Lying for Jesus

Radley Balko | August 7, 2008

So while researching an upcoming article, I stumbled upon this.

Which is kinda' amusing in light of this.

Comments

Ironic|8.7.08 @ 7:18PM|#

"It's alarming and disappointing how few pastors believe the vital, foundational first eleven chapters of Genesis."

I find it amazing that anyone living in the 21st Century in a first world country cannot see that this is intended to be looked at as a metaphor. I don't even think the Bronze Age authors looked at it literally.

|8.7.08 @ 7:23PM|#

The moment we start saying to Shaibani, "Saami, you really didn't claim that credential, you claimed something else so I can use you as an expert witness", then that's a slippery slope.

Fluffy|8.7.08 @ 7:24PM|#

If you claim to be a physicist and also claim that the universe is 6000 years old, you should be immediately discredited as an expert witness.

You have made it clear that your method of analysis is to start with your conclusion, and force yourself to believe whatever you have to believe to reach that conclusion. I guess it's not surprising that he routinely lies in court, since it sounds to me like he is the go-to expert witness to testify that all child head injuries are always the result of parental assault, and that none of them are ever the result of accidental trauma, no matter how severe. I bet he reaches those conclusions in the same way he reaches his conclusions about Genesis.

Ironic|8.7.08 @ 7:37PM|#

This post should be like a bat signal for our resident theologian Juanita.

|8.7.08 @ 7:55PM|#

The Bible I have and that of the church I was raised in never claimed that Christians were better than everyone else. It's just not in there. Of course, I have met many churchgoers who act like it, and even a few that will actually claim it, but it's not in the Bible or in any prominent theology.

To the contrary, I had one pastor who used to say that Christians needed salvation more than other people, because they sinned so much more. Which is one reason the religious "right" drives me so nuts sometimes, with their idea that a government run by actively churchgoing Christians will be better than one that isn't. Not only is that false from the historical perspective, it's false from the theological perspective.

|8.7.08 @ 8:01PM|#

This post should be like a bat signal for our resident theologian Juanita.

No, the lovely, gracious, and oh so enticing Juanita is attracted by drug war posts. If you understood the inner beauty of her thought processes, you'd know that this is not the sort of post she graces with her words of wisdom.

BDB|8.7.08 @ 8:01PM|#

Genesis was originally a liturgical hymn.

Taking it 100% literally would be like like taking a song from Genesis, the band 100% literally.

|8.7.08 @ 8:01PM|#

The innertubes reveal this:

Shaibani's links to Temple, it should be noted, were not fabricated from whole cloth. According to the university, he did hold a "courtesy appointment" from 1995 to 1998, though it carried little more than parking privileges.

Which is strange in light of, "Any claim by Mr. Shaibani that he is now a member of, or even affiliated with, the Temple University Department of Physics is fraudulent," read a Sept. 27, 2001, letter from Edward Gawlinski, chair of the Temple University physics department.

Why not just say that his title was honorary (or whatever "courtesy appointment" means)? Why deny that he was affiliated with Temple University? I guess if it expired in 1998, then he is not currently associated with Temple. But if we're trying to clarify things, stating the whole truth would be a good start.

Shaibani does teach at Virginia Tech, where he is not well liked according to RateVtTeachers.com.

Yahoo Answerer|8.7.08 @ 8:26PM|#

"Shaibani's links to Temple, it should be noted, were not fabricated from whole cloth. According to the university, he did hold a "courtesy appointment" from 1995 to 1998, though it carried little more than parking privileges."

I once worked for Capital University - as a part-time library assistant. I will mention that fact if I am ever called as an expert witness in a trial.

Episiarch|8.7.08 @ 8:29PM|#

Taking it 100% literally would be like like taking a song from Genesis, the band 100% literally.

Are you trying to say The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway isn't real? That's blasphemy.

|8.7.08 @ 8:36PM|#

"Look, Lord, I'm very busy with this graduate work trial where I have to lie my ass off to convict this sucker, do You mind if I put things on hold, and I'll get back to You when I'm finished?"

|8.7.08 @ 8:55PM|#

I remember seeing that dude getting reamed by a defense attorney on Court TV. I love seeing creationists get pwned, but I actually felt kinda sorry for Shaibani - he got torn to shreds on the stand, and I thought he was going to start crying.

Elemenope|8.7.08 @ 8:59PM|#

The Bible does not say: Thou shalt not lie.

It says: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Of course, the whole tribe was your neighbor, so this guy is still commandment-breaking scum. But still, a subtlety hopscotched over far too often.

Juanita Wayback Machine|8.7.08 @ 9:23PM|#

"Juanita | October 26, 2007, 12:01pm | #

This is a miscarriage of justice. He is clearly a predator and should be locked up for good for endangering the morals of the child he was with. No one under 18 should be doing this, and if they are caught, the male should be punished for this aberant behaviour. God demands that the sinners be punished severely, in the bible they stoned people for this kind of thing, which is the morally just punishment."

Yahoo Answerer|8.7.08 @ 9:45PM|#

"Of course, the whole tribe was your neighbor,"

Does this person consider the entire Human Race to be his tribe? Just asking, it could be a loophole for him in his mind. I am not defending this man - I am just raising a point.

the innominate one|8.7.08 @ 10:38PM|#

"When Dr Shaibani talks about 'God', and 'design', it's not some throwaway line covering a belief in evolution. He believes the Bible from the very first verse."

SO desperate to have "scientists" with credentials on their side, creationists will take anyone. I don't care what physicists' opinions on evolution are, outside of a few specific, limited issues on which a physicist's opinion might be relevant. Do any physicists care about biologists' opinions on stellar formation or stellar evolution? No, nor should they.

the innominate one|8.7.08 @ 10:51PM|#

Also, it is very sad that the AiG article's author felt compelled to define "trauma" in a footnote. I guess they know their readers probably won't know that word off the top of their heads and don't own dictionaries (the devil's word-books), since the only book one needs is the Bible.

johnl|8.8.08 @ 12:36AM|#

If the defending atty is right, the judge is a bigger problem.
"""
Slaight raised the issue about some of Shaibani's false credentials during O'Brien's murder trial in 2001, but D.C. Superior Court Judge Lee Satterfield refused to let jurors hear evidence questioning his resume, Slaight said.
"""
Technical experts should all be considered frauds until proven otherwise. If the judge really prevented inquiry into the expert's credentials, it seems like the O'Brien must have believed that Shaibani wasn't qualified to testify, but he wanted his testimony anyway. Very bad.

BakedPenguin|8.8.08 @ 9:06AM|#

Radley, did Shaibani ever testify as a medical expert for Dr. Hayne?

Fluffy|8.8.08 @ 9:48AM|#

I don't care what physicists' opinions on evolution are, outside of a few specific, limited issues on which a physicist's opinion might be relevant.

This guy doesn't just not accept evolution. I can force myself to think of ways in which that would be acceptable for a physicist. He goes beyond that to state that he doesn't accept that the universe is more than a few thousand years old, and he dismisses the scientific evidence for the age of the universe by saying that we can't extrapolate back from known data because the factors we're examining might not be constant.

So basically we've got a "physicist" who thinks that [for example] the speed of light may have been different enough in the past to throw off our calculations of the age of the universe, not just a little, but from billions of years to ten thousand years. A "physicist" who thinks that rates of change of radioactive decay aren't reliable. A "physicist" who thinks that the force of gravity has radically changed over time.

Since to maintain his religious belief in a young universe he's decided to throw out all physical laws whatsoever, what kind of physics is he actually doing?

The Bearded Hobbit|8.8.08 @ 9:55AM|#

If you claim to be a physicist and also claim that the universe is 6000 years old, you should be immediately discredited as an expert witness.

.. the 6000 year-old figure is from a study done in the 19th century by *one man*. ..

.. not only are the creationists turning a blind eye to the scientific method, it seems to me that they're not even going to double-check the numbers of a guy on their own team!

.. The "sometimes I feel older than 6000" Hobbit

|8.8.08 @ 10:07AM|#

My concern is his use of a science he doesn't believe in to form testimony in court. Sort of like an athiest trying to bring sinners to Jesus.

Episiarch|8.8.08 @ 10:07AM|#

A "physicist" who thinks that rates of change of radioactive decay aren't reliable. A "physicist" who thinks that the force of gravity has radically changed over time.

He's a new Einstein! He's challenging conventional thought! He'll change everything!

Mad Max|8.8.08 @ 11:29AM|#

OK, I see that the guy lied about his credentials (or exaggerated them) when testifying in an expert witness about cause of death. I also see how he is a young-earth creationist. But how does that mean he's "Lying for Jesus" when he exaggerates his credentials in a murder trial? Maybe he's lying for himself, or lying for the prosecutor. Maybe his lying in murder trials represents one of those cases where he (as he put it in a different context) put God on hold.

Mad Max|8.8.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Jack Abramoff is an Orthodox Jew. Does that mean that whenever he lies, he is "lying for Moses"?

Elemenope|8.8.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Jack Abramoff is an Orthodox Jew. Does that mean that whenever he lies, he is "lying for Moses"?

No, he's lying for someone else...he's just not allowed to say who out loud. ;)

OK, I see that the guy lied about his credentials (or exaggerated them) when testifying in an expert witness about cause of death. I also see how he is a young-earth creationist. But how does that mean he's "Lying for Jesus" when he exaggerates his credentials in a murder trial? Maybe he's lying for himself, or lying for the prosecutor. Maybe his lying in murder trials represents one of those cases where he (as he put it in a different context) put God on hold.

I think, MM, the real target of this juxtaposition is the notion that as a very...self-involved and proud sort of a Christian, this guy apparently sees nothing wrong with doing harm to the very notion of justice by lying about his credentials in order to burnish his credibility and image in front of jury charged to ruin or not someone's life, if it is found that that is the legally preferable thing to do.

That's why 'bearing false witness' is one of the big ten mitzvot. It's *kinda important*.

duster|8.8.08 @ 12:18PM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Hogweed

Mad Max|8.8.08 @ 12:25PM|#

"That's why 'bearing false witness' is one of the big ten mitzvot. It's *kinda important*."

Technically, I believe it's telling the truth that's a mitzvah. Bearing false witness would be the exact *opposite* of a mitzvah.

Mad Max|8.8.08 @ 12:27PM|#

"a very...self-involved and proud sort of a Christian"

True, and Jack Abramoff is a very self-involved and proud sort of a Jew. But the media is fair-minded enough not to use Abramoff's case as a jumping-off point for insulting *all* Jews.

Elemenope|8.8.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Technically, I believe it's telling the truth that's a mitzvah. Bearing false witness would be the exact *opposite* of a mitzvah.

True. I was sloppily referring to the rule, not the outcome.

But the media is fair-minded enough not to use Abramoff's case as a jumping-off point for insulting *all* Jews.

There are a few distinctions here to be made. One religion is not like the other. One encourages evangelism and the other does not. So, one is constantly trying to change other people's [minds|hearts|customs|rules], while the other is happy to leave well enough alone.

At least in the context of this society, which is what we are talking about here.

|8.9.08 @ 2:15AM|#

It's the arrogance of man to say that because we've had 100 years or so of data, we canextrapolate backwards almost infinitely.

But, of course, it's not the arrogance of man to assemble a collection of books and proclaim it the inerrant Word Of God.