debunked it before, but right now I will just point out Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (emphasis mine)

I know this won't stop the revisionists but you can't put it any better than that.

He starts off talking about how the Romans adopted Christianity, then jumps over a large expanse of human history, and starts mentioning the enlightenment.  Now why would Colson jump over the middle ages?  Maybe just maybe because Christianity ruled supreme during that time and culture was lost.  You know all that culture that the Greeks and Persians made before Christianity, without Colson's "Truth".  The middle ages ended when people started to look back at what the Greeks had learned before Christianity burned everything away (quite literally at times).  The Renaissance changed all this by going back to the Greek philosophers and growing the culture that had been stubbed and decayed by Christian "Truth".  The Age of Enlightenment followed the Renaissance in time and direction.  Colson wants people to think that the Enlightenment was the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages were the Enlightenment.  As much as Colson tries to separate the US from the Enlightenment, it just can't be done.  Go ask a historian about famous men of the Enlightenment, you will hear the names Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin. The US Constitution is an excellent example of an Enlightenment document.

This is also a very Euro-centric view of the world and fundamentally racist.  Middle Eastern countries, where Islam was flourishing, gave us Algebra (it is an Arabic word, Al-Jabr).  While the Far East was producing black powder and had created many cultural advances not found in Europe.  Colson is not directly comparing, but he doesn't have too, to African societies and American societies.  It is implied that they are just some savage races that needed white men to come teach them everything.  Mesoamericans couldn't come up with things like the number Zero on their own.  Africans couldn't create one of the longest standing civilizations ever in Egypt.

There is only one response to this kind of racism: Fuck you, Chuck Colson.

Now what factors really lead to the Holocaust?  Could it have possibly been antisemitism prevalent in Europe that stemmed from protestant Christianity taken to the extreme by the Nazis?  Well I would need evidence of that now wouldn't I?  How about from Martin Luther, the founder of protestantism, himself?  From his book entitled Von den Jüden und iren Lügen, which in English translates as On the Jews and Their Lies:

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind.' So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! (emphasis mine)

 There were many factors that lead to the Holocaust and Christianity was one of those factors.

The next and last section is called "Rejecting Truth Leads to False Gods".  This whole section is based on the assumption that people have the need to worship something.  If it isn't Colson's brand of Christianity then they must be worshiping a false God.  Colson goes on to tell you what it is that you in the modern age worship:

The postmodern age has anointed secular tolerance as its god.  Tolerance once meant listening respectfully to all points of view, freely discussed in our common search for the truth.  But the creed for the new god of tolerance is that knowing truth is impossible.  So everyone is free to think and act as he likes, with one exception: those who have the audacity to believe that they know the truth, particularly if they think God has revealed it to them, are not tolerated.  The result is that those who crowned the new god of tolerance have become the absolute arbiters of culture.  The new god of tolerance becomes, in the guise of liberalism, an absolute tyrant.

 I could spend several posts on this paragraph alone.  It is made up of straw men, red herrings, false dichotomy, persecution complex, outright lies, projection and is one giant Gish gallop.

Breaking it down, I want to know where the temples are to this new god known as Tolerance or a statue or just some altar of some kind.  I do like the use of anointed, which anointed one in Hebrew is messiah, that is the first bit of projection.  Where has the meaning of tolerance changed?  Miriam-Webster dictionary? Tolerance.  Dictionary.com?  Tolerance.  Can someone point me to where this has changed?  Because using the phrase "once meant" means it has changed.  Wait, when did truth have anything to do with tolerance?  So is it just maybe that Colson is changing the definition of a word so that he can attack that definition?  What is the definition of straw man, again?  I have already discussed his straw man of "knowing the truth is impossible", there would be no reason to do any kind of science or study if that were true.  There is a difference between doubt and reasonable doubt.  Well yes people are free to think and act as they like, but they are also held responsible for those actions.  In some cases it is the government in the form of laws and law enforcement that hold the person responsible and in other cases it is other people (people won't trust a known liar, just so you know Mr. Colson).  Oh yes, it is the Christians that are being persecuted and they are the only ones trying to keep real tolerance alive.  You know tolerance like Proposition 8, the Manhattan Declaration (Colson helped write this as I have mentioned many times before), trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, and various other "tolerant" actions.  Maybe Colson should go back and look at the actual definition of tolerance again.  Or is it just tolerance for those that believe the same as him in his world (which is pretty much the opposite of tolerance)?  Now point to me where secular laws are being made to undermine the rights of Christians.  Just one example, like those three I just gave off the top of my head.  Those three examples where Christians are taking and trying to take the rights of others away.  I also love the random attack against liberalism in the last sentence, remember Republicans equal good, Democrats equal evil, no reason ever given for this.

Moving along, and even ignoring where Colson compares the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not to molesting a child or not (yes he is a disgusting troll).  No I want to talk about this next statement:

The only thing the god of tolerance hates more than Christians making truth-claims is Christians proving them.  Beginning with a facility in Houston, Prison Fellowship now runs  residential programs, "spiritual boot camps," within prisons in locations scattered across the country. This is called the InnerChange Freedom Initiative - or IFI.  We have, since the beginning, contended that these demonstrate the truth of the Gospel in transforming lives.  In 2003, the first peer-reviewed academic studies validated our claims.  University of Pennsylvania researchers reported that IFI graduates had an 8 percent re-incarceration rate versus 20 percent in a comparable control group (and 67 percent nationally).  Prison officials were astounded.

It was the first empirical evidence that this faith-based approach to correction works - in other words, that the Gospel is true.  And that's when Barry Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State decided to sue.  To prove our truth-claims proved an outrage that tolerance could not abide.

First the court case.  Prison Fellowships was not sued because it was true.  It was sued because it was using government money.  In other words the state was endorsing a religion, which is unconstitutional. There is no one trying to stop IFI from offering their services, which is what would happen if they were trying to stop the IFI.  IFI lost that case and had to pay back 1.5 million in tax payer money and Colson even admits this in a end note.

Second, if the IFI numbers are correct (notice how quick he is to point out peer-reviewed when it fits his conclusion, but those same peer-reviews are wrong when they don't i.e. the theory of evolution) then there is something to the work.  Obviously Colson believes that the numbers prove his religion too.  Now if I can prove the numbers are actually statistical manipulation, then would that disprove Christianity to Colson.  I seriously doubt it (remember my post on falsifiability).

So looking at the study (you can read the whole thing here), notice on page 5 that it says:

Among the total number of IFI participants, 24.3% were incarcerated compared to 20.3% of the comparison group during the two-year post-release period.

 That says that recidivism for Colson's group was higher than the control, but Colson is claiming that only 8% of his group were re-incarcerated. Where does Colson get his 8% number from?  Easy, Colson defines who graduates from his program and who doesn't.  Then Colson only had the graduates compared to the control group.  Considering there are several factors for graduation from the program, including getting a stable job (a major factor in re-incarceration) and not getting arrested for 2 years (so if you get arrested you don't get included in Colson's numbers to see if his group gets arrested less).  Colson is stacking the deck.  He is conveniently leaving out bad data to suit his needs.  This is also called lying by omission.  Colson proves he is a liar again.

Promise Keepers

I had forgotten about this organization until Da Bomb mentioned he was going to a meeting. My father went to a meeting in the mid to late 90's and tried to get me to go. I didn't go. I am just going to go over their 7 promises real quick.

Promise Keepers is a Christian organization founded by the ex-football coach of the University of Colorado at Boulder. You can read all about it on their own page or on the wiki page.

The Seven Promises:

1. A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, I thought that was just being a Christian, so you have to promise to be a Christian? I don't know of any non-Christians that go to this, so this seems rather redundant. Also, you have to promise this? Shouldn't this be more of a given as a Christian?

2. A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.

So you have to promise to have male friends. Again shouldn't you be doing this already? And aren't friends supposed to be able to keep you honest? This is just another part of life. Why should anyone be told to do these things or make a promise to do them? They should already being doing it.

3. A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

I am assuming they mean a sin free life. If you are a Christian, shouldn't you already be striving to do this? Otherwise you come off as a hypocrite, especially when you are trying to pass laws to force others to follow what you say.

4. A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

They are really going out on a limb, you should love your family. Again who has to make this promise? This should be an evolved trait that everyone but sociopaths have. Do the leaders think every Promise Keeper is a sociopath?

What is meant by protection? I will protect my loved ones at any cost. Again this is something I don't have to be told to do or promise to do. There is a line I won't cross though, and that is when it infringes with the rights of others, especially because of imaginary threats. I, of course, am speaking of the bullshit lies like Gay Marriage will destroy regular marriages.

Lastly, if you want your family to live by "biblical values" that is fine by me. As long as you are not denying your children or any member of your family their own life, like the Nuemann's of Wausau, Wisconsin nor is physical abuse acceptable. Now if you try to implement your archaic "biblical values" on others is when I have a problem. Separation of church and state is to protect everyone and especially religions themselves. For some reason, dominionistic fundamentalists can't seem to understand this.

Examples of good "biblical values":

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:3-9)

"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

{1Corinthians has one of my favorite chapters in all the Bible, chapter 13, but is full of misogyny also}

"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." (1 Peter 3:1-7)

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

5. A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources.

Seriously, you have to be told and promise too help out an organization you support and take on as your lifestyle?

6. A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.

You have to be told and promise not to be racist???? WTF?

7. A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20).

Another promise to obey the Bible. Again, maybe I completely misunderstood Christianity while I was a part of it, but shouldn't this be automatic. Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity to follow the Bible?

So there are the 7 promises. It seems to me that the founders seem to think that most of the men coming to these things are sociopaths, because all of these you should be doing anyway. I do all the ones that are not religious specific without being told too or having to make a promise to do it. This is the core of Promise Keepers but not everything.

Racism Today

Just a couple of comments I heard at work today.

We had a little get together this morning at work, everybody brought some sort of snack. One of the snacks was a very tasty cantaloupe. One person remarked that they preferred watermelon. I responded saying that I don't like watermelon. Since I don't hide my political leanings at work I got this statement in response.

"You can't be an Obama supporter and not like watermelon." That was followed by laughter from a few people there. I just coldly said, "That doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to say." The person who said this is of Hispanic descent and if I had made a comment like 'You should really enjoy the nacho cheese, tortillas, and rice.' I could get fired, but there were no African-Americans around so this person was okay. Bullshit, comments like this are never okay. They are stereotyping and degrading. To me they also show the ignorance of the person saying it.

Then shortly after that another worker comes in showing what they have added to our shipping labels. "Made in America". Well this is actually not quite accurate, we receive parts from all over the world. "Assembled in America" would be the accurate phrasing. This same employee went on tirade accusing the Chinese of putting chemicals in food that will make all Americans become "slant eyed". This employee is a kook and everyone knows it, but again this shows to me stupidity, ignorance, and racism are all still alive and well.