A meme

The Enns do not justify the memes

That is all. Carry on with your day.

Intra-Christendom views

The original version is funny.
I sent it over to David Bryan and he added the Orthodox column and row, and it is even better!

He's young for his age

A naturalist with whom I occasionally interact via email (whom I'll call "Joe") recently sent me one of the stupidest sets of arguments I've literally ever seen, no lie. Here it is with very slight modification (to remove names and such):

-----------------------------------------

In my previous response to one of your claims about your YEC story, I inquired about the source of your authority for some of your language and asked: "What text is that? The King James Version assembled by consensus and put together by poets?"

My statements around your response is:

Joe: Prove that the meaning from the literally first version of the story in a culture where there is reason to think there was a limited vocabulary came over the years with the same and accurate meaning.

Rhology: Prove it? It says "on the 3rd day, God created..." The onus is on you to show that the "on the 3rd day" does not mean "on the 3rd day".

I've certainly seen the language argued to support a different interpretation


It seems you did go all the way back to King James English to 'prove' your source statement. I don't think they were speaking English around the campfires when this story got started. It is usually argued that they were speaking Aramaic, a short description of which follows:

Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. It has been the language of administration of empires and the language of divine worship. It is the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud and Zohar. Aramaic was the native language of Jesus. (Note: Links are Joe's.)

Personally, I have doubts about Aramaic for the earliest versions of your YEC story but it is certainly closer to the original than your 'thee' and 'thou' loaded source. The language argument is that the word actually used in the earliest known versions of the YEC story, which gets translated to 'day' in the King James Version, would be better translated as 'period of time' without specifying a definite amount of time. I have no reasonably reliable idea what the 'true' version of this story is.

As for your argument that "The onus is on you to show that the "on the 3rd day" does not mean "on the 3rd day"; I'll be happy to take that one since the evidence so readily indicates that the events described did not happen in any three days. Just how blind do you have to be to be a Christian? If you have missed out on that much of what we understand about the small portion of the universe we can see, you really need to re-start your education.

While we are addressing sources, let me address the segment:

Joe: What text is that (referring to YEC)?

Rhology: Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and Jesus' and Paul's referrals to the literality and historicity of the people mentioned in the Creation account.

Besides the rather improbable time condensation of the origins of mankind, there being some more 'days' of remarkably rapid events, your source also goes into things like Noah's Flood which manages to disappear in the seemingly more minor events we can discern in the past. Your source does not stand as a reliable guide to events of the past and is disproved based on its own evidence. As for the value of Paul claiming it happened that way, it is of the same value as you claiming it happened the KJV way. You are both believers making a statement of what you have faith in and pretending it must be real because you believe it so much. It counts for naught.

On the matter of language, I would also like to revisit Darwin in this segment:

Joe: If you can argue that Darwin says man can't know what's going on, then other gods made land grants.

Rhology: What could the connection between these 2 possibly be?
Since Darwin DID say that, and Judges DOESN'T say that...
Perhaps you deny that it is possible to obtain a true interpretation. In which case your argument fails, since it wouldn't be true that other gods made land grants.
Or perhaps you deny that *my side* has the ability to obtain a true interpretation, which is nothing more than cheap special pleading. You'd need to provide a pretty good argument for that one, and you'd need to show a modicum of biblical knowledge.

Well, the connection could be that, since you get to take Darwin out of context, I get to take your Bible out of context and only have to consider the verse that has another god making land grants. Of course, there is also the possibility that a Judge of Israel did know what he was talking about, every word of the Bible is true I hear tell, and there was at least one more god at that time who could make land grants. (Note: He refers to the assertion which I rebutted here.)

As for the charge that I "deny that *my side* has the ability to obtain a true interpretation", I will say you have made some real reaches in the past and seem rather short on science, general knowledge, and logic.

-----------------------------------------------


So there you have it. My own response is unnecessary, but here it is anyway.

Joe,
This message is one of the most pathetic and empty-headed emails I've ever gotten from a skeptic more than 15 yrs old. Sorry to say. I strongly suggest you go back to the drawing board on this.
Why would anyone talk to you about such matters when you won't even take account of the most elementary of relevant facts?

You said:
-It seems you did go all the way back to King James English to 'prove' your source statement.

? Absent an argument from you that the Hebrew is incorrectly translated into English, I don't know what you could mean here.


-It is usually argued that they were speaking Aramaic,

. Genesis is part of the *OLD* Testament, written in Hebrew. There was no Aramaic at the time.
You're conflating the spoken language of Jesus and the disciples with the OT. Sorry, that is a very amateurish error.


-Personally, I have doubts about Aramaic for the earliest versions of your YEC story

You are being such a poseur here! I can picture you sticking your nose in the air and saying this with an air of authority, blissfully ignorant of your ignorance.
As if you have any idea about the validity of ancient Aramaic, or Hebrew for that matter! Please. "Personally, I have doubts", sure. And the arguments for why the "Aramaic" version is incorrectly translated?


-since you get to take Darwin out of context, I get to take your Bible out of context

You know, that's usually not how rational argumentation works.
If someone takes a source out of context, the other guy is supposed to CORRECT him and offer an argument as to why, not to return the favor with an equal level of irrationality. Compounding error with error gets us nowhere.
Your arguments, anyway, about how I took Darwin out of context are based on your ad hoc and unsupported assertion that Darwin uses one specific permutation of a word, based on a modern dictionary. Good luck with that.

Peace and a little thought to you,
Rhology

Seen on captcha

That's quite a word-verification.

Richard Dawkins' Inbox

Feeling lazy, so here's some satire that I didn't write.

----
To: Dr. Richard Dawkins
Subject: Panspermia and exogenesis

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I must begin my letter to you expressing how you are such a great encouragement to myself and many other intellectuals out here living in an irrational, superstitious world. You have demonstrated outstanding courage as a beacon of reason and logic in a society whose citizens are beholden to tribal deities and witchcraft. Your example only moves me to being a more aggressive "evangelist" for the atheist "gospel."

I recently returned from a showing of that movie Expelled. I only went because I wanted to be able to refute the non-nonsensical propaganda that belches forth from the sewage container dishonestly called "the Intelligent Design" movement. Ben Stein is a let down which is to be expected from a creationist goon like himself.

I must say, however, that your interview with him was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise odious film. It was alone the price of admission. You could tell he didn't know how to respond to your brilliant answers, and when you suggested to him that the first self-replicating molecule could have very well been brought to our planet by extra-terrestrial, intelligent life, the look of incredulity on his face just showed me what a moron Ben Stein truly is. Has he never heard of exogenesis before? Or panspermia? It is probably one of the most legitimate theories to explain the origins of life on our planet! He seemed to carry on as if he had never heard of it before. Has Stein never heard of Dr. Fred Hoyle or Dr. Francis Crick or Richard C. Hoagland? I mean, almost every night a person can hear leading experts on the subject talk about panspermia for a couple of hours on Coast to Coast AM.


Well, the theory of panspermia sirred up a question in my mind I wanted to ask you, Dr. Dawkins. Do you think the aliens who seeded are planet billions of years ago expects anything from us? I mean, they are in a sense our alien overlords, those who "created" us, as it were. Perhaps they want us as humanity to be living at a particular standard of conduct. Of course, our first inclination is to think they would want us to be striving for world peace, but I remember seeing this Twilight Zone episode - from the newer series in the 80s - where these aliens had sped up evolution so the human race would strive - not for peace - but for making better weapons. Who saw that one coming!? And imagine if the only reason aliens seeded our planet was to turn us all into a big human processing plant to cook us up in alien TV dinners!

These are just things we need to keep in mind as we consider the theory of panspermia. It may even be helpful when we are forced to debate these ID yahoos.

Thanks Dr. Dawkins,
Keep up the good work.

Ryan Harris

Sniping from the mud tower

Looks like I've provoked a clarification in AC Chase's comment policy. I think this is funny.

For one thing, you know, the term "troll" is too easily thrown around these days, it seems. That makes twice in one week that my on-topic comments, posted under "Rhology" with a link back to my own blog (that is up-to-date), have provoked the appellation "troll". People need to learn a bit what "troll" means. While they're at it, I'd like 'em to look into the definition of "objective" as well...

I hate also to leave comboxes unanswered, but I've had to recently. Oh well. I figure the reader profits most from the interaction, and I'm here to help the reader.
If a comment goes unanswered, it's up to the reader to figure out whether that unanswered comment really did respond substantively to the points it allegedly answers.
It's the philosophy of giving the interlocutor enough rope to hang himself. Apparently Alex does not subscribe to that idea.
But let's see if I didn't comply with his rules:

1. Stick to the topic at hand and be clear and concise.

Check.

2. If you expect respect, show some.

Check. And look how he responded to ME...

3. Anonymous commenting is not allowed, so don't do it.

I commented with my regular blogger ID.

4. If you are looking for a fight, argument and/or pointless, endless debate, don't waste your time. My readers & I won't be wasting our own time by sparring with you ad nauseum.

Look how I worded my original comment. It was intended as a clarification. It was only after he pretended to correct me that I came back. I'd say the argument is HIS doing.
And of course, if he doesn't want debates, why does he post such argumentative material? He's content to snipe behind adamantium walls rather than get his hands dirty. He's welcome to that approach!

5. Know when to comment and when it is more appropriate to e-mail me.

Why would I email him when I intend my clarifications and responses more for his lurkers than for him?

6. No spamming.

Check.

Basically, he's just excluded me b/c I made him uncomfortable. Like I said in the previous post, I thought he was all for free exchange of ideas and communications and such. I guess atheists get freer expression than others. This, my friends, is partly what we're up against in political discourse. Intolerance is not only redefined by the other side, it's redefined inconsistently.

He said:

A Comment Policy has been on my To-Do list for a while, but became an immediate priority today when an obnoxious, antagonist Christian

Let the reader judge who wins the gold star for being more obnoxious or antagonist.

I deleted the entire conversation, not wanting to give him, his blog or his childish tactics a venue (which is why this Christian, who I am sure is proud of himself, is not being identified now).

Haha, he didn't want to give me a venue? My heart is broken! As if I need pub from his blog. It would seem that I'm doing him a favor by linking to him and giving him all this attention. He could sure use it - check out his profile views as of 4March08:


As opposed to my own. There are tons of blogs out there with tons more traffic than mine, and that's totally fine with me, but for someone like him to throw that kind of rock at someone whose profile views outnumber his more than 10 to 1 is kind of funny to me.

Anyway, this was a fun sideshow, but there are greener pastures out there.

Alex the cowardly atheist

I thought I had made a new friend over at Alex the Atheist's place. I decided to engage him in a discussion on the inanities of his post on the power of prayer.

After I commented, he commented, I responded, he responded and summarily cut off the debate! Then he went a step further and deleted all traces of our exchange from his combox. That's hilarious. I laughed out loud. I repost here the comments, since he for whatever reason has deleted the fruit of 20 minutes out of my life.

My first:


Hey AC Chase,

Just a few clarifications from a Christian. I hope you won't mind.

According to Matthew 18:19-20 (of any Bible), you only need to agree with one or two other people on something

Most Christians get this dead wrong, and that's a shame, and it's led you to the faulty interp. Not your fault. :-)
The context of that verse deals with the topic of church discipline; putting out someone from the church body that is not repenting of their sin. It doesn't even mention prayer.


You know that whole "Ask and ye shall receive" jazz.

Now that's better, true. Probably John 15:7 or something would work better for your example.
Just remember, it's not viable exegesis to take one statement only and make that your end-all. Jesus didn't just say those things; He also discussed praying in His will, for reasons of glorifying Him and having a relationship with Him and loving others and helping others. Not greed.

The 700 Club

Just so you know, not every Christian thinks the 700 Club is worth anythg. I certainly don't. Their theology is shallow, P-Rob makes false prophecies, etc. I'd ask you to consider not making them a yardstick for Christianity.


This is most likely because they are not true, and we cannot assume that the responses are even meaningful.

Yes, it's always easier to disregard statistics. Do you just summarily dismiss EVERYTHING that doesn't fit your worldview like you did here?


I am sure the research for these numbers does not meet the standards of evidence a rationalist would accept

Why be so sure? Maybe this is a post that could've stood a little more thought, meat, or dealing with counterexamples.


Going back to praying for those who are sick, there have amazingly been studies on the power of prayer in this respect.

Which I agree are a complete waste of time. As if God were a circus monkey, waiting to perform.


the very nature of religion and religious beliefs means that they are based on outrageous leaps of blind faith and this means they don't have to be proven.

Have you ever done a post on what it means to "prove" sthg like this? Or are you more of the persuasion of Sam Harris who said in The End of Faith that no evidence would be sufficient to authenticate many elements of the Pope's (that was his example) faith?


There is no limit to the selfishness, pettiness or absurdness of what someone will pray for.

How does abuse of a tool constitute evidence that the tool doesn't work?


makes a prayer appear to come true.

How could you possibly prove that it was chance and not the hand of God causing that prayed-for thing to come to pass?


I knew a Christian who credited God for his enemy buying a 'lemon' car

Incidentally, that kind of prayer is not a Christian prayer. We are commanded to love our enemies and wish them good, not evil.


And how about when it doesn't work ? ...Then what exactly is the point of praying? The short answer is there isn't one.

A prayer's "success" is not based on whether it "works" or not.
The whole point of prayer is to build a relationship with God, to communicate with Him. It's not a helpline for getting stuff.

Those are my thoughts. Hope they've helped a bit.

Peace,
Rhology




His response (in yellow, which is the most appropriate color for his actions):


sean: Thank you. Likewise for your additions to my original points. You would think an all-powerful deity would be able to heal amputees, even once.

paul: Nice. That quote would also fit quite nicely in my previous post about how religion trivializes morality.

Rhology: Your "clarifications" are meaningless, as you are just another apologist Christian who wants to use the context argument to make the Bible say what you want it to say (and, as a result, mold your religion into what you need it to be). The cited verses on Matthew do not and cannot refer to prayer, eh? You seem to be the only Christian who interprets Matthew 18:19-20 "correctly" then.

Concerning The 700 Club, note how I said "all kidding aside" after discussing them and their amazing statistics, and proceeding with my main argument. Even so, concerning their statistics, I provided my reasoning (which you conveniently omitted in your response - ironic, since you hypocritically condemned me for dismissing things that didn't fit in my own world view the sentence earlier) as to why their statistics were inherently meaningless (something to do with subjectiveness, which you, as a Christian are certainly familiar with). You aren't very good at debating, as you are taking quotes out of context and reducing any debate to slogans (partial quotes) rather than ideas you can elaborate on (or the ones clearly communicated by me). And yes, I know The 700 Club is not a complete representation of Christianity.

On another matter, I agree with you that God is not a circus monkey called on to perform at will, because he does not exist (prove me wrong). Very difficult to attach character traits to something that doesn't exist, so you win that one (sort of). Also, I have done a post on the futility of trying to prove faith (letting you know in response to your comment on whether it beliefs based on it can be proven or not). Perhaps you missed it because the title was confusing. It is called Faith & Trying to Prove Religion. Maybe you should run along and make some equally ridiculous comments on that post as well.

On another note, what you call "abuse" of prayer is how the majority of Christians like to believe it works (there's that faith thing again). Again, it is nice that you have the "true" interpretation sitting in your ivory tower, but you cannot change the facts. Also, I was not attacking prayer as a tool, because I do not believe it is useful in any way (or a tool). Please do not jump to conclusions or put words in my mouth to meet your own religious ends.

You have actually proven this post's point (Thank You). You turn your religion and your prayers into whatever you want them to be and then you turn their meaning in terms of a relationship with God (or some other supernatural force) into what you need it to be, regardless of the "success" or "failure" of them. Again, religion and religious faith (including prayer) are nothing but wishful thinking and speculation based on personal opinion, not human reason. The whole point of both means you do not need to prove them, otherwise there is no need for faith because you only need faith as a result of such things being unreasonable and hard to believe (see: there is no evidence for them... still following along?).

A wonderful example of this is how you confidently classify a "Christian prayer," as if the debate is over after you have spoken (I had a good laugh at that attempt to enforce some type of religious orthodoxy). You seem to ignore the fact that the same religious faith that has brought you to that conclusion is the same foundation your opponents have for their own religious interpretations (note: they also think they have God on their side). And this is what makes religious faith the most absurd - the ability to believe anything based on what you call faith, no matter how absurd it is. The fact that you have missed this point is not surprising, though (your religious tunnel vision and all).

In the end, I thank you for serving as a willing example to prove my points. So in that way, your thoughts have actually helped in that they serve as a reinforcing tool for my own argument. Have fun talking to yourself (praying) in your decidedly one-sided relationship with your magical friend in the sky.

Thanks for commenting.




My 2nd response:

Hi AC,

You're welcome for commenting! Your tone is, however, pretty harsh. Too bad - I was hoping for less froth from the mouth.

If you think that my appeals to context are invalid, why don't you present an argument to that effect? I know, it's easier to make naked assertions, but you could at least pretend.
I'm not the only Christian who says that about Matt 18 - my whole church does too.
Now, I may be in a minority, but so what? Make the argument.
The majority of Americans don't believe that Darwinian evolution is factual, but you still think they're wrong, right? B/c you think the arguments are on your side, right?

As far as the "arguments" on the 700 Club, here is my best guess at what you're referring to:
these supposed facts are amazing and seem just too good to be true. This is most likely because they are not true, and we cannot assume that the responses are even meaningful. Quantify, or describe universally, "very good" or "happy." These are inherently meaningless terms that are based on opinions that can change on a whim.

I am sure the research for these numbers does not meet the standards of evidence a rationalist would accept - like a scientist or statistician or someone who does not believe in an invisible man who is concerned about who we use our private parts with.

And of course, I took issue with the latter statement, to which I don't see an answer.
The former is nothing more than a statement that you find these incredible. Whoopie - I don't. What's your argument, sir?

Let's say that, IF God exists, He is not a circus monkey. Right? Why even write this post, then? Just say "Prayer doesn't work b/c God doesn't exist. Thanks for reading"?
You seem to be trying to point out inconsistencies in the 700 Club viewpoint, and then you appeal to atheism to plug your holes.

(prove me wrong)

Done.

run along

You're really encouraging me to do so! Maybe I will, if I feel like getting treated like a sick puppy dog.
I'd argue of course that you as an atheist have faith positions as well, so whatever.

I was arguing that you're attacking a poor representation of Christian doctrine. If many Christians hold ignorant positions, that's not my fault, and it's in my interest to differentiate between ignorance and actual teaching. Instead of mocking it, the reasonable thing would be either to accept it or to offer an argument why it's wrong.

Peace,
Rhology


His 2nd response:

If you can't debate in a passionate, cutting way then you have come to the wrong place. My counter-argument to your context argument has been presented. A religious person only needs the faith that their interpretation is correct and it is, the end. Fine, you and your specific sect do not read into Matthew 18:19-20 in the way it was presented here and you view prayer as an entirely different, yet no less meaningless, concept – a one-sided relationship with God. Great. Just do not pretend that how prayer has been presented here is the way that only The 700 Club sees it, because that is not only dishonest but you have made no argument proving it, likely because you can’t. To do so you would have to prove to me that your specific view of Christianity is correct while all others are not.

Perhaps Christians who disagree with your interpretation of Matthew 18:19-20 are confused by what appears to be a prayer in 18:18 and applied the concept of prayer to 19-20, as well. You keep on going back to your view of religious orthodoxy, but seem to overlook that truth with authority in matters of religion is just the opinion that survives. Ask the Gnostics. And who is to say what Christians should believe when they all presume to speak on behalf of God? This is why religion trivializes truth.

So you expecting me to take your interpretation of Christianity, which you think is based on a superior form of orthodoxy (see: your sect's version/opinion), over another Christian's faithful interpretation of your religion is absurd. You calling other Christians "ignorant" is also a telling sign of exactly where you are coming from. Again, must be nice in that ivory tower with the master of the universe on your side. You are a hypocrite who dismisses other theists for their interpretation of religion and the supernatural (both absurdities in their own right) when your methods are exactly the same - using faith as a source of religious knowledge (you also take the supposed truth of the Bible on faith). Also, if you think atheists work on faith, make an argument, sir. And if you want a good post on the experts of plugging up the holes, which you accuse atheism of trying to do (which makes no sense whatsoever as it is simply a lack of belief), I suggest you read my post God of the Gaps, Ignorance.

You accuse me of making naked assertions when you are guilty of making the mother of all naked assertions - that God exists. Your evidence "proving me wrong" was a lengthy non-argument invoking false issues like Pretended Neutrality and Special Revelation, without proving the relevancy of either to your argument. You even have the nerve to attack the very nature of logic and reason as sources of attaining knowledge, which is not surprising. Your entire argument depends on what I have been talking about the whole time – FAITH.

Finally, you define a poor representation of Christianity as any that is not your own. My argument as to the weakness of your own position has been presented. It is not my fault that you continue to ignore it.

NOTE: Rather than continue this debate to nowhere I am taking the final word in it. This blog was not created to debate endlessly with theists who will never be convinced of their own foolishness, but is geared towards those who respect human reason and value human life outside of ridiculous supersition and blind faith. I am done humoring you.


Then, take a look at the comment that is in place now!

sean: Thank you. Likewise for your additions to my original points. You would think an all-powerful deity would be able to heal amputees, even once.

paul: Nice. That quote would also fit quite nicely in my previous post about how religion trivializes morality.


I love it - he deleted the whole thing and then posted his response to his fawning yes-men. Cool, man. You know, you may not like this blog, my ideas, or me, but you have to respect the courage to leave it all out on the table rather than deleting thoughts from others. AC loves to rip the current administration for its curtailing of freedom. He champions free thought and free expression elsewhere. Just not on his blog.
I can see why he deleted it. His arguments are a sham and fail to follow my points in many cases. He's not a deep thinker; just take a look at his first post that he touts and from which he pulls content in his first comment for evidence of that.

For his actions, he earns a place on the Wall of Shame on the sidebar. A pitiful performance from a fairly well-known atheist blog.

How to vote. Listen up.

Happy Reformation Day!

The Reformation Polka

by Robert Gebel
From here.

[Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilistic-expialidocious"]

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter's profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints' Bull'tin board:
"You cannot purchase merits, for we're justified by grace!
Here's 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!"
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
"Are these your books? Do you recant?" King Charles did demand,
"I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!"
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting "George" as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin's model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let's raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that 'catholic' is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

On teleology

Todd Friel in his opening statement in his debate w/ Dan Barker:

It's God's great big Cosmic "Duh."...day after day, He's screaming for your attention. If I lined up 10 Oreo cookies in a row up here, you'd walk up here and you'd go "what are doin' with, why'd you do that to those cookies?" You wouldn't go, "mmm boy, that's some random chance" and that's a *cookie*.

On Casinos and irony

From my best friend the BlackBlogger, on the topic of the new and fairly large casino very near our place of residence:

"Casinos. They cause all kinds of problems, encourage and engage in crime, organised and otherwise, and steal the economy blind. And if I blow one up, they call *me* a terrorist."