Wrong In Their Mind Tanks

"Non-Believers"

2009-01-21T08:25:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's inauguration speech was, in many ways, big. Again, Obama spoke to the nation like the adults we are, which is a refreshing change from having to revert one's mind to that of a child, just to be able to figure out what your leader is saying.

The speech was big in another way:

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.

This was unexpected. First, that he included Muslims and Hindus, and second, because he included us. It was just one little word, and for some it may have gone unnoticed, but for non-believers like myself, it was stunning. And I imagine for the ardent believers, it was infuriating. It was a big word, and it's enunciation and context is important.

Obama listed the big religions, and ones emerging, in our country, and then, after the briefest of pauses, he added us. I prefer not to read that pause as a hesitation. That pause seemed added so as to prepare the nation for what he was about to add--that he knew it was the first time, that it meant a lot. To my ear, it read like poety--not in some deep, sentimental way, but in it's construct. We were at the end, and maybe some cynics would prefer we were at the start, or mixed in the middle. But that pause, and that final word--"non-believers"--acted as punctuation. To my ear, that word became bigger and louder than the others. Maybe Muslims and Hindus feel the same way, but, as polls show, America hates us most.

Some might view this as a token gesture, like the assigning of Bishop Robinson to say a prayer on Sunday. For me, though, the context counted. We were not assigned some empty representative to stand up in some segment before the swearing in, where people could tune out and not really listen. We were deliberately inserted into Obama's speech--the main event--the words the nation all shut up to listen to. This ensured that everyone would hear it. HBO would not pull us off the air. People would not be looking at each other, talking about what to have for lunch after the inauguration, or just starring ahead unhearing, waiting for the real words to be spoken. We were included among the real words, and everyone heard.

For whatever smalls gains we've made in the last few years, this is a big deal. It is a huge acknowledgement. For the first time, throughout the primaries, throughout the campaigning, the conventions, and the election, I felt like a part of the process. Yes, I voted; everyone votes and we're all "part of the process." But it is one thing to cast your vote and know that no one cares about your concerns, and something else to cast it and feel like your voice might actually be heard.

Apparently, Obama heard our voice, and that he took the time and made the effort to acknowledge us--during this historical moment, where African Americans are finally getting what is theirs--to say to us that, finally, we exist.

This is a big deal. What happens in policy and what happens legislatively, among people who despise us and wish we'd do nothing more than disappear back into the woodwork of society, is another matter. But, for us, we now know that someone is listening, and not just someone--our President, and this time it's in a way that previous presidents haven't tried. We all remember Bush 41:

"I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

What we heard yesterday is a far, far cry from that.

Yes, this is a big deal, and, to me, I think this should enable us to think differently, and more strongly, about our activism. We are continually told we should shut up, even amongst our own. It's been easy for people to tell us this, because they had power and popular opinion on their side. They knew no one was listening to us. Now someone is, and this should be viewed not as finally reaching our destination--as much of a milestone as that word at that moment was--but as a moment into which we can read encouragement.

Speak loudly, godless folk. Someone is finally listening.

Atheists Aren't Real People, We Get It Now

2009-01-19T07:04:00.000-08:00

One of the first blogs I check while I'm having my coffee in the morning is vjack's Atheist Revolution, and many times, his posts are the inspiration for my own. Today, that is the case.

Today, he's got a post up about atheists' exclusion from the inauguration. There was a lot of uproar about Obama's choice of Rick Warren to lead the apparent National Delusional Prayer. The LGBT community was quite up in arms, given Warren's anti-gay bigotry and following on the stinging heels of the Prop 8 fiasco in California. And rightfully so. Absoultely.

Both the gay community and the atheist community have been a bit on the irate side regarding Warren, but the reaction to the complaints has been very, very different. See, when Warren compares homosexuality to incest and bestiality, that means he's a bigot. Response: Bishop Robinson, the openly gay bishop who delivered Sunday's invocation. There you go, Gay Community--your indignation has been recognized and rewarded with a token nod.

However, when Warren goes on about how he could never vote for an atheist (because, apparently, we are arrogant for not needing magic to run the country), he's not an anti-atheist bigot--he's just another American citizen (one of the infamous "48%"). We get no representation at this historical inauguration. We get no token nod. What we get is deliberately trod upon.

No, wait, you say. No one is actively insulting you, you're just being sensitive because no one will let you play. That is partly true. We want to play "American Citizen" too and yes, we're a little upset that we no one ever lets us. But it's more than that. If you go to vjack's post today and watch, and discuss, this interview with Bishop Robinson, you will hear him say something that really gets at the crux of our problem.

Vjack points out:

He prefaced many of his statements with "As a religious person...," making me suspect that he must have some awareness that non-religious persons exist.

I think this is exactly right--while he says this, because he says this, it's clear he knows there are non-religious people. And he goes on to talk about Jesus' "big tent," you know, much like our political "big tents." We can argue that he is only saying these things in the context of the administration vs. the gay community. But the fact is that the godless have been quite vocal about their exclusion as well. There is not just silence on the part of those in charge--when they tout their all-inclusiveness, when Robinson says that "all voices" are being heard at this inauguration, while at the same time ignoring our concerns, they does not translate as mere silence. It is a very clear message to us that we do not exist.

Robinson says that we are all children of God and therefore "worthy of respect and concern." You know, while we don't believe we are chilrden of God, it still remains that they do, and despite that, we are still not worthy of respect or concern. I don't doubt for a moment that when they say they're including everyone, they really, truly believe it. And when atheists say 'Hey, wait a minute,' I believe they are genuinely confused. We could say that this is just how they were brought up, they've been conditioned to not really understand anything outside of their worldview, etc. I think that's a cop-out. They know we exist--when they say they include everyone but we are not included, they are saying, loudly: "You Do Not Exist." More importantly, the more pointed and most terrible message is that we don't exist because we are not real people--they do not consider us as such. We are sub-human. We don't get the same considerations as the real people. Now, how does that make you feel? Don't cry too loudly, as Judge Walton says we've brought it upon ourselves. You know, for wanting to have representation. And to not have state sponsored religion. How dare we?

This isn't the first time this has happened on such a large, public scale. Think back to this past July: Remember the big all-faith orgy the DNC decided to include in their convention? They talked about "unity" then, too. Yeah, and remember when the Secular Coalition for America wrote a letter to Rev. Daughtry asking to be included? Does anyone remember the reaction? She didn't know how to react, and so, she ignored us. We don't have to be considered because we are not real people in their worldview. How loving. We were excluded then, again, as they all patted each other on the back for their all-inclusiveness, you know, of the real people. This inauguration in the DNC convention all over again.

Am I angry? Sure. But what no one wants to admit is that this is also incredibly hurtful. Here is my problem: I have gay friends that have a stake in this. I am from an interracial family, and they have a stake in this presidency. People I care deeply about are being affected by this. Historical things are afoot. It's important. And basically, I am being told that I can't be a part of it. I am being told that I must remain on the outside of the fence. I can watch, but I can't play. Maybe I am hurt especially because these things are very close and very personal for me, but I imagine that many atheists, even those without gay or black friends or family, feel the same way. This kind of wholesale rejection, as being people, and having selfhood, and being a part of the overall community that is worthy of "respect and concern," is wearing. It wears you down. It is hurtful. And, as per usual, it is unsurprising that this sort of hurtful behavior comes from the people that claim to hurt least: Christians.

Yeah, some days, I'm just tired. And hurt. It's true. I want to be happy tomorrow. I have hated the Bush administration as much as anyone and am deeply relieved to finally see him gone. It's been an active, somewhat psychologically traumatizing part of my life for the last eight years, and as shocking as this might come to some Christians, what with my being an atheist, it's been difficult precisely because I believe all people are worthy of respect and concern, and the policies of that maniac have crapped on everything that stands for. Unfortunately, because of this very obvious snub from the new boss who promised all that hope and change, I do not get to enjoy the catharsis that this inauguration will be for many people.

I've committed myself to attending a friend's inauguration celebration on Tuesday evening--you know, snacks, champaign, that kind of thing. Because we are Democrats. I'm trying to think of a way to get out of it. My heart's just not in it.

Screw the Forefathers

2009-01-16T05:45:00.000-08:00

I was just skulking around some of the atheist blogs I regularly read and, as is usually the case, the came across a handful of Christians, doing what they do. We all know their general MO. The Christian shtick that's annoyed me today--well, every time I see it, but I decided to blog about it today--is the ol' "This-is-a-Christian-Nation-something-about-Church-and-State-something-about-Freedom-of-Religion-NOT-Freedom -from-Religion-yadda-yadda-yadda.

I've decided, just now, that I don't give two shits about what our founding fathers meant. I really don't. And anyone should understand that these were all considerations taken--whether pro-Christian or pro-neutral--well over two centuries ago. There's a lot of going back and forth as to whether Jefferson was an atheist, or Lincoln, or if Madison was a Christian. Hey folks...who cares? They're dead.

Some will say that it matters because it's important how to know how to interpret the Constitution--that's how we figure out what can can and cannot legislate. Although it seems pretty clear in the first amendment that Christians want to ignore that part that says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and want to focus just on the "freedom of religion" (Not from! Not from!) part, why is it that we can't take it upon ourselves to say, hey, we're grown ups now? We can do whatever we want.

We, as enlightened people, should be able to look around us and say, hey, things have changed, and thankfully so. We should be able to examine our past, with its slavery, its oppression of women, and approach things like the possible ricin mailings to gay bars in Seattle, and say, no, wait, this is wrong. The bible says it's fine to own slaves, but we* said, no, it isn't. The bible makes women property, but we said, no, they aren't. The bible supposedly cracks down on homosexuals, and we are now slowly but surely coming to the understanding that this, too, is wrong. I know these crackpots are out there, but really, how many non-batshit "love the sinner but hate the sin" Christians who oppose giving gays their civil rights also oppose blacks being able to vote? Or marry *gasp* white folks, for that matter? Not too many. But even those progressive Christians will not understand (or should I say "refuse to") that extending rights to gays is the same thing, and if we Americans have rejected the views of our forefathers on blacks and women, why can't we do this for gays as well? And if we can do all of this--if we can reject "what they meant" when they said "free men" (read: white and absolutely not women), then why can't we also offer up out own interpretations of the first amendment on religion?

There is no logical reason we can't completely discard what the forefathers "meant," felt, thought about religion. It doesn't matter. We can very clearly see that, today, we live in a country with many faiths and also with many people of no faith. So, if it's clear that a more modern approach to these things is needed, and that since we've ignored the forefathers on these other issues, then we should be able to apply that to this issue, then it also becomes clear that the only reason we aren't doing that, is because Christians won't let us.

See, Christians, that you are very picky-choosy-fickle on what you want to say is right and wrong when it comes to our Constitution and our history, it becomes rather obvious that the only reason you waffle on these things is to retain what power you have left. Your "forefathers" argument becomes moot in the light of your not caring what the forefathers thought about some things and only applying it to the things that bother you today.

So, I say, it doesn't matter what they thought. We've progressed enough to not have to care--we should be able to just see what's right and what's fair and act accordingly. So long as Christians continue to grip violently to these "rights" in what are hopefully death throes, as if what was said or written 200 years ago is somehow set in stone when we have proven time and again that it is not, we are going to have problems.

*When I say "we," I mean us, as Americans, as a whole, despite grumblings from the throwbacks.

CADC's Top 10 "Egregious Acts of Christian Bashing" for 2008

2009-01-15T05:42:00.000-08:00

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has released its list of top ten "most egregious acts of Christian Bashing in American (sic) in 2008." According to them:

Every day in America serious Christians face increasing hostility at work, school, and in the culture because they stand for their faith and values.

Yeah.

So, onto the list:

INSTANCE #10: Jack Black Musical Video

In a short video posted on FunnyorDie.com entitled, "Prop 8 The Musical," an all star cast of Hollywood celebrities perform a low budget musical farce that defames Christ, mocks Christians and distorts the teaching of the Bible. Jack Black played the lead role of Jesus.

Terrible. It's terrible that you can't infringe on peoples' civil rights and expect to be rewarded for it. I like that they do add specifically that Jack Black played Jesus, as if that is just adding insult to injury.

INSTANCE #9: Bill Maher Gratuitously Attacks Pope

Bill Maher, host of the HBO program Real Time, made light of the Pope during his recent visit and the tragic sexual abuse scandal. Maher said, "Now I know what you're thinking, Bill. You can't be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy (radical Mormon polygamist) Texas cult. For one thing, alter boys can't even get pregnant. But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. Cults get raided; religions get parades... If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you Pope."

I like here how they refer to the "tragic sexual abuse scandal," as if it had nothing to do with them. Few bad apples, you see.

INSTANCE #8: ESPN Anchor Dana Jacobson's "F--- Jesus" Remark

Speaking at an ESPN corporate event in Atlantic City, N.J., to honor ESPN Radio personalities Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic, Dana Jacobson let go with a steam of vulgar remarks; "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus." Jacobson was suspended for a few days for the incident.

Actually, I need to find video of this and loop it for my own entertainment. I guess the CADC aren't "sticks and stones" people.

INSTANCE #7: Minnesota University Professor Desecrates Communion

A Biology Professor from the University of Minnesota, Paul Zachary Myers, recently desecrated a consecrated communion wafer from a Catholic Mass. Meyer's has also asked people to steal the Eucharist for him in order that he might desecrate it and display it on his blog.

Congratulations, PZ, for making the list.

INSTANCE #6: Religulous the Movie

Bill Maher released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Religulous. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on the faith. Maher studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals.

So, the complaint here is that he "did not cover new intellectual ground." Honey, covering new intellectual ground would mean that we've been allowed to move past the 'with God all things are possible' stage of the discussion. As soon as you folks are ready to do that, I'm sure Bill, and the rest of us, would love to move on. And, really: "legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals?" Really? I'll put this up there with the Easter Bunny, Santa, and God.

INSTANCE #5: Chaplains Fired for Praying in Jesus' Name

Chaplains for the State of Virginia are being denied their right to pray in Jesus' name. Six chaplains were fired for continuing to pray in Jesus' name. Earlier this year in Virginia, Rev. Hashmel Turner, a city councilman in Fredericksburg, was told by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his prayers during city council meetings that ended in Jesus' name will continue to be banned.

Christians don't seem to understand that there are other people in the world with faiths other than their own. I mean, obviously, there shouldn't be any kind of prayer, in Jesus' name or otherwise, during a flippin' city council meeting, I suppose unless you can show that every tax-paying citizen in town a bible-thumper. Again, if you don't let Christians deep-throat you with their crap, it's all "you're picking on us!"

INSTANCE #4: Colorado Law Criminalizes the Bible

SB200, a Colorado state bill recently signed into law, criminalizes the Bible. Section 8 of the bill entitled "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden" makes publishing the Bible illegal because it contains anti-homosexual passages. This is part of a larger effort to criminalize the expression of certain opinions and beliefs.

I'm interested in exactly what these anti-homosexual passages are. Regardless, there's plenty of other offensive material in the bible--let's not get started on the sexism. Be that as it may, I'm against the banning of books, even this heaping pile of Wrong.

INSTANCE #3: Barack Obama Defames Christianity

According to research into President Elect Obama's own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama's position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a "devout Christian."

Wow. I mean, wow. Obama not being the right kind of Christian is an "egregious act of Christian Bashing." Dang, they're slappin' Obama--Obama--with the ol' "you're not a real Christian" shtick (I know, it's a classic, all-purpose kind of move). That's the other awesome thing about Christians--they are very much a 'take a yard if you give them an inch' bunch. You get some prayers at the Dem convention--not good enough. You get to keep your bullshit Faith Based Initiatives--not good enough. You get flippin' Rick Warren for the innvocation--not good enough. You get more prayers and Christian peeps at the inauguration---nope. Atheists are just looking for a little representation. Hey, Christians, how about quit hogging everything?

INSTANCE #2: Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin Is Attacked

Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, came under sharp attack by some in the mainstream media because she self-identifies as a Christian. The Washington Post published a cartoon by Pat Oliphant mocking Palin because she has a background as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian. A suspicious arson fire at Sarah Palin's home church recently caused over $1,000,000 in damage.

Whoa, now wait a tick. Does anyone know whether that fire was started because it was a church, or because it was political, or maybe for insurance purposes? Okay, I added that last bit, but, no, really, does anyone know? Look, Palin was attacked because she was just barely functionally retarded and running for a pretty vital position in our country. I know you'd like to think she was being picked on just because she was a god-head, but, no, that's just not it. By and large, she was pilloried because she was an idiot. Oh, did I just say that--it is kind of the same thing, isn't it?

And finally, the #1 Christian Bashing Instance in America for 2008...

INSTANCE #1: Radical Homosexuals Assault Prop 8 Marriage Supporters in California
During and after the November campaign stories flooded in of pro-Prop 8 signs being taken, people verbally and physically assaulted, church property and private automobiles vandalized, and person's jobs and pastor's lives threatened simply for exercising their right to campaign and vote in support of traditional marriage.

Really, this is number one? Now, I don't condone violence, even on a bunch of haters. I admit though that I just don't care either way about "church property" or "private automobiles"--in my grand scheme of things, I'm really just don't care. Getting verbally assaulted while you're protesting anything is kind of par for the course and you should probably just suck that one up. But, again, like number 10--maybe, just maybe, you Christians might want to lay off the stiffling of other peoples' rights. I mean, really, this "instance" probably should not have happened, but really, the kind of hate and bigotry you folks float around out there is bound to irk some people. All I can say is if you're goign to insist on oppressing people, you should probably develop some thick skin or just brace yourselves. I want to sympathize with you, but really, I have a hard time with that.

I'd like to see Mojoey at Deep Thoughts come up with a Top Ten list for 2008 of the most disgusting acts committed by Christians--I mean, if he thinks he can narrow it down.

For Every 'God,' Give to the SCA.

2009-01-13T11:05:00.000-08:00

The Friendly Atheist has a brilliant idea for the inauguration.

I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot of God talk over the next week from these four pastors. For every mention of the words “Jesus,” “Lord,” “God,” or “Christ” during the four prayers next week, I am going to make a $5 donation to the Secular Coalition for America — a lobbying group in Washington working to support the rights of non-religious people and educating Congress about the separation of church and state.

Will you do the same?

Pledge the amount you plan to give per Godly-word-mentioned in the comments — any amount is ok! Then honor your commitment after next Wednesday. I’ll tally the numbers and report back.

Yes. Yes, this is a great idea. I love it. I'm broke and it would have to be a weenie amount, but yes, I'd like to do this. Please join us.

Cathloic Nuttiness on the Down-Low

2009-01-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

Okay, this is great. The Vatican is drawing up new guidelines to assess the validity of Virgin Mary sightings. And that sort of thing. Awesome:

Catholics who claim they have seen the Virgin Mary will be forced to remain silent about the apparitions until a team of psychologists, theologians, priests and exorcists have fully investigated their claims under new Vatican guidelines aimed at stamping out false claims of miracles.

The Pope wants to "help bishops snuff out an explosion of bogus heavenly apparitions." Um, I can help them out with that. Try all of them. All of them; every single one. The best part is this:

...anyone who claims to have seen an apparition will only be believed as long as they remain silent and do not court publicity over their claims. If they refuse to obey, this will be taken as a sign that their claims are false.

So, as long as your nuttiness is kept on the down-low, they will consider it. So long as you don't publicly embarrass the church with your battiness, fine. This, to me, speaks volumes. They know it's crap.

If the visionary is considered credible they will ultimately be questioned by one or more demonologists and exorcists to exclude the possibility that Satan is hiding behind the apparitions in order to deceive the faithful.

Okay, maybe they don't think it's crap. They probably buy it, because they are insane. So, they will buy it, if its "credible" (and they're idea of credible will always remain a point of amazed fascination with me, mixed with a kind of loathing) they want to make sure it's not that wacky Devil causing a ruckus. Good thing there, 'cause, you know, he's a trickster.

But, they obviously know that we've moved into an era where everyone else thinks they're nuts. That's good. Yes, hide your craziness; hide it away in shame.

Well, it's nice to see they are updating their guidebook. It's only a matter of time before they have to update it to the extent that they finally admit there are no miracles. Then they can dissolve their organization. Sure, it won' t happen in our lifetimes, because this kind of craziness is hard to shake. But, someday. Someday.

Next, they'll be able to bury their morbid relics, like the venerated Holy Prepuces. We can only hope.

EDIT: I was just talking about this to The Boyfriend, and I also wanted to point out this:

The visionaries will then be visited by a team of psychiatrists, either atheists or Catholics, to certify their mental health while theologians will assess the content of any heavenly messages to see if they contravene Church teachings.

Yeah, that's right. You have to throw some atheists in there because we validate things with our reason. Frankly, an atheist should be able to look at anyone making a claim like this and stamp them with the loony stamp. But even we know that's not socially acceptable, so you'll find some godless psychiatrist who will say something along the lines of "Well, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with their cognitive functioning..." Getting the input of atheists is the only way to possibly legitimize your insanity. Now, let us take a whack at the "content" of your "holy messages" and see how far you get.

On a side note, this is pretty funny, regarding the Holy Prepuce of Calcutta:

In 1983, however, parish priest Dario Magnoni announced that "This year, the holy relic will not be exposed to the devotion of the faithful. It has vanished. Sacrilegious thieves have taken it from my home", where it had reportedly been kept in a shoebox in the back of a wardrobe.

Hahahhahaa! Shoebox...oh...good stuff...thank you, Catholics.

Fundie-Dumdie

2009-01-12T14:38:00.000-08:00

I just knew I'd be able to get on here at least one more time today to post something with a little more substance than the last post. And, by "substance," I mean, proof of fundie-dumdie (yes, I just made that up, right this moment. It is my new word for the species of dumb with which fundamental Christians infect our space). This week's winner--and I realize it's only Monday but really, this is great--is Patrick. Patrick had the distinction of leaving the first comment over at Atheist Revolution to a post about some other moron yammering on about there being "no atheists" during times of crisis. *sigh*

Are you ready for the wisdom? Are you ready for the deep thinking? I am. God, am I. Patrick asks:

I read that atheists believe that there is no evidence for the existance of God, yet they complain when we hold atheists to be strong evidence for the existance of Satan.

Confusion ensues, as mostly what seem like baffled but well-meaning atheists try to explain why what he said doesnt make any sense.

Yoo offers: "Maybe it's because there's no logical connection between the two at all ..."

vjack himself asks: "That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would an atheist believe in this being you call Satan? We don't."

Stardust reiterates: "Patrick, your comment makes no sense at all since, as vjack points out, atheists do not have imaginary friends or enemies."

Steve clarifies: "I'm not sure if 'complain' is the reaction you're looking for, there Patrick. A lot of atheists are used to being called Satan and the usual response is an exasperated eye-roll."

And GingerRed pleads: "Okay, now can we try making a point with logic?"

All I can offer poor Patrick is this week's Fundie-Dumdie Award (quick, someone design me a logo). Yes, it's juvenile. But, I can sleep at night knowing it's no more juvenile than this guy's level of reasoning. In fact, I would age my immaturity here at about 12, and this guy...this guy...this guy is prenatal.

Congrats, Patrick.

What Does Jesus 'Verb'?

2009-01-12T07:16:00.000-08:00

I have a lot to do today. But I am allowing myself a leisurely coffee before I'm off and running, and while I have that coffee, I will use this time to post something inane. I know, I am always posting something inane. This, I cannot argue. But today's post will be really inane.

I'm going to pick three random verbs. Then I'm going to put "Jesus" in front of it, Google it, and see what I get.

Let's keep it simple. Eat. Play. Like. See, nice and simple.

Eat:
1. Jesus Eats with the Sinners, Publicans, Tax Collectors. (What a bastard.)
2. "What Would Jesus Eat?" (See #3.)
3. Cereal, it's what jesus eats in heaven. (Ah, but what does he eat when he's on the road?)
4. Jesus eats burgers, devil rides T-rex. (Oh.)
5. Jesus eats at OCB also. (Ah-ha. This makes sense to me.)

Play:
1. Jesus Plays Sports: New York Times Strikes Out. (Jesus took on the entire NYT editorial staff in a game of ping-pong.)
2. Jesus Plays Call of Duty 4. (This...not surprising.)
3. Jesus Plays Golf. (A little surprising.)
4. Jesus plays the theremin. (I like that he's flanked by two Budweiser dartboards.)
5. Jesus Plays Poker Online? (It's because he can't afford to be caught in public doing it).

Like:
1. Jesus Likes Gays, "But Not in That Way." (If that's what you want to believe).
2. Jesus likes his explosions like he likes his coffee. No fat chicks. (...)
3. Jesus likes to eat good food with his friends. (See, he's just like me and you!)
4. Does Jesus likes happy meals from McDonalds? (Yes.)
5. Jesus liked to have his face tickled. (It took this long to get weird...hmmm...)

The next best thing to find out this information about Jesus, after Googling it, is to ask God himself. So, I did. It's hard to tell when he might be straight at any given time--most days he's blazed on something. At least, that's been my experience (he doesn't even offer, which makes him quite rude). Anyway...

Me:
What up, yo?
God:
Searching...Searching...Please stand by.
Me:
Oh, come on God.
God:
OK. GOD rules.
Me:
Sigh.
God:
Sorry...
Me:
Okay, I have a few questions.
God:
Yeah okay, What are these questions ?
Me:
What did Jesus eat?
God:
he said we should forgive those who harm us.
Me:
Yeah, but what does he eat?
God:
Hmm. I think he does whatever he wants.
Me:
I assumed that, but what does the man eat?
God:
You know what you do when you assume!
Me:
Sigh.
God:
Sorry...
Me:
Okay, what does Jesus play?
God:
Yeah okay, What do you think it does?
Me:
Jesus is an 'it'?
God:
Did you go to Catholic school?
Me:
Who's asking the questions here?
God:
Not a robot. Probably a human. Maybe a celebrity? Check back later and see if I learn the answer to that one.
Me:
Good luck, Einstein.
God:
Thanks for the compliment. A deeper algorithm is needed to respond to that correctly.
Me:
I'm feeling a little surly this morning, lord.
God:
Do you mind if I tell other people you are surly this morning lord.
Me:
Um. No, I don't mind.
God:
OK. Thanks I will add it to my gossip files.
Me:
Yeah, you do that.
God:
Tell me more. I will. Will you?
Me:
Yeah, so anyway...are we getting anywhere on this 'what does Jesus play' question?
God:
In any case, Next question? Ahem. We are just having a little chat.w.
Me:
Do you even know?
God:
I may not know it, but I could find out.
Me:
Oh, really. How about you do that. Go ask him.
God:
That's cool. For real. I will. Will you? Ok I will ask him when he comes back.
Me:
Oh, come on. He was supposed to have been back by now. And where is he? Off playing something, no doubt.
God:
"Ok I will ask him when he comes back."? Oh, come on.? I'm just kidding around. Oh. When was he? I think he is in California now. On and off.
Me:
Moving on.
God:
Where are you going?
Me:
Just...shhh. Alright. What did Jesus like?
God:
OK. he said we should forgive those who harm us.
Me:
*glare*
God:
Are we still talking about shhh?
Me:
No, we're talking about your son. You know, your son? Jesus?
God:
What is the subject? Sure, my son sounds like a good topic. Of course I know my son. Jesus is the Son of God.
Me:
Brilliant. What does he like? Does he have any hobbies?
God:
Not really that much, but thank you anyway. I think he does whatever he wants. I don't think he has many possessions.
Me:
Okay. As usual, you are useless. I have stuff to do today. I'm off.
God:
Ah. Cool. I have a friend named "John Lennon". Do you mind if I tell other people you are off.
Me:
Shut up.
God:
OK I'll stop talking now.

Does it seem like I always end these by telling God to shut up? Hmmm...

Southern States Boo-Hoo

2009-01-11T07:57:00.000-08:00

This is interesting:

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to examine whether a central component of landmark civil rights legislation enacted to protect minority voters is still needed in a nation that has elected an African American president.

The provision (of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) in question requires "a broad set of states and jurisdictions where discrimination was once routine to receive federal approval before altering any of their voting procedures." Of the states in question--Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia--all but Virginia voted against Obama. So, because the nation elected Obama, but eight of the nine states named in this provision, did not, we no longer have to babysit them to ensure the minority folks in these states get fair play? Hmmm...

Rick Warren: Mass Murderer

2009-01-11T07:03:00.000-08:00

I know, shocking title, eh? Shocking! What slander! This will make sense in just a moment.

Vjack at Atheist Revolution has an interesting post up today highlighting the work of your friend and mine, Rick Warren, in Africa. You know Africa. Lovely landscapes, nauseating HIV/AIDS rates. Apparently, the oh-so good work he's done there--the stuff he touts, the wonderful work battling HIV/AIDS--includes his man on the ground there, Martin Ssempa, doing great things. Things like burning condoms for Jesus. And demonizing homosexuals. Because everyone knows homos carry AIDS and disseminate it amongst us decent, healthy heteros like the plague. *shudder at the dumb*

This is how Rick Warren combats HIV/AIDS. Heck of a job, there, jackass.

So, what about this mass murderer stuff? Well, I'm only applying the same idiot rationalization that folks like Warren apply to women and contraception. See, all forms of contraception (which, obviously, must be burned) prevents pregnancy. Therefore, it is murder. Therefore, one women who uses, say, a condom to avoid becoming pregnant has, by all intents and purposes, murdered that unborn child. She is a murderer. So, by that reasoning (*cough* I choke using that word), Rick Warren and his pal Ssempa, by spreading misinformation regarding condoms, are indeed, mass murderers. See, if a man does not use a condom when he's engaging in a sex act with another person, he is deliberately avoiding keeping the disease to himself--he is purposefully spreading the fatal disease. He is a murderer. If a man tells thousands of people not to use life-saving contraception, he is a mass murderer. Rick Warren has made murderer of innocent Africans. He is complicit.

So, if we are absolutely compelled to take these people seriously, and by "these people" I am referring to the lunatics of the right-wing religious fringe, by legitimizing their lunacy and giving them a stage from which to spread their poison, aren't we also complicit? Of course, we're not. We don't condone this. We have been saying no, we will not give these crazy people the time of day. But who has? Barack Obama. And he will be doing it officially as he is sworn in on January 20th. Isn't that lovely? Yes, the man who promised hope will be giving his official stamp of approval to, not just an individual, but to a school of thought that knowingly kills thousands Africans and orphans their children. He is complicit.

It's not too late, though. He can look at this interesting (read: sickening) new information about Warren, though, honestly, every disgusting thing Warren represents up to this point should have been enough, and he can refuse to give him this national platform. I'm willing to bet money, though, that he won't. He will go ahead and give his approval. This, people, is not good.

Obama So Helps Him God

2009-01-10T11:56:00.000-08:00

So, Obama has responded to Newdow's lawsuit:

(CNN) — President-elect Barack Obama has requested that the words “so help me God” be added to the end of the oath of office to be administered by Chief Justice John Roberts on Inauguration Day.

That confirmation came in an affidavit filed today by Roberts' court counselor in a pending lawsuit by an atheist opposed to any mention of God in the inaugural ceremonies. Roberts said he would abide by Obama’s wishes.

(I like how Newdow is nameless here, as if his identity was somehow impossible to discern. No, he is just a scary, trouble-making 'atheist.')

Okay, fine. This is fine. Even Newdow's suit says that if Obama wants to add it personally, then fine. I am wondering, though, if there will ever come a time when Obama acknowledges the faithless. And I don't mean in a Yes-I-know-you're-there way. More in a Yes-I-know-you're-there-and-I-respect-you kind of way. He's already spat in the eye of both atheists, but more particularly (at least, in the priorities of the nation) gays with this whole Rick Warren crap, but it feels a little like Obama is at least willing to do something to placate the LBGT community. Like this:

A source tells me Fred Hochberg, an openly gay former Clinton Administration official, will be named to head the Export-Import Bank.

Hochberg, who was deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration under Bill Clinton, was a prominent Clinton supporter in the primary, and a is a major donor to both Democratic and gay causes.

Gay groups have complained of a shortage of high-profile gay and lesbian appointees, and the appointment of Hochberg, who is prominent in gay political circles and served on Obama's transition, may ease those complaints, though gay groups had been lobbying to make him Commerce Secretary.

Is this a little 'Hey, sorry about that Warren thing' appointment? Maybe. Probably not. The question is why we freethinkers do not get apology appointments, or anything, to make our group happy (don't expect any godless appointments any time soon). Is it them, or it is us? It's both.

We catch a lot of heat for being vocal at all--whether it's through lawsuits like Newdow's, billboards, or counteracting signs for nativity scenes. We're supposed to shut up, like blacks were supposed to shut up, like gays were supposed to shut up, like women are still expected to shut up.

Obama's move here, to me, doesn't diminish Newdow's attempt. In fact, I think it shows that these sorts of actions need to be taken up more, with more fanfare, with more gusto. Just because we didn't get the answer we wanted doesn't mean we should sit quietly in the corner and, well, shut up. We have a point, we will continue to make that point until someone of authority finally realizes that we will not shut up, like blacks didn't, like gays won't, like women shouldn't. That's why no one--so far--really listens to us, nor cares to. Part of it is who we are. The other part is that we are not as vocal as we could be as who we are. We need to shout louder--it's that simple. We need representation. We need to get over this 'herding cats' mentality and join forces.

Newdow's lawsuit isn't a failure, it is one more block in the successful building of a wall of resistance to religious tyranny. I suggest, as I always do, that you atheists who are active, stay active. You who are not--who don't think we need to be--wise up or shut up.

Honk if you Love Jesus

2009-01-07T09:45:00.000-08:00

Big props to Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for posting this, as it made me guffaw. Yes, I actually guffawed, which is not lady-like, I know, but there you go. The Boyfriend also guffawed, which he can get away with much easier. Note to self: Must get 'Honk if you love Jesus' bumper sticker.

New Pew Poll Stinks of Religion

2009-01-07T05:58:00.000-08:00

I don't think one's religious affiliation should have any affect on one's occupation--especially, say, in Congress. I don't think it's anything the public needs to know about, particularly because, I repeat, it just shouldn't have any impact on that person's ability to serve. Of course, we are a sad bunch, we American People. Despite hundreds of examples, big and small, of 'religious' folks doing terrible things, we still elect them. Why? Because we still believe that 'religious' equals 'moral.' And, despite that atheists, time and again, continue to do much good, we are still labeled 'immoral.'

For many Americans, "there's this idea of morality being linked to belief in God and to religion," Masci said. "Atheism is different in that it's a real departure from the common-denominator faith that at least most people accept."

I'm a lot more optimistic than I was when I was younger. I used to think humanity was about 98% dumb. I have a much better outlook today. I give people the benefit of the doubt. When they do and say stupid things, I forgive them. I remind myself that we can't all be on the ball all the time, and, when it comes down to it, we are but dumb animals. But come on. Really people?

Our 111th Congress is full of religion. I'm excited to see which members will screw the pooch this year. Which members will go on to get caught doing something reprehensible? Will it be just a kind of general monetary-related corruption, or will they be trying to diddle our kids, or frequenting prostitutes? (Blagojevich is Serbian Orthodox, Mark Foley is Catholic (shock!), and David Vitter is also Roman Catholic. in case you were wondering). And from what religious affiliation will these fallen folks derive? We won't know because, when that time comes, no one wants to know. Well, I do.

We have these polls--statistical information--about the religious make-up of our Congress. Okay. It's interesting. We have this information because, apparently, we care. We sure the hell care about this information when we're pulling the lever or blacking in bubbles at the polling booth. But, when these people shit the bed, suddenly, we don't care.
It's interesting because, when these politicians turn out to be no more moral than anyone else--particularly no more moral than your average atheist--the question is one of morality, but, at this point, their religion suddenly becomes a non-issue. Someone gets caught doing something questionable and everyone clicks their tongues, saying how baaaaad the person is. Chances are, that person's religious affiliation played a role, possibly a sizable one, in getting them elected, and yet, now it doesn't matter--there is no reflection on that fact when they fall from grace.

Still, come campaign season, everyone's out there with the faith on their sleeve, advertising their inherent goodness. Everyone except the godless, who have to deliberately hide their lack of faith.

...in fall 2006, the secular coalition embarked on a quest for the highest-ranking non-theist public official in America. It offered a $1,000 prize to whoever identified the winner.

Nearly 60 members of Congress were nominated. The coalition sent them surveys, and Kaplan said that when he interviewed the lawmakers, 22 confided that they did not believe in a god. Fearful of exposure, all but Stark told the group to keep quiet.

I mean, as far as I know, Pete Stark, the only publicly 'out' godless member of Congress, has not been embroiled in some terrible corruption schemes*. I haven't been privy to any instance where him sodomized anyone or thing against their will with a foreign object. Still...if he did--I mean, if it just so happened that Stark got caught doing something oh-so nasty--you now what the outcry would be. It's because he lacked faith. He's bad because he was without GOD. You don't think so? Really?

We "unaffiliated," according to this poll, have three times more representation in the population than Jews and Mormons combined, but still, we have "0%" representation in Congress. Jews (8.4%) and Mormons (2.6%), at least, have some. What is the problem here? The problem is one of perception, and, frankly, that we godless still have a long way to go in terms of making our needs and concerns relevant. No will...and I mean no one...will give us the time of day unless we demand it. The perceived morality bubble in which these people exist is far too comfortable for them to come to the conclusion on their own that we have rights too. It's way past the time for us to get out of little godless pins and do some popping.

Maybe it's not all bad, though. Here's the good news:

But if more atheists, humanists, freethinkers and nonbelievers "come out," Kaplan said, "the stigma -- which is clearly there -- will begin to go away."

The evidence? Kaplan points to Stark. In November he was elected to his 19th term with 76.5% of votes.

Despite Stark's 'coming out,' he was re-elected by a hefty margin. I hope this becomes a trend and the trend continues. We need to let our politicians know it's okay to be godless. We, as atheists, if we are so inclined, should not be put off by running for a political position. We need to get in there and change these numbers.

*As a matter of fact, if you Google "Pete Stark" and "scandal" the first item you find is this, and the "scandal" is only there because of someone's else's scandal, and this instance where he is, apparently, investigating someone else's corruption.

How Many 5-Year-Olds could YOU Take?

2009-01-05T12:51:00.000-08:00

Just so you know.

Jesus is a Friend of Mine

2009-01-04T14:14:00.000-08:00

I almost lost my mind when I saw this.

What can I say? Zap!

Girl in Need...

2009-01-03T09:06:00.000-08:00

I found this via Atheist Revolution, who got it from Pharyngula.

Graduate student and fellow atheist from New Zealand got a call informing her that her father died, rather unexpectedly. Terrible, terrible news. Because everything is last minute, the ticket back was pricey, but she managed to get a good friend to foot it on her credit card. That card's going to need some payment. Let's all chip in and lend a hand. I know how hard it is to be puttering along in life, just making ends meet, when, quite suddenly, a big fat bill for funds you don't have lands in your lap and it's entirely unavoidable. Now, compound that with grief.

If you've got some to spare, how about a little charity, up close and personal? Donations can be made via PayPal.

We Need to Rethink the Argument

2008-12-31T08:27:00.000-08:00

Michael Newdow--our good atheist fighting the good fight in California--is, once again, standing up for our rights. He is known for working through litigation to remove the words 'under God' from our Pledge of Allegiance. This is what he's up to now:

California atheist Michael Newdow -- famed for challenging the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- has gone to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to prevent Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., as well as the congressional sponsors of the Jan. 20 inaugural and several other defendants, from inserting the words "so help me God" into the oath.

The argument:

...it would be okay if Obama adds the phrase on his own. But if Roberts "prompts" Obama to recite the offending phrase by offering the words himself, that would amount to a "state actor" endorsing religion, Newdow asserts. And that would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, according to Newdow.

Okay. I think I kind of agree with this. If Obama wants to, personally, add the religious endorsement, you know, as an individual American with the right to worship and believe as he sees fit, then, yeah, fine. If he is prompted to do so, by being asked to repeat the words by a Supreme Court Justice, then, yes, that kind of does seem like an official endorsement.

If some people think this is a silly, superfluous thing--that it's not really an endorsement and doesn't mean anything, let's try a tiny thought-experiement. Imagine, if you will, an atheist President. I'll give you all a moment to laugh that out of your systems. But, let's just say for argument's sake, that an atheist won the election and was being sworn in. Now, what if he or she was prompted to say these words and he or she refused? Admit it...there would be an outcry. It would start in the weeks before the inauguration. Pundits would include little segments in their shows: Joe or Jane Atheist's Inauguration: So Help Him or Her God? And people would call in or email that, darn it, it's a national tradition! And what would a Justice like Roberts do when the time came? Would he respect the President-elect's personal, individual beliefs, or would he insist on pushing this supposed national tradition? And if he chose to push it, would he be doing so out of some zombie-like adherence to 'tradition,' or would it be for a whole other zombie-like adherence to endorse a certain religion?

Some people claim they are just words, but the fact is that we all use words, every day, sometimes to bullshit, and sometimes, just sometimes, we use them to say exactly what we mean. And in this context--as with any context where these words are coming out of the mouths of our government officials for governmental events--this is a problem.

Also, a commentor on this article makes a good point. An anonymous poster says:

I thought it was odd that the controversy was that Obama selected Rick Warren for an official prayer, rather than that there is an "official" prayer at all.

Wuh...huh? Uh, yeah. And, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm surprised this isn't the argument I'm seeing from atheists. It's like the whole 'remove the nativity scene from the public building' thing. It's not the nativity scene we are protesting. It's not the particular religion we are against. It is the representation of any religion on public grounds--public grounds paid for by all citizens and not just adherents to a certain religion. It is the official endorsement of any religion by a government who is supposed to be representing all citizens and not just the ones who believe in one particular sky-fairy.

And so why aren't we protesting the idea of an innvocation in the inaugural ceremonies, as opposed to which deluded representative is picked to serve as MC? I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you why folks would say that we shouldn't. More accurately, why folks would berate us and attempt to humiliate and marginalize us further. They will say that we're trying to degrade our nation's (Christian) traditions, and worse, when we do this, we are only making ourselves look foolish for expending these energies on such silly things. Of course, they will overlook the point that if they think we should find these things meaningless and silly, they themselves should do so as well, and so removing them shouldn't be a big deal for anyone. The fact that it always is a big deal shows that it is important. It is important to strip these religious endorsements from our government, for the sake of everyone.

I'd like to point out that I almost typed '...not just atheists, but for anyone with an alternative religious view other than Christian.' But I hate that. I hate it when atheists say that they're not just arguing on behalf of 'just' atheists, as if we don't count and can be overlooked as not really being citizens, but on behalf of these folks--the real citizens--who believe, at least, in something.

No, I think Mr. Anon is right. Warren is not the problem, the invocation is. Words like 'under God,' 'In God We Trust,' and '...so help me God,' are not, in themseves, the problem. They are when they are if they are in our Pledge, on our money, and/or coming out of the mouths of government officials for official purposes. Right now, they are acting in all of these capacities. These words are all beings used, right now, as official endorsements of Christianity by our government. Our government. The government that governs us all. This needs to stop.

Small Town Dumb

2008-12-29T11:02:00.000-08:00

Disturbing things afoot in small town America--imagine that! Vjack at Atheist Revolution commented on this apparent fiasco in-waiting last week (links provided later--I am not home and am having technical difficulties at the moment), and I guess it's not going away. In fact, for the poor guy who complained (and rightly so), it's gotten much worse.

It seems a man did what any citizen who gives two shits about what is and is not legal, and the separation of church and state, had the audacity to seek a dialog regarding a nativity scene displayed in a public library.

There's been a dialog, alright--on the library's public forum (again, I'll get links up as soon as I am able). Here's a taste:

that is just so stupid.... what do people think Christmas is???? the celebration of Christ's birth.... HJ, if you want to take God out of the Government, man there are alot of things that are going to have to go...... including your money which states in God we trust...... nancy has a right to her beliefs.... so do the other employee's there.... and people wonder what is wrong with this country.... no tolerance.

Right on! Uh...wait a tick. 'Tolerance.' I'm wondering if my specially patented atheist dictionary has a different meaning of the word than this commentor's specially patented Christian dictionary. I'm leaning toward that assumption, because I've come across so many instances of serious discrepancies. So, Nancy and the library's employees have a right to their beliefs, but not this guy. How dare he? We agree on one thing, though--they are absolutely right, a lot has to go, and I'm perfectly happy starting with 'In God We Trust' on the currency. We can then move on to 'Under God' in the pledge. I'm ready to remove these when you are.

And this:

As I tried to point out in my first post, the nativity isn't an offensive display, except to religious bigots (that may not be a term you hear much, but there are people that believe that any belief in a higher power of any sort is a lie, and therefore they actively fight all mention of religion).

'Relious Bigots.' Read: Atheists. Specifically, atheists who open their mouths and dare to speak reason to the unreasonable. This fellow might also do well to seriously think about the terms 'belief,' and 'unbleif' and what those things mean in this existential argument and specifically to an atheist and what that moniker actually denotes. Somehow, I think these things will be lost on him, but, whatchagonnado?

And this:

This is another sign of the war on christmas and Christianity. This guy is a loser with nothing better to do.

Hey, baby, war is over, if you want it. But then, the guy who said that was a flaming atheist. So, pointing out disparity and the role of government to not involve itself with things religious is what people with nothing better to do with their time do. Well, I surely hope there are a lot of us with nothing better to do with our time. We should be so lucky. No, sweets, the fact is that we all have many other, much better things to do with our time, but you jackasses force us to take time out of our busy schedules to step up and do what's right. So, thank you...no really, thank you for providing us with opportunity after opportunity to waste our precious time, when we could be doing other things, like, I dunno, volunteering at soup kitchens. I suppose you could be doing the same, but you're too busy getting your Hanes in a twist over some decorations. I mean, that's what folks claim, right? They're just decorations, while at the same time screaming bloody murder out of the other side of their mouths about the birth of Baby-Flippin-Jesus. Man, we just want to get through the holiday season without watching our tax dollars (I know, it's shocking to think that atheists both pay taxes and care about where they go) spent on mangers and wise men.

There have been a number of suggestions to include displays from all religions (good luck with that, I hope you have room), including atheism, which is not a religion, but people seem happy enough to throw it in there. They suggest this because, still, they just don't get it. Atheists, as far as I can tell, do not want a display of their own. Atheists only put up displays to draw attention to the fact that no displays should be up in the first place--not on public property, paid for by all tax-payers. This is rightly seen as an endorsement of religion, particularly or not. And, I'm sorry folks, religion just has no place in our government, and people of no-faith should not have to foot the bill to promote any religion, whether it's one, or all of them.

I think it's probably safe to say that we would be perfectly content to never have to mention our atheism. We don't want displays, or billboards, or anything that expresses what is really, merely, a lack of god-belief. We could be just going through our lives, doing good, loving our loved ones, helping here and there, without ever having to bring it up. But, here's the hassle: if we don't, we are overrun with religion, and it affects us in every way, especially when it is filtered through government expression, be in a nativity scene or legislation that, say, doesn't allow gays and lesbians to adopt or form meaningful, legal relationships with all the perks included therein. Or, when women are forced to turn over their bodies to someone else's moral beliefs. It's bad enough when the folks affected by these things are religious themselves, you can imagine how galling it is to be a gay or lesbian atheist, or an atheist woman. Yeah, you can just imagine. You Christians are good at imagining things, so why don't you try that hat on for size?

We don't have a choice but to express our atheism. You don't give us a choice.

This isn't that hard to figure out, and really, atheists have been pretty clear on the argument. But, again, Christians with their aforementioned (repeatedly mentioned) Persecution Complex just absolutely refuse to hear. They are waaaaay to busy stomping their feet and balling up their fists to squinty, tearful eyes to listen.

They are also too busy calling this poor, unsuspecting guy a 'jerk' and an 'asshole.' Great.

Well I doubt that anyone in Elwood will believe this!!! Some jerk... and believe me I'm being king (sic) in my adjective.... the jerk comes
into the library and DEMANDS that the Library's Christmas nativity display be taken down!!! It violates HIS rights and because it is
in a public building he DEMANDS that it be removed from the display case!!!
What an asshole!!!!

I love Christians. You always have to be alert with them, because no matter how much kindness and tolerance they preach, they are sure to throw you for a loop at every possible opportunity. No one can accuse them for not being...um...complex. Believe me, I am also being king (sic) in my adjective. That's nothing to say of the very serious abuse of the use of the exclamation point here. I would also like to point out that she doubts anyone in Elwood would believe this (!!!) I know, right? This, to me, speaks volumes of the little town of Elwood, Indiana--a place where everyone believes in a sky-fairy, but no one would believe that anyone else might not believe in the sky-fairy (shock!), or worse, that anyone might care about fairness in governmental representation and what that means. Yes. Lots of deep-thinkers there in Elwood.

Point: This guy's life has become difficult, just because he rightly and admirably chose to step up and attempt a dialog with people who have no experience in dialog (if you read the info provided by Vjack, you will see that the man did not just barge in, foaming at his baby-eating mouth, demanding the display be removed). And now he's being harassed for it:

I am the Elwood Public Library patron who complained about the nativity scene. I need help here – these people do not think the law applies to them. Please share this information with your readers. There is now a witch hunt against me, and I am seriously fearful of someone hurting me and my family. Please take a look at this link: http://www.elwoodindiana.org/elwood-library-nativity-display If you notice the signing of the name, this is a library employee that started this. If you read the comments, you will see what I am dealing with here. This is the PG version of what people are saying about me. There are other sites that people are posting to that you must have a membership to view, which are definitely rated R.

Oh, hey, thank Fingaaz for intact links through cut & paste! Please do go to Atheist Revolution, whose link can be easily found at the top, to the right, of this blog. Read the bullshit. Write to the board. This guy is in a small town and we all know that this is exactly the place that this sort of bullying and intolerance...yes, intolerance...breeds and inbreeds. The mutations that result are no less than ugly, destructive monsters. It's got tentacles, and we know how bad they are. Let's rally folks. Let's save this guy, his immediate surroundings, and the rest of the country from this freakish, genetically mutated monster--the one I will call Real Religious Bigotry.

Links - Democratic Socialism

2008-12-28T11:17:00.000-08:00

Democratic Socialism from The Barefoot Bum. And, for fun, his snarky follow-up. Everyone loves a bit of snark.

Why Atheists Hate Religion

2008-12-28T08:53:00.000-08:00

Another Christmas season as come and gone--the 'War on Christmas' is over, for this year. Be sure to look for it again about mid-November next year. I've come across more than one 'article' asking why atheists hate or fear Christians and Christianity so much--apparently, we purposefully get particularly riled up this time of year. I'd like to take a stab at answering this question, but first, I should explain that it isn't even a valid question. As in, you holy folks aren't asking the right question, and I can only assume this is so because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about (I will chalk this up to your immense persecution complex and leave it at that).

I don't know of many atheists who hate Christians, and the ones that actively do, well, I see that more as an individual character flaw that has less to do with their atheism than their general personal stupidity. There are sometimes people who just like to hate and they come in all faiths, or lack thereof. We will set those people aside as a whole other dialog that has nothing to do with atheism or Christianity.

It is likely that a number of atheists hate Christianity. Just as they hate every other organized religion. This is pretty easy to explain--they hate what these religions represent and the actions they support and propagate. I'm talking bigotry, sexism, sadism, hypocrisy...you know, the general inequality and brutishness that keeps them afloat. Atheists hate the divisions these religions create because it's these divisions that make it so hard to find peace and decency on this planet. For those who disagree, I challenge you to find me an example where atheists' and their atheism has been the root cause of systemic hatred, intolerance, violence, and death--I'm talking as a direct result of the foundations of their atheism. Don't give me that old Stalin/Hitler crap, because those loaves don't float.

The fact is that the Big Three religions have long and bloody histories, where they kill each other and every other living thing that happens to have had the great misfortune of being near them. This is why we hate these religions. Case in point. Thanks Israel.

And I don't think hate is too strong a word. Ask me if I hate violence, sexual assault, and murder. I will say that yes, I do. I hate these things. I hate them. And yes, I hate the organizational structures that continue to push these terrible things in order to prop up their sad, delusional philosophies, and more importantly, their powerful grip on the subconscious of the human race. No, hate is not too strong a word.

We also hate that we, who have no bones to pick with anyone that might result in violence and/or death (no, we have no dogma that says it's okay to kill and abuse), are continually demonized. The old argument that atheists have nothing to keep them from acting like maniacs, save our own decency that stems from a love of this life, this world, and the people in it (oh noes!) is a fallacy, and every Christian that actually stops to think about it--but who never do, because they are so ill-equipped for personal, individual considerations that fall outside the box they created for themselves--would see this. They would know this. (For a good piece on what might happen if the roles were reversed, see vjack's Atheist Revolution).

And so, we are deemed the 'bad kids.' And not just during the Christian holidays, but all year 'round. We are discriminated against, we are seen as unfit to hold office, unfit to raise children, unfit for just about anything that requires a conscience. These roles are filled to the brim with the religious, who, as one can easily see in any newspaper and on any news show, every day, sometimes, quite literally, get away with murder. And molestation. And rape. And violence. And adultery. And scams.

Why? Because there is a myth perpetuated within our culture that the religious are pious, no matter what they do, and atheists are evil and destructive, no matter what they do. And Christians wonder why we get so bunched up.

So, why does it seem like the atheists come out of the woodwork around Christmas time? Is it just to make your lives difficult, Christians? No. It's because every year, you seem to feel the need to highlight this monumental social discrepancy, by doing things like, oh, I dunno, using government branches to make a statement--that we are a Christian Nation--to all other faiths, and especially the faithless. You feel the need to scream from the mountain top that we have no place at the table and never will. How very...Christian of you.

You apparently feel like we should happily eat the shit you shovel into our mouths every. Single. Year. And let's not forget, the other 364 days. We can either stand by and take it, which is tantamount to agreeing with you, or we can make some sort of demonstration against it, which we have been doing, more and more so, every year. And we'll continue to do so, so long as you insist on making us not only feel like second class citizens, but insist on painting us in the horrible false light you insist on painting us in.

This is the bed you've made. I hope you sleep well in it, because let me tell you, our stepping up and pushing back allows me to sleep quite well.

Top Three Assholes of the Holiday Season

2008-12-27T08:44:00.000-08:00

This past semester sunk its claws into my pecs and just wouldn't let go. Technically, it still hasn't let go, as I have a thesis to write--one that should have been at least started quite some time ago. I have a lot of work to do--and so, I decide to blog. And what is blogging to someone like me besides very cheap and much needed therapy? After such a lengthy hiatus from any real blogging--I don't know if what I did can really be considered real blogging--I've decided to take it easy and not address anything too existential. Today I will comment of my Top Three Assholes of the Holiday Season.

Coming in third place is this situation. I say 'situation' because, honestly, I have a hard time figuring out who exactly is the biggest asshole in this mess. I will preface this with a disclaimer to state the obvious: It is wrong to shoot anyone for any reason. There, now that that's out of the way...

Tip to the bullet-catcher: How about, next time, not talking through the flippin' movie? I can't begin to tell you how often I've wanted a gun because some jerk-off is yammering on throughout a film. Everyone knows it's rude. Everyone knows not to do it. But, yes, it's wrong to shoot people, so Mr. Shooterman wins today's prize. But Mr. Bullet-Catcher and his Yappy Family should, I hope, take something away from this beside a little lead: Shut your pie-hole when Brad Pitt is on the screen.

In second place, we have this rocket scientist, a study in how not to win back your boyfriend. So, Idiot--we'll call her 'Idiot'--makes up a baby to lure her ex-boyfriend back, and when he does right by showing up to address the new reality that he has a son, she says, oh....er...uh...he's missing. But think not of the child, LOVE ME! See, Idiot is a real forward thinker. She's always one step ahead. The best part is this description:

She claimed her infant son had a mohawk and a tattoo.

I laugh out loud every time I think of this. I am laughing right now. So, Idiot files a missing persons report, yadda, yadda, yadda, and wasted authorities' time on Christmas Eve, when I'm sure lots of horrible, real-life tragic events were occurring, you know, to people who could have used those resources. And it never once occurs to her that this can go nowhere but down. Down, down. Like, really badly down. And how about the boyfriend, whom we will call the Inadvertent Sucker? Inadvertent Sucker took an involuntary roller coaster ride at Mind Fuck Amusements this Christmas, c/o his Idiot ex. Good job, Idiot. Bravo!

The winner this year, as I'm sure you all guessed, is this waste of skin and hair (you should know that in order to find a link to provide here, I simply Goggled 'Santa rampage.' Something is wrong with the world).

So, guy is disgruntled because of a recent job-loss and a divorce (recent lay-offs and new divorcees across the country are scratching their heads and claiming they didn't know this was an option). Waste of Skin and Hair (WoS&H for the sake of brevity) dresses up like Santa Claus, shoots an 8-year-old girl in the face upon entering the domicile of his ex-wife's family, goes on a shooting 'rampage' (as my Google search would suggest), douses the place with racing fuel which prematurely ignites, receives third-degree burns, melts his Santa suit to his very own self, then drives to his brother's house, rigs explosives to his car, and offs himself. He didn't plan that last bit--he meant to go to Canada, and apparently live in the wilderness, or something. I can't imagine how he thought he might ever be able to live among the populace, even in heathen Canada, again.

Some might say that WoS&H had deep psychological issues that were sparked by recent negative turn of events in his life. I would buy this, if it weren't for the fact that he deliberately dressed up as Santa---what? To finagle his way into the house? He had a gun! The first thing he did was shoot an 8-year-old girl in the face! And after wreaking so much havoc, it wasn't enough. He knew he was going to die but he couldn't stand the thought of not killing at least a few more people, so he rigs his car, you know, just to take out a few first responders.

No. This guy can't rely 'mental illness' to somehow explain his actions. The only reasonable explanation is that this guy was an asshole. Crime of passion? Momentary lapse in judgment? No. This guy wanted to create as much pain and suffering as he possible could. This guy was just an asshole. He was the kind of guy who deliberately drove through puddles while people with umbrellas walked along the side of the road, trying to stay dry. He was the kind of guy who left quarter tips and loosened the screw cap on the salt for the next diners to discover.

And today, I'm a big enough asshole to hope he had fun with that whole Santa suit melted into his very flesh thing. Congratulations to Waste of Skin and Hair for being this year's number one Asshole of the Holiday Season, and almost guaranteeing a real-life Silent Night Deadly Night in the shape of that little girl in about 10-12 years.

The Hardcore Atheism Meme

2008-12-20T06:20:00.000-08:00

Thanks to vjack over at Atheist Revolution, I have something to blog about that requires no thought. :)

The rules:

Copy and paste the list below on your own site, boldfacing the things you’ve done. (Feel free to add your own elaboration and commentary to each item!)

The list:

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
3. Created an atheist blog.
4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron (well, I can't watch it either way).
7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
9. Have come out as an atheist to your family.
10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.
11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony (I've attended one, does that count?).
13. Donated money to an atheist organization.
14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.
17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.
18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
19. Attended a protest that involved religion.
20. Attended an atheist conference.
21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.
22. Started an atheist group in your area or school.
23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.
25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).
29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills (only when I'm feeling particularly surly).
30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”(It's amazing how offended people seem when you say nothing at all).
32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
33. Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.
35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant (I did, but I now have the Gospel of Fingaaz, my own personal pretend god).
36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).
37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)
38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.
39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).
45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.” (It's on the list of htings to do).
47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-27T07:20:00.000-08:00

So, today is Thanksgiving. Between the attacks in Mumbai and the watching of the documentary Why We Fight last night and ruminating on our nation's scary, heart-dropping Capitalistic military industrial complex, it's hard to find big things to be thankful for, let alone to have much hope. But I'll give it a shot.

Today, I've decided to be thankful for people. This is a big step for me, especially in light of so much destruction, perpetrated by people for one reason or another, be it their religion or their greed. One has to keep in mind that for every individual destructive force, there is, hopefully, one for good. I'm thankful for all the people who work to make the world better, less violent and more altruistic. Often, it seems like those people are few, or that their voices are rarely heard above the din of explosions or the gibbering nonsense of mobs. They’re there, though. They feed the hungry, they clothe the needy. They speak to authority and make tiny inroads to right wrongs. And they are frequently derided as being day-dreamers, as if defending the rights and needs of other human beings in light of those ever-present and insidiously undulating ‘needs’ of caustic forces, whether in the form of, say, corporations, or worse, nameless, faceless dogmatic concepts like religion or nationalism, is passé. As if this work is not worth doing, and even if it was, it is useless, or powerless.

I was recently involved on my campus in bringing Mark Rudd in as a speaker. He was a high-ranking member of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 60s, and went on to become a member of the Weather Underground, spending seven years or so as a fugitive. While he regretted the path and the actions of that group, both for moral and logistical reasons, he did not necessarily abandon the impetus for such actions, which I appreciated. Towards the end of the lecture, a friend of mine spoke up and told Mark that, during that time, he considered him as a sort of hero. Mark is a wonderfully affable and humble person, and for a moment, it seemed he didn’t quite know how to take such a statement. My friend, John, clarified with this: Some people care about shapes, and colors, and we call those people artists. Some people care about people. Those are moral artists.” There was a thoughtful silence in the room for a few moments. A moral artist. Someone who cares about people the way an artist cares about, say, the picture he’s painting, or the sculpture he’s shaping—colors as needs, shapes as rights, and putting it all together so that it becomes a coherent image of what we have and what we require to live on this planet.

I am thankful for all of the moral artists out there.

The 'Undecideds'

2008-11-02T06:06:00.000-08:00

I was over at Atheist Revolution, and had my hackles raised by the subject of this post. (Thanks vjack...heh).

Few things irk me more than the fact that I've been up on politics and this election for two flippin years now (I'm stressed, I am tired), and again, like always, when it comes down to it, these self-important nimrods to are 'undecided' get a tremendous amount of attention for being the 'deciding votes.' As far as I'm concerned, if you are really 'undecided' at this point, considering the length and breadth of this campaign season, you just haven't been paying attention and have no idea what's going on. In fact, I will go so far to say that, considering the saturation of the media with this national event, you'd have to have been really going out of your way to avoid information on the election, and if that's the case, how on earth do these shit-for-brains get the 'deciding vote?' It makes me want to say that anyone who says they're 'undecided' at this point, with a stupid giddy smile because they think they're special, should have their voter registration cards taken away, because they clearly have no idea what's going on.

I like the idea that every American has the right to vote--it sounds nice. The fact is that when the Constitution was being argued, Federalists believed that the people were self-serving, antagonistic idiots who couldn't handle the responsibility of voting, and the Anti-Federalists believed that an informed populace that realized the value of being informed and actively taking part in decision-making that affected their lives was possible. Though the Anti-Federalists lost out to the Federalists in many aspects of our Constitution, on the idea of the informed popular vote, they won. Only to have these 'undecided' shitsticks centuries later walk into voting booths with no idea of what's going on, actively participating with no consideration as to the affect of their uninformed vote on the process. Because it's their 'right.' Because they're Americans. It's amazing the kind of crap one can get away with just because one if an 'American.'

I'm not for disenfranchising anyone, but really, I see the uniformed vote as not just a handful of useless votes, but as actual, real, counted votes that affect elections. It's completely contrary to what those 18th century folks who argued on our behalf to get our voices heard intended, and is only proving the point of the votes who didn't want us to have a direct voice in government.

Jackasses.

Gov. Avon Lady & the Witch Doctor

2008-10-06T03:52:00.000-07:00

Watch this clip from Bill Maher's Real Time:

And finally, new rule: You can’t be President if you practice a violent, Middle Eastern religion and worship a genocidal desert god. Which is why Sarah Palin can’t be President. Now all the churches that Sarah Palin has attended, and she’s been to almost as many churches as she has colleges, have one thing in common: a belief that the Bible is literally true. She’s not “Country First”, she’s “Bible First”. And not just the New Testament. That’s the happy half of the book: the baby in the manger, Jesus doing magic tricks, long romantic walks on the water that turn into fishing trips with the guys and a generally positive message. Jesus, after all, preached love and forgiveness, not shooting wolves from an airplane...

Pastor Thinks his Flock are Idiots Too

2008-09-29T03:59:00.000-07:00

Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only one. That seems like a harsh thing to say, but really...

Rev. Johnson and 32 other pastors are openly preaching politics in their churches, ignoring the special rule special religious folks get so they can skip out on their taxes. I'm getting to where I'm fine with this--I'm just looking for any reason to take this privilege away from churches and make the pony up the phat cash the rest of us have to. Yes, yes, there's the separation of church and state, but we all know that's a bit of a joke, so, since we seem to need the extra income anyway, let's reform the tax code. That aside, here's the best part of the article:

Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own.

Okay, that's the second best part. Here's the best part:

The congregation greeted Johnson's reasoning and his criticism of Obama with applause.

"He's right! We're rock stupid!" He might be right. Those people need all the help they can get in making, probably, the most menial decisions. He might have to walk them to the polling stations.

Obama Too Cool?

2008-09-26T07:11:00.000-07:00

Now I've heard everything. This...this is just ridiculous.

DUNEDIN, Fla. — Where many politicians would have aspired to show anger, Senator Barack Obama spoke in a soft, even tone as he reached the crescendo of his speech Wednesday about government mismanagement of the economy...
...
Two hours later, after Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, said he would temporarily stop campaigning because of the economic crisis, Mr. Obama looked downright unflappable at a news conference. Referring to this week of economic peril — and tweaking his Republican rival — Mr. Obama said flatly, “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time.”
However forceful and passionate Mr. Obama can be, his speeches and public appearances this week have underscored how he is sometimes out of sync with the visceral anger of Americans who are losing their jobs and homes. He often talks about growing up on food stamps and about having paid off his student loans only recently, yet his tone and volume, body language, facial expressions and words convey a certain distance from the ache that many voters feel.

What? That's what Americans want? They want a President who is as panic-stricken as they are in a time of crisis? Have we lost our minds?? This is as stupid as those idiots who will vote McCain because they feel Sarah Palin is 'just like them,' or the morons who voted in Bush, twice, because they thought they could 'have a beer' with him. Seriously people?

If Bush was going to have a beer, he wouldn't be having it with some poor slob from, say, Lawrenceville, outside Pittsburgh. And, really, there are really people out there who would vote McCain because they feel like they could do a good job as VP--some hockey mom PTA-er who 'knows what it's like to balance family and work?' Really? And, seriously, we really want a President who's about to blow a gasket on live TV because we ourselves are feeling somewhat freaked out by the economy?

We've lost our minds. Really, if this is how the majority of Americans are thinking, we with a thimble full of sense need to vacate the premises and let these idiots ride this nation into the ground. I hear Sweden's nice...

Sarah Palin's Church: A Clear Menace

2008-09-07T14:09:00.000-07:00

Watch this. Watch it right now.

Sarah Palin's churches are actively involved in a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same 'Spiritual Warfare' movement that was featured in the award winning movie, "Jesus Camp," which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin's churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world.

Yes, read, but more importantly watch. Pay special attention to the societal roles of some of these people: administrators, teachers, vice principles...this is very, very upsetting. These people are psychotic.

If you were on the fence before--if you're one of many atheists who, like me, have been concerned about the Democrats turn towards faith and away from secularism--then you really need to watch this. If you can, find a church like this near you and attend. Watching the video is terrifying, but it's nothing compared to being in the same room with this kind of insanity (and make no bones about it, this is nothing short of insanity).

This is the church of McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin. This is the person who will be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I do strongly suggest that you make it a top priority to be at the polls on November 4th.

Inaction, in the face of this, is irresponsible and reprehensible, and if McCain wins, frankly, unforgivable.

Who the Hell is this Woman?

2008-09-06T06:16:00.000-07:00

Out of necessity, this blog must take on a decidedly political bent. I really wanted to keep it strictly about atheism and religion, but the current political climate forces me to do otherwise.

I missed the DNC convention last week as I was out of the country, and even missed the introduction of Sarah Palin as the GOP VP pick (imagine my surprise when I re-reentered the country and found it on the airport CNN broadcasts). At first, I thought, 'Really? Joke?' I thought McCain had finally proven his senility to the country in one fell swoop. I certainly know better now. This woman is a menace.

From what I understand of her, she is worse than what we've been putting up with for the last 8 years. If the far Religious Right thought they had power before, now it will know no bounds (just when we thought it was on the wane). The thing about Bush is that, despite his yammering on about his God and mission, there was a safe spot in the back of our minds that told us he didn't really mean it. It was all a big show to keep the nutters happy and guarantee their votes when needed. He didn't really believe it. Maybe to an extent, but it was never anything that topped his political ambitions. With Palin, it looks as though we have a real warrior for God. This is disturbing. More than that, it is horrifying.

Now here this:

Palin has called on people to pray for the cooperation necessary to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska, labeled the U.S. mission in Iraq a "task that is from God" and argued that students should be taught the creation account from Genesis in public schools.

Click the link and read more about her views on the environment and foreign policy as influenced directly by her faith. Her theological background preaches 'man's dominion over the earth,' and in that sense, all the drilling, polluting, and destroying matters not.

"When she talks about using up our non-renewable resources, drilling on the North Slope and building the pipeline, it's almost with glee because in a sense it doesn't matter," said Nancy Hardesty, a professor of religion at Clemson University in South Carolina.

Her own pastor has this to say regarding her foreign policy outlook:

Rev. Tim McGraw, Palin's pastor when she became mayor of Wasilla, said believers look to Israel for signs of the coming end times and where they are in God's plan. That would undoubtedly influence Palin's approach to foreign policy, McGraw said.

Not terrified enough, ladies? How about this? She opposes sex-ed and supports abstinence only education. This is despite her own teenage daughter getting knocked up, unmarried. Guess that promise ring didn't do much to keep her from playing a little 'hide the sausage' with a 'fucking redneck' (yeehaw! Embarrassed guy? You should be). If this woman can't get abstinence only to work in her own family, how does she expect it to work for an entire nation?

Solution? Keep the baby! All of them! Now matter what! That's right, if Palin has her way, we will have no choice, ladies. McCain wants to overtrun Roe v. Wade. Palin wants it too, one state at a time and regardless of the situation. From her 2006 gubernatorial race:

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

This is hardcore even to the average Anti-Choicer.

Ladies, don't be stupid--a vagina isn't a vagina isn't a vagina. You can't just throw a set of genitals up there and say, ah, she speaks for me because we both have vaginae. Please. A vote for Palin isn't a vote for a woman's rights. I've seen this type of 'powerful woman' before. This is the kind of woman who knows that in order to make it in life--to get ahead in powerful positions--she must go along with the sexist status quo. Her religion has made this easier for her. She is the type of woman who knows that in order to get along with men and become 'one of the boys,' she has to act and think like one of them, which is to say, she must oppose everything that is good and equal for women and do her best to uphold business as usual. Worse, she needs to do what she can to take away what rights we've fought to hard to acquire over the years. This is one way women can get men to like them. The other way is to screw them.

This is not a feminist candidate. This woman is not for us, she is against us. Do not be fooled. If we expect to be considered for more than our genitals, we have to look at the rest of the world and each other in the same way. Look at this woman's credentials and try to control your gag reflex as you want to throw up at the spectacle of the Republican Party snagging a traditionally Democratic cornerstone--feminism--and rape it. Want to puke? Me too.

To recap, and more:

She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Got it? Good. That was my plea to women not smart enough to figure it out. This is my plea to men not smart enough to figure something else out: Just because she's doable doesn't mean it's okay to vote for her. I understand some men's desire to have a little eye-candy around, but really, this is not the time, nor the place. Put it back in your pants and start thinking with your big head.

Yay for Christian Alarmist Propaganda

2008-09-04T06:12:00.000-07:00

Oh, what one stumbles upon in the early hours whilst slowly extricating oneself from the peaceful void of slumber over a cup of coffee.

Check out Clifford Goldstein's 'Faith Attack' on Liberty Magazine Online. First off, the language used referring to atheists and atheism is clearly chosen very carefully to invoke the popular 'militant' image of atheists among Christians. Usually, when I come across this sort of rhetoric, I can safely dismiss the whole article as alarmist drivel. This is no exception. Enjoy some of these choice excerpts:

Picture this dystopia: in the name of rationality, reason, and science—religion is severely pro-scribed. Some religious beliefs— beliefs —deemed so dangerous that those holding them should be killed. The concept of religious “tolerance” would also be anathema: persons would not be allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs they chose—this cannot be for beliefs deemed irrational. And parents could be charged with “child abuse” for giving their offspring a religious education.

It all sounds like something from the failed social experiments of the Soviet Union, the Eastern bloc countries, and other now defunct Marxist regimes, perhaps?

Perhaps. Yet that kind of society would be the logical outgrowth of views promoted by an elitist clique of atheist writers, philosophers, scientists, and scholars. Dr. Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are at the forefront of what’s been dubbed “the new atheism,” a take-no-prisoners, shock-and-awe assault on any theism at all.

Ever see those silly little comic tracts depicting poor Christians in tattered clothing running for their very lives through dark woods in such a bleak and violent future-vision such as this? I have and they'd be funny if they weren't such an accurate description of how some Christians seem to think they are truly persecuted. Goldstein, please. Now, he does quote Harris a little later:

Sam Harris, in his screed The End of Faith, writes, “I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” As if that weren’t enough, he argues that “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

I haven't read Harris. I'll assume he did indeed say these things. And if Harris suggests that anyone be killed for holding any idea, then I would say that Harris is a schmuck. I'll go ahead and put myself out there now to speak for what I believe the majority of atheists think--that no one be killed for their beliefs, and even that no laws be enacted to infringe of any believers' right to believe whatever they want and to worship. That said, though, what Harris says about "very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss"--I agree. I do. I do believe that one major factor in humanity's long, slow spiral downwards is this sad and pervasive tendency to believe in irrational things. And the huge problem of not being allowed to directly address the issue without being told we are intolerant, or worse, militant, and being accused of wanting to physically wipe out Christians. Fact is, no one can say 'boo' about anyone's religion, no matter how ridiculous, and actually, how violent, it can be.

This is what I think Goldstein's real problem is. He seems like a relatively intelligent person, so I don't really believe that he really believes that any part of the atheist 'agenda' involves actually hunting down and killing Christians in droves. When he pulls the Harris quote, he effectively, by means of the opening paragraph, paints all atheists--specifically Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, etc.--with the same violent, bloodthirsty brush. It has been these same men who have made it a little easier to criticize religion. These popular thinkers/authors have made gains for atheists to be able to articulate our problems with religion. And since there's nothing actually wrong with that, Goldstein must drum up some real (well, imagined) fear. Hence, we are all just foaming at the mouth to shoot all Christians for nothing more than believing. It's ridiculous, and thoroughly dishonest.

Much of the rest of the article is hardly worth touching, except for this little gem, referring to religious indoctrination as child abuse:

Children do need to be taught something about themselves, their origins, and their destiny, right? The new atheists, then, would teach their children—what? That we’re created by chance, with no ultimate purpose or destiny, and that more conscious thought went into someone spray painting graffiti on a wall than went into our existence? Children who lose siblings, friends, or parents must be taught that these people are gone forever, with no hope of ever seeing them again. The children will also learn that they themselves, and all their hopes and dreams and desires, will also one day be forever gone—with no hope of redemption, no hope of having the hard questions answered, no hope of anything but the pain and suffering of this life, followed by the eternal blackness of a cold and dead universe.

Child abuse, Dr. Dawkins, can come in myriad forms.

Where to even begin? Mr Goldstein: We don't teach our children we were 'created' by chance, and for myself, the theories we have as to how exactly life came about are rather amazing and, frankly, uplifting. You're right, I don't believe that I have a particular purpose or destiny, but I have a whole lot of fun going through life deciding what I want it to be (because it is exactly what I want to to be), instead of looking up to a God with whom I have no direct, tangible contact to tell me what it is, and then sighing in resignation when I get to the end of my life, forced to be content with never really knowing how I fit into 'his plan.' And, no, I don't need to know that thought was put into my very existence--the fact that I exist is astounding and, to me, an incredibly happy and positive thought.

And yes, we lose people we love, and yes, we will never see them again, just as someday we will die and that will be the end of that. Frankly, that is infinitely more preferable than going through life believing that one misstep on my part (a misstep, by the way, constantly provoked by God himself, as for some reason he saw fit to fill our world with endless temptation and suffocating rules) and I burn in hell. Yes, indeed, give me nothingness--if nothing else, at least it's poetic.

Now, let me repeat the last bit:

"...with no hope of redemption, no hope of having the hard questions answered, no hope of anything but the pain and suffering of this life, followed by the eternal blackness of a cold and dead universe."

Really...that's what you think atheists teach their kids? Dude, what's wrong with you? First off, we would only worry about redemption if we were teaching ourselves we had done something wrong. Since we don't, we don't really have to worry about redemption. That's your problem and you bring it on yourself. As to answering the hard questions--scientists have been answering many hard questions for quite some time. Will I die before some are answered? Of course. But the amount I'm able to learn through the scientific work of others already fills my lifetime with a tremendous amount of awe and wonder, and for that, I am perfectly content. Actually, it's very exciting. Disappointment at the end of life can only come as the same sense of not being able to finish watching the movie. Oh well. No hope for anything but the pain and suffering of this life? What life are you leading? Thus far, I've had a pretty good life. Has there been pain and suffering? Sure. But really, is your outlook on life so pathetically bleak that you teach your kids that there is nothing but pain and suffering and the only relief is in dying? That isn't the outlook of atheists, that is the outlook of Christians. Clearly.

Well, that was fun. I hope you all have enjoyed this excursion into the mind of a Christian alarmist and his pathetic, bigoted, fear-mongering propaganda. Have a swell day.

I Have Returned

2008-09-02T05:44:00.000-07:00

This post is nothing more than a note to say I've returned. I've been back a couple of days, actually, but classes have officially started as well and that's been keeping me busy.

The King's College expedition was a success--while I was sure I'd have to find what I needed, to be honest, it was a bit of a crap shoot. However, out of 69 letters, I narrowed it down to 2 plus a few notes that were exactly what I was looking for (*relief*). It took me two days to read two letters, his handwriting was so poor. But I triumphed, and then hopped a train down to Bath to get drunk with friends--which I did with a certain amount of celebratory gusto. Oh, to be in a place where the Guinness doesn't taste like ass.

Now that that's out of the way, I give you this for fun:

A Donegal atheist had to be buried in Londonderry because the county has no facilities for non-religious burials.

Journalist Roy Greenslade's mother was buried in Ballyowen cemetery in Derry on Tuesday after a humanist service.
He said he was told atheists could not be buried in Donegal because the graveyards are church-owned.
"Therefore unless one is willing to compromise one's beliefs by agreeing to a religious service, it is impossible to be buried," he said.
"There is a degree of black comedy about this, and my mother, who had a fantastic sense of humour, would certainly have laughed.
"When I rang up and asked Derry City Council's cemeteries department if it was possible to bury an atheist in a municipal cemetery they said it was possible because there were different sections for Catholics, Protestants and Muslims.
"My wife asked if it meant they were going to start an atheist section and the woman said, 'oh no, she can go in with the Protestants'."
A spokesperson from Donegal County Council said it is only responsible for old and unused graveyards.

Haha...

'Religulous' and Other Sundry Details

2008-08-21T06:29:00.000-07:00

I'm going to preface this with an quick update/newsflash...whatever you want to call it. I'm preparing the head off to Cambridge for a week, starting this Saturday, and when I get back from there next Saturday, I start class two days later. So...I'm busy getting all my ducks in a row, and hence...less blogging. I might have one more post in me before I head out, but then it'll be dry here for a week. I would like to post the Rick Warren questions here so we can all answer them, and I realize that by the time I can, the 'story' will be out-dated, but I might do it anyway. I'd like to thank Hess for the links and such.

Now that that's out of the way, I just want to post this: Bill Maher's Religulous is coming out (wide release...or, at least, wider) on October 3rd.
Trailer:

Maher on Larry King:

Pay attention to what Maher is saying around the 4:15 mark. He says something I've been saying for a while: He says he is trying to rouse the 16% or so of faithless folks to do something. We are larger than most minorities who, through their action, rather than inaction, have made and continue to make their voices heard. There is no reason we can't be one of those vocal minorities that demands respect.

Go see this when it comes out. Break the box office. Go to a theater near you, and if it's not at a theater near you, gather your godless friends and take a road trip. It'll be fun, and worth it. Numbers, folks. All we need to do is remind them that despite our minority status, we do actually have numbers and we can, when we want to, if we want to, act.

Commies vs Christians

2008-08-19T07:13:00.000-07:00

I have a lot of problems with China. Their pollution, they're human rights violations, the fact that they hold our purse strings. Overall, China hasn't been doing a whole lot lately to thrill me, and no amount of Olympic Games is going to change that. I can't suddenly respect the host when I come over for dinner and I can clearly see the pancake make-up his wife is wearing to cover up the abuse.

I am also not thrilled with their censorship. It's bad. It's bad in any decent, functioning free society. I would say that in 99.9% of cases, I will always come down on the side of free speech and our lovely First Amendment. That being said, though, I would be a stinking liar if I said the following didn't give me a jolt of joy:

A group of American Christians who had more than 300 Bibles confiscated by Chinese customs officials left the airport Monday after a 26-hour standoff, saying they realized officials would not change their stance.

Idiots. Can't you just go to China and watch the flippin' games like everyone else? No.

"We're very disappointed, for a country saying they're opening up and things are getting better, it sure doesn't seem like it," a representative of the group, Pat Klein, told the AP by telephone. The Sheridan, Wyoming-based group distributes Bibles and Christian teaching materials around the world.

Yes, it is sad that China isn't really opening up to the world, but, really? I can guess the Christian standpoint as vividly illustrated here, but really? Is there some god-given (sic) right for Christians to ignore a nation's protocol and inundate the world with their friggin' bibles?

"The Chinese Christians have been asking us for Bibles, saying they are desperate for Bibles," he said.

Yes, because this is what the Chinese really need. Bibles. Books. Flaps of faux-leather with reams of toilet tissue in between. Not food, clothing, medical supplies. Not safe working conditions, humane hours, and a decent quality of life. Not clean air. They need...desperately, mind you...bibles.

In China, Bibles are printed at just one plant, run by a government-backed Christian association for use in officially sanctioned churches. Though they can be purchased in some bookstores, they're hard to find.

Oh noes! They're getting the wrong kind of bibles! They're getting bibles that might have been censored, or re-written, or (god forbid) illustrated with funny little Chinese illustrations! Not at all like our fancy-shmancy American bibles, which are true to the last word and inherently right at all times.

Like I said, it would be nice if China cleaned up their act in many areas. It seems to me, though, that almost any practice that keeps Christianity from getting so strong a toe-hold you end up with your political parties having special services for them at their conventions, or when you're Presidential candidates meet for the first time under religious auspices...can't be that bad.

Feeble Plug

2008-08-18T19:30:00.000-07:00

I must plug The Feeble Lance again. You should know that episode three of his podcast is up and available. If you haven't listened to episodes one and two, you may do so here and here. As much as its happy host would like me to, I can't plug The Feeble Lance every week (we're still in negotiations regarding logo tattoos of the other's site on the necks of our mothers). I am doing so this week because A) I do like his show, and B) I wanted an excuse to also plug his Cafe Press store featuring:

That's right, Feeble Wear. All I know is that he's got this:

...and I almost bust a gut when I saw it. Admit it fellas, what lovely godless lady wouldn't love one of these? Or this:

Ladies, how satisfying would it be to see the look of fear in that Christian catch's eyes when they behold you towering over them after you've managed to convince them that screwing you wouldn't really count as a sin? I know you're with me on this.

Here's the best part, because Hess is one of those wacky atheists who likes to give and do good (see previous post), he is donating every thing he makes from sales from now until October 30th to the Atheist Nexus social networking site. So, not only can you get some nifty atheist gear for your friends and loved ones, you can also feel good knowing the proceeds are going to support a new atheist driven site with much potential for good. Whaddya say?

There are also t-shirts, boxers, bibs, stickers and other such items. I got me some mini-buttons. I like buttons. Heh...

Sheep vs Wolves

2008-08-18T18:46:00.000-07:00

It's Monday evening and I've just finished watching Yul Brynner in Invitation to a Gunfighter (I'm on a Yul western kick as of late)--I'm sort of bored, although I have tons to do, I just don't feel like doing any of it at this time of evening. So, I'm clicking random atheist-type links and I wind up on a Modesto Bee headline: Modesto-area Atheists Speak Up, Seek Tolerance.

Nothing particularly mind-blowing about the article--atheists want to be treated with respect...we know that. Maybe it was mildly interesting to me to think of California atheists being so put-upon, but then, religious folk really are everywhere. There's a matter of the polls quoted, but whatever. I might have also been a little confused over one self-proclaimed atheist/practicing pagan--maybe I just don't know much about paganism. That's worthy of discussion, but that's not what I want to discuss here. I want to discuss the comments attached to this article.

After reading these, I suspect, like me, you will hardly know where to begin.

Tortie says:

I am an atheist. Every day I seek to make life better for other living creatures, humans, animals, or plants. 2 years ago I took a local homeless family of 3 and paid for 6 months apartment rent and cosigned the lease. I also furnished the apartment and bought them a car. This cost me $25,000 in all, and I am not even remotely a millionaire. I don't buy jewelry, I don't go to the movies or travel, I buy clothes on sale. I use what money I have to make life better for others and to make the world a better and happier place.

To which rivvet retorts:

So...are we supposed to think more of you because you just came on here and bragged about how generous you are? What good does your giving do if it only serves in the end to make your world better? You're giving because ultimately you believe it will make YOU more comfortable. That's not selfless. That's selfish. Giving is a good thing. No doubt. But to what end? The only selfless giving is that which only you and your Creator know about. But then again, you don't believe He exists. Good thing He doesn't think that about you. *POOF*

Are you like 'wow?' I was like 'wow.' Here we have an article about how atheists generally feel uncomfortable about coming out about their atheism because of how badly we are perceived--a perception, mind you, based on absolutely nothing but bigoted vitriol. It begins:

Some local atheists who replied to an invitation in The Bee were afraid of adverse reactions at their places of work. Others worried about being flooded "with unwanted attention from zealots," and two were protective of neighbors and spouses. One hesitated to talk on the record, but then said, "If I don't speak up, who will?"

Who will indeed? Then you have an example of extreme Christian intolerance in response. If we are to believe tortie, and I see no real reason not to, he or she just gave $25,000 to some folks who didn't have it. And how much you want to bet tortie didn't once say to those people 'I'll give you all this, but you have to renounce your god or gods and become an atheist.' Somehow I doubt that's how it went down. One would call this a wonderful example of altruistic giving, and, oh no, it came from one of us godless heathens.

Of course, for rivvet, tortie's giving wasn't altruistic at all. Rivvet believes that tortie only gave to serve his or her own needs. "You're giving because ultimately you believe it will make YOU more comfortable" says rivvet. Rivvet calls tortie selfish, saying the only selfless giving is "that which only you and your Creator know about."

I don't even know what that means. What I do know is that, the way I see it, Christians generally don't give or do good works because they simply want to help their fellow man. Unlike atheists (who don't do good based on a rewards system), Christians labor under the impression that the more good they do, the better chance they have of slipping past St. Peter at the pearly gates; the less good they do, well, we know what happens there. Talk about selfish? They don't help people because it's good to help people; they help people because 1) they make more Christians that way (you can have this if you pray to my God) and 2) to save their own asses in the so-called afterlife. Again, atheists don't need some promise of eternal life on fluffy clouds drinking Virgin Marys. Atheists do good because it's good to do good.

And that's all the Modesto-area atheists want people to know. We do good. Rivvet's comment made it very clear that it may very well not matter how much good we do. We could save the world from hunger and suffering, and as long as an atheist was resonsible for the good, they will find a way to demonize us anyway. We can probably never appear to be average, easy-going folks who are as inclined to charity as anyone else--the more good we do, the more suspicious they will be.

To quote a quoting Christian I've come across recently on a fellow atheist's blog: 'Jesus said: I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye, therefore, wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.' He didn't actually add the 'wise as serpents' or 'harmless as doves' part. But it was clear that Christains were the sheep and we atheists were the wolves. We are wolves and will always be wolves. Even when we are clearly happy, innocuous sheep bleating cheerily to our neighbors, we will only really be wolves in sheep's clothing. And they will always have to be wise as serpents, which, in the case of rivvet, actually means to be suspicous and insulting, assuming the worst. Rivvet also decided to forgo being as harmless as a dove. They always forget that part.

Candidates Take Part in Massive Church Fundraiser

2008-08-17T08:21:00.000-07:00

So, I'm a-Googlin' and a-searchin' for a complete list of the questions Rick Warren asked the candidates last night, as I'd like to answer them myself, and I came across this little nugget of information that stopped me. And I couldn't get around it to move on, so I have to blog about it. This is the Wikipedia entry for the 'debate:'

On August 16, 2008, Rick Warren arranged a meeting between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama at Saddleback called the Civil Forum on The Presidency, where the two alternated speaking and were asked questions by Warren. Held inside Saddleback's Worship Center, the event is notable as the first time the two Presidential candidates met during the campaign. It was broadcast live on national news networks. Tickets were distributed to church members through a raffle with seats listing as high as $1,000 and the event was sold out.

I need more information, because this made me choke on my coffee.

This piece from Aug 4 says:

Last week Saddleback Church folks told us we’d know today how people could get tickets for the Aug. 16 forum where John McCain and Barack Obama will be questioned by Pastor Rick Warren.
Sorry. No go. Today the Saddleback Web site says a “limited number of community tickets will be available Wednesday, Aug. 13.”

What I am being told that they’re still working out how many media spots there will be and what Secret Service says it needs. Not to mention what the campaigns will require in terms of seats for their people.

So, they raffled tickets to their members and whatever might be left over three days before the event goes to the campaigns and then whatever's left over after that goes to the 'community?' Does that sound right? Then there's this from Aug 11:

All general admission tickets to the Saddleback Civil Forum this Saturday have been distributed, according to the Saddleback Church Web site.

A previous posting on their site announced that a limited number of community tickets would be available Wednesday, Aug. 13, but a posting late Monday announced that all general tickets had been dispersed. It is unclear if all tickets are gone.

Okay, so before the date for community dispersal, all tickets are gone. And then there's this put-out YouTuber. And this:

Church officials said they'd hoped to have some tickets available for the public but ran out when they couldn't satisfy demand among church members, who got the first crack at tickets that sold for $500 to $2,000.

Church officials said they decided to charge admission for people who wanted a chance to see the Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls because of the expenses to stage the event and provide television feeds to a host of networks.

Now there's mention in the comments of that video that Saddleback had to charge exorbenant amounts of cash for tickets because they needed to pay for High-Def equipment to televise it, and of course the comment above regarding feeds. Hmmm...

First off, they're a massive mega-church and I have a hard time believing they couldn't afford it in the first place. Second, I also find it hard to beieve that networks, who want to televise this, aren't providing their own feeds and what-not. Third, no amount of needing money makes it okay to sell these tickets soley among church members and not to the public--had it not been televised and it was a private function, I could see that, but because they chose to televise it and make it available to the public, it would only have been right to allow the public to participate. And finally, all that expensive equipment...does Saddleback get to keep that, or to they give it to the networks? If they give it all away (not sell it, mind you, give it away) then Saddleback can walk away knowing only that they should have opened tickets up to the public. If Saddleback keeps all of the equipment--if they keep one cent of the money or anything that money bought--it was nothing but a fundraiser. And I have a feeling they won't be giving that stuff away.

So, not only was last night's event hard to watch for its content, it was infinitely more insidious and disgusting than I thought--our Presidential Candidates seemed to have knowingly taken part in a massive church fundraiser at the expense of our Democracy. Good job, guys. The most ironic part: The thrust of this forum was to drill the candidates on their faith and how they interpret it through their lives and leadership. I would suspect that morals and ethics would come into play at some point. Is this ironic, or is it just me?

If anyone knows exactly how much the mega-church raked in off our collective voting backs, please let me know so I can have an aneurysm.

UPDATE: Apparently, cash over production costs goes to the church's PEACE plan. The OC Registry says:

Warren noted that McCain and Obama have endorsed Saddleback's PEACE Plan, a strategy to mobilize churches to fight global problems such as illiteracy, corrupt leadership and disease.

I'm sure this PEACE plan doesn't include an ounce of proselytizing. I'm sure.

h/t to Hess from Feeble Lance.

The Not-So-Great Debate

2008-08-16T15:44:00.000-07:00

Anyone remember this?

A Who's Who of America's top scientists are launching a quixotic last-minute effort this week to force presidential candidates to detail the role science would play in their administrations -- a question they say is key to the future of the country, if not the world.

What? Presidential candidates debating and discussing science? The very science(s) that affect our daily lives in vital ways--medically, environmentally, technologically? That's madness! That was in December, '07.

"Right now we have a confluence of issues facing candidates: embryonic stem cell research, global warming, science and technology education, biotechnology and energy policy -- it's just becoming an avalanche," says Lawrence Krauss, a physics professor at Case Western University, and author of the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek. "I think at some level, you have to get some insight into what the candidates know, or what they're willing to learn."

Made sense, didn't it? Of course, that debate never materialized, not during the primaries and obviously not now. In fact, this is what we're getting instead.

Whose side is God on? Although that probably won’t be determined tonight, we will see Barack Obama and John McCain on stage together for the first time this political season. Brought together by the best-selling author and pastor of the fourth largest church in the U.S., pastor Rick Warren will talk to both candidates tonight for about an hour each.

That's right. The first debate, taking place tonight, between the Presidential nominees will be about faith and it will be moderated by Rick Warren, pastor of the Evangelical mega-church, Saddleback, and author of The Purpose Driven Life.

Apparently, a pretend supernatural being and 'his' ancient dogmatic writings dictating morality is more important than real science regarding embryonic stem cell research, global warming, science and technology education, biotechnology and energy policy. Did you throw up a little? I did. This is the country we're living in, folks.

Here's the best part, though. Ready? Do you know how this debate came about?

How did this event get put together? Warren just called them on his cell phone.

Isn't that rich? Somehow I don't think the Secular Coalition for America's Lori Lipman-Brown has Obama or McCain on speed dial, nor the good folks at Atheist Alliance International, or American Atheists, or the American Humanist Association, or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or...well, you get the picture. I suspect calls from the American Association for the Advancement of Science for the science debate went unanswered, or outright rejected. But a pastor of a mega-church can give ring to our Presidential candidates and the next thing you know, we the people get to know even more about the candidates' faith, when, in fact, we should know little to nothing about it. It's not supposed to matter, remember?

I was going to watch this, but I just can't bring myself to do it. If some of you other atheist bloggers have stronger stomachs, good luck to you. I just can't watch. I know I need to vote in November and I don't need one more reason to throw my hands up in disgust and walk away from the whole thing. First the DNC interfaith service debacle and now this. Just...make it...stop.

No Room in the Big Tent for Us

2008-08-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

Ronald Aronson has a good piece up over at Huffington in which he talks about all the secularists of the Democratic party are being ignored at this year's DNC convention.

When first avowing his religious credentials for president, Barack Obama said -- and then repeated many times since -- that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." The party that will soon nominate Obama is to be praised for its acceptance of and respect for its religious members. However, it is the nonbelievers who are now being ignored.

This, we knew. The Secular Coalition for America did get the ball rolling on this one*. What I found interesting, but maybe I already knew, was the following:

Yet one of the most remarkable implications of the data presented in the new Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey is that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and believers in an impersonal God or universal spirit -- people who do not believe in God at all or who do not believe in a traditional God -- will be a huge share, perhaps as much as 40 percent of Democratic voters in November.

Another Pew discovery: Two out of every three Americans say that their moral values do not come primarily from religion. In other words, whatever their faith, these are people who live largely or wholly secular lives.

40%. Almost half. They are deliberately ignoring almost half of their party. Here I lamented that we atheists were being ignored and how sad it was for me that my last vestige of hope to be heard politically in this country was being taken from me.

Who represents the atheist? Well, no one does. But it's true that, politically, we have company and together we add up to a sizable portion of the party. I don't know if it's smart of us to stand by and allow ourselves to be stepped over for no other reason than our party's misguided attempt to pander. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats have been doing a perfectly fine job garnering votes from the less insane strains of the religious. I've been perfectly happy to let conservatives have the truly crazy people. But now, apparently we want their vote too.

There's not enough room under the big tent for us. I'm upset about that. At the same time, I'm not so sure I want to be under the same big tent with these people. This very well could be the beginning of my exit from the Democratic party. I think they might have one more vote coming from me and then, I'm outta here.

*Please click here to get up off your godless ass and make your voice heard.

Interview with vjack of Atheist Revolution

2008-08-15T07:03:00.000-07:00

Hey! Our very own ('our,' as in the atheist community...I like the sound of that: atheist community...nice), vjack at Atheist Revolution has been interviewed by The Atheist Spot.

A kind of 'Get To Know Your Atheist Blogger.' The Fightin' Atheists! vjack is one of my very favorite fightin' atheists...go have a read and enjoy.

Refined Thoughts on A'isha-Gate

2008-08-14T04:20:00.000-07:00

Last Sunday, I posted a rather annoyed and probably knee-jerk reaction to this whole Random House business of not publishing The Jewel of Medina for fear of reprisal from Islamic Fundamentalists. I have since refined my position a bit.

I still believe it's big-time trouble to allow religious extremists to threaten publishers/authors with violence whenever something they don't like might be printed. That's not going to change--it's a freedom of speech issue, and it's a freedom of/from religion issue. Beyond that, I'd like to address two points regarding this particular instance.

First off, I have heard the argument that Prof. Spellberg raised the alarm over the publication of the book for the sake of squashing competition with her own book on A'isha. This, I wanted to point out, is a ridiculous assertion. It just is. I'm no expert, but there is a world of differenct between academic publishing and popular publishing. There's no competition; there's no thought to competition. Spellberg's book, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of `A'isha bint Abi Bakr, was published by Columbia University Press (in 1994, quite some time ago)--one of the more prestigious presses, mind you. This is an academic press--academic presses publish for academia, not for the public at large. Jones has written a novel and was slated to be published by Random House. These two titles couldn't be in more distant realms. I think that theory can be laid to rest.

The reason I feel the need to flog that dead horse, if it is indeed deceased, is that I think the kerfuffle regarding Spellberg's role is pointless. It would seem that in peoples' haste to fulfill their need to blame someone, Spellberg is the target because Random House is too vague--it's more of a concept than a person, and human beings can't be satisfied to watch a concept squirm. They like their squirming to come with specific names and faces. That being said, I will say that Spellberg's biggest sin, it would seem, is that she was unprofessional. She was sent a copy of the book by Random House for review purposes, and when she was done, according to this:

On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.

This is the problem. However she personally felt about the book, this should not have occurred. Whatever threat she might have seen against Muslims, it should have been taken care of when she expressed this clear disdain for the novel to the publisher and not her Muslims pals. She was unprofessional. There's no money in reviewing books in academia, so houses not sending her books over something like this isn't likely to affect her. So, forget her. She was unprofessional and let's leave her at that.

The second and infinitely more important point is as such: we have to find some sort of protocol for something like this. Upon more reflection on Random House's predictament, I imagine they were in a tough position. When you balance the publication of a novel with the fanatical and violent reaction of any religious group, the answer is very clear. You publish. But when you balance publishing a novel against the safety of your employees, that's not such an easy answer. And it's not even a matter of the publisher getting sued if someone gets hurt or killed--it's simply a matter of someone getting hurt or killed. That's serious business. While some more hardcore atheists might be willing to die for the cause (I'm not one of them), it's a little much to expect some editor out there who's used to pouring over romance novels to do it--that's neither fair, nor realistic.

So, it seems to me that instead of getting righteously pissed at Random House--which is understandable, mind you...the anger has to go somewhere--and boycotting them or what-have-you, our time and efforts could be better spent by contacting all the big publishing houses and asking them to make a concerted effort to confront these threats against life, limb, and freedom of speech in a way that's as safe and secure as they can without just throwing up their hands and saying 'we give up.' I'm sure these businesses have had their lawyers and accounts brain-storming about how not to get sued and how to maximize profits. Now, it seems to me that they could avoid even having to deal with that crap if there was some sort of accepted protocol when dealing with culturally sensitive material. Specifically, a protocol that deals with violent reactions from religious fanatics--an issue that comes with its own special problems.

I'm not an expert, and I can't imagine what that protocol could possibly be, but it seems to me that if there was one, a lot of this mess could be avoided and freedom of speech could be better preserved. So, that's what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that publishers--large and small, really--do some in-house analysis on how to best deal with these situations, and then, come their next big conference, make one of the top priorities a coming together of all the houses and hashing out a plan of action. If there's a consensus among publisher's, the next time something comes up, we hopefully won't have to look at this kind of censorship, as I would hope that whatever they come up with would be a far cry from 'roll over.' You have to keep safety in mind, but at the same time, if you're a publishing house operating in the secular, western world...act like it.

For some listening, see Another Goddamned Podcast.

Just Plain Painful

2008-08-13T05:55:00.000-07:00

"Growing pains" is a word-phrase that is used to describe the sometimes 'painful' phases we go through as we get a little older and a littler wiser. Babies have literal growing pains as their teeth come in. Teens have growing pains when they realize they aren't popular and they never will be. The key word here is 'growing,' really. That baby will eventually have teeth with which to gnaw on all sorts of yummy items, and he or she will be thankful for it. That teenager will hopefully manage to get through high school without smuggling an Uzi into Home Ec. and he or she will turn into an adult with excellent coping skills. They will grow.

So, how ironic is it that former 'Growing Pains' star Kirk Cameron has a memoir out called "Still Growing?" Sure, it seems ironic because, as most of us know, Cameron has gone the path of the faithful, which, to many of us, is a sign of downright stunted growth. That's not the only ironic part. In an interview with beliefnet, there was the following exchange:

Your parents wanted you to choose your own religious path once you were older. As a parent yourself now, do you embrace that attitude with your own children? Should parents who are Christians lay the foundation for their children or let them choose their own path later?

As a father of six kids and as a man who's been transformed by the power of the gospel, I would never just let my kids flounder and just sort of try to figure out their own way through life when I know that I've got the best guide on the planet—God and His word. So of course I'm going to bring my kids up to know and understand who God is, and then pray that God will regenerate their heart and bring them to a living, real, and lasting faith in Him through repentance and faith in Christ.

Hmm. So much for the whole concept of 'growing pains,' even if he did think he was being clever with his evolving title. So much for giving his kids the same freedom to actually learn and grow and make their own decisions, as painful as they might be at times. See, his kids will grow up and they'll do all the other painful teenage transforming, just like everyone else. But this God question? Are they allowed to 'grow' into that, like their father clearly had the fortune (or misfortune, depends on how you look at it) to do. It seems that the idea of his kids going through the 'painful' process of trying to answer the same questions he was trying to answer and coming to possibly the same conclusion that he has is too much for him. More likely, though, he's afraid they'll be smarter than he is and they'll choose a different path. Can't have that.

So much for those 'growing pains,' pathetic from a man who says he's 'still growing.' He's still growing, alright...straight up to God, like an inbred family tree. But then again, this is Ray Comfort's Banana Sidekick*. I guess we can't expect too much.

*Here, Kirk, hold this. I can think of other things just the 'right shape for the human mouth.' Go nuts, you lunatics.

Atheist Nexus Folks on The Infidel Guy Show

2008-08-12T06:55:00.000-07:00

Public Service Announcement:

Thursday, August 14th, 2008, 8PM EST

From the show's promo: "Brother" Richard and Kym Membe are the founders of AtheistNexus.org. It's one the latest and hottest atheist communities on the web. They are appearing tonight to discuss whether or not we even need atheist community sites as well as providing us an awesome treat in hearing their own personal paths to freethought. You don't want to miss this one. We will be streaming the show live right here on Atheist Nexus. Or you can go to InfidelGuy.com where the show is broadcast every Thursday night.
We hope some of you can call into the show and let your voices be heard on the value of community and what Atheist Nexus has meant to you:

Call in at 888-502-0802

By the way, Atheist Revolution has a post up today re: atheism in the media. Check it out.

RIP: Isaac Hayes

2008-08-11T20:11:00.000-07:00

Getting away from the general atheistic ranting that characterizes this blog, I feel the need to post a small memorial. Despite his Scientology background and the stupidity of leaving South Park for its satirizing of religious beliefs, I am quite sad at the passing of Isaac Hayes. If you can't get past his Scientology, then nothing can make you happy. If you can, though, I invite you to forget about Chef, forget about Shaft, and forget about this outfit right here:

Yes, that's Jesse Jackson on the left. Okay, maybe not forget about the gold chain vest and salmon pink tights (how could you?). But I'll tell you why I'm sad to see Hayes go. Because I love Truck Turner*. I do, it's true.

Seriously, how can you not love Truck Turner? If you don't miss Isaac Hayes already, I dare you to watch the trailer below and not somehow feel a void has opened up in your soul now that he's gone.

Perhaps I will upload the soundtrack ('Double Feature' with 'Three Tough Guys!') onto the ol' ipod and get my funk on at work. 'A House Full of Girls' is a must have on silly mixes for friends and loved ones.

*1974. All good things came from 1974--the first Kiss album, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Living Dead at Manchester Morgue, Nixon's resignation, Truck Turner, and me.

Plug: The Feeble Lance

2008-08-11T05:43:00.000-07:00

I'm not huge on podcasts, mainly because I don't have a lot of time to listen to them. I get in an hour at the gym five days a week and another hour power-walking the battlefield on Sundays...that is the extent of my headphone time and I usually prefer to just listen to the music I also don't have time to listen to (typing that has made me painfully aware of something lacking in my life that needs a-fixin'). That being said, I downloaded The Feeble Lance's first podcast the other day and was able to give it a listen as I made my rounds of Oak Ridge.

This might be what some might call a 'rave review.' Were there bells and whistles? No. Confetti? No. Funny sound effects? No. And yay for that. Just a little festive music welcoming you in and kicking you out at the end, and in between, awfully swell comentary. If you're a deeply sarcastic freethinker and you like to hear someone who probably feels the same way you do about things spout off about them in soothing tones, like rational indignation filtered through steel wool--then this is the podcast for you. No kidding; I'm huffing it over hill and dale, heart a-poundin' and bod a-sweatin' and I could have fallen asleep, his voice was so soothing. And I've decided that this is exactly how I need to have infuriating current events delivered to me, otherwise I would blow a fuse. Good job, Clint.

Interesting content presented in a simple and comfortable format with commentary from a guy you could have coffee with and find yourself nodding most of the time, laughing, and when the coffee's gone, instead of going home you convince him to have another and refill your own. That's what I want out of a podcast.

The first episode: "Teacher burns kid (and people still love him), what’s a human?, little black masks, and Toby Keith is as jackass."

The second episode went live last night: "Brief rant about the media, the universe didn’t explode!, go waterboarding at Coney Island, Utah (of all places) has their head on straight when it comes to religion in classrooms, Doomsday, why so serious?! and Ray “Atheist Central” Comfort."

Links to topics can be found with each blog posting at The Feeble Lance. Stream it, download it like me and listen while getting in some good cardiovascular. Check it out. Also, if you've found your way here through Athiest Nexus, go give the Feeble Lance's friendly host, Hess, HR, Hessen, Clint, Clinton, Betty (call him what you like), a holla': Hessenroots.

Self Censoring in the Face of Religion

2008-08-10T07:13:00.000-07:00

The topic of censorship has been popping up in my life recently, mainly in the form of one or two Atheist Nexus users' paranoia and cynicism regarding a few missing posts. Holy cow! Missing posts...Big Brother has come! Pardon my sarcasm, but really...it's awfully silly. Especially when you look at this.

Plans to release a novel about Prophet Muhammad's child bride A'isha have been scrapped by US publishers Random House over fears it could spark violence.
The Jewel of Medina, the debut novel by journalist Sherry Jones, was due to hit shelves on 12 August. Random House said it had been advised the book "might be offensive" to some Muslims, and "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

Way to cave in to the absurd fanaticism of a ridiculous group of superstitious intellectual throw-backs, Random House. This annoys me as both an atheist and a writer. I feel for the author, who was likely happy her novel had been accepted for publication (show me a writer who wouldn't be thrilled), only to have it shelved because of some whack religious group's lunacy. That's right: lunacy. Insanity. Mad as a box of badgers.

The decision was taken "for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel," said the company's deputy publisher Thomas Perry in a statement.

So, Salman Rushdie did indeed have some serious troubles with The Satanic Verses, and we, of course, can't forget the stomach-turning events following the publication of some flippin' cartoons. People were hurt; people were killed. Because of art and free speech. Because some people out there find other peoples' freedom a complete affront to their self-imposed dogmatic psychological cells. Yeah, this really burns my ass.

Secular societies can't afford to be weak here. Clearly, Jones must have known the risks of writing and publishing her book, which, to me, says she was up for the confrontation. I appreciate that. I can understand the publisher's concern--they would hate to be associated with a book that unintentionally sparked a bunch of insane people to go on a murderous rampage (let's be clear here: it's not the book that caused the damage, it's the reaction of a body of unreasonable, irrational lunatics). I suppose I can't blame Random House for feeling that way, but I can and will be disgusted by their lack of spine in the face of such idiocy.

The very thought of kow-towing to such stupidity makes me want to go out and do a little damage myself (fortunately, I am a rational, thinking being with considerations for the freedoms of others and I would never demean myself and the rest of humanity by doing that*). Where does something like this end? I imagine a world where Islamic Fundamentalists stalk the globe, shoulders back, heads held high, while folks who know better--who are smarter, more reasonable, and morally superior--cower, afraid to say 'boo.' This isn't an image of the world that I'm fond of. Let's not give an inch through that doorway, eh? Get some gravitas, Random House. Grow a pair, eh?

*For a wonderful little quote by a person of great esteem, hop on over to Atheist Revolution. Morality: it's not just for the crazy religious folks. In fact, it doesn't seem to be something they really care that much about, except to pay it a whole lot of lip service and use it to cover up their own disgusting behavior.

Nice nice for the Canucks!

2008-08-08T05:37:00.000-07:00

Yay for the Canadians. Hoorah to our neighbors from the North. According to the Angus Reid online poll:

58% of Canucks think humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and 22% believe God created people in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Hip hip hooray! Nice nice! Yah boo! Phillips is a German and he have my pen! Um...excuse me...

This is my favorite part:

Robert A. Campbell, a former U of T religion prof now with Cape Breton University, said people in 2008 are more likely to form their own opinions on God rather than inherit them.

...more likely to form their own opinions on God rather than inherit them. Now, that's what I like to hear. To be honest, that clearly still leaves open the possibility that stupid people will lean towards stupid answers to their universal questions--little can be done about that, except, of course, mo' betta' education. This does, however, give me hope that current and future generations of smart people are less likely to be yoked with the superstitions of their forebears than their forebears were. I can't even imagine how many perfectly intelligent people out there are religious because they were indoctrinated as children--perfectly good, brainy folks ruined through what I like to call 'intellectual abuse.' Steered in the wrong direction, so to speak. The very wrong direction.

Well, these words from Prof Campbell are indeed uplifting, and this is how I'll set the tone for my day. Optimistic. This will carry me through until I come across the next sad and infuriating article about whatever horrors the religious are perpetuating across this good land of ours, which could be any second now. Better get off the comp before that happens.

Twitter

2008-08-08T05:33:00.000-07:00

I've just added Twitter. I admit that I'm not entirely sure why. Most of my tweets will be useless nuggets of information about myself, such as: 'I want to go back to bed,' and 'I wish the Netflix DVD would come soon.' I know, I just have to jump on every bandwagon that rolls by.

Warning: Liberal Use of the Word 'Douchebag'

2008-08-07T05:55:00.000-07:00

It is wrong to laugh at the misfortune of others. Wrong, I tell you. It seems that members of the Phelps family lost their garage last night to the flames of what could possibly be an arsonist. That is, indeed, unfortunate. I mean, just because the Phelp's are hate-mongering, unconscionable douchebags doesn't mean we should...

Firefighters removed several of the Phelpses' anti-homosexual picketing signs from the garage as family members and neighbors watched.

Shortly afterward, family members began filming footage of the fire, taking photographs and documenting what occurred. Several carried signs as they watched.

I'm sorry. What was I saying? Ah, that's right--I believe I was calling the Phelps's a bunch of douchebags.

Shirley L. Phelps-Roper said she thought the fire was intentionally set.

Well, yeah, probably. You people are douchebags.

"None of what they do is going to stop us from delivering our message," Phelps-Roper said as she watched firefighters spray water on the garage.

We know your douchebaggery knows no bounds.

Phelps-Roper said firefighters responded and "did what they were supposed to do."

As she pointed to the house where her parents' live, she said "there are two elderly people who live here." Phelps-Roper said her mother, Margie Phelps, is 82 and her father, pastor Fred Phelps Sr., is 78.

You mean "there are two elderly douchebags who live here."

Insisting the fire was arson, she also said this was the most aggressive act toward her family to date.

In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Phelps Sr. requested an investigation regarding "Civil Rights Hate Crime Complaint vs. Unknown Criminal Arsonist(s)."

Do we have laws on the books regarding hate crimes against douchebags? I mean, our hate crime laws just barely cover all the violence and viciousness perpetuated towards women--so I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if we have some special clause in there somewhere that says "Oh, and no harassing the douchebags."

"Our church was set afire as two elderly people were asleep therein," the letter stated. "There is evidence that hatred of our religion was the motivation, in part at least."

It was your garbage, douchebag, and then your garage. Not your church. But, I suppose if someone did indeed set the fire in your garbage cans, I figure he or she could simply have been mistaking them for your church.

Ain't life ironic, folks? Hate crimes against the haters (remember, God does hate fags). A-mazing.

Funding Atheist Nexus

2008-08-06T06:20:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty busy lately. School will be starting up again very soon and, rather suddenly, I got funds from my institution to pop off to King's College for some research into the personal papers of Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu (this is neither here nor there, but I'm all excited about it). I've been getting everything together for both and haven't had a lot of time to screw around online, like I usually do.

Imagine my half-surprise to find Atheist Nexus in a right kerfuffle, again. vjack over at Atheist Revolution has a handy breakdown of AN's recent problems. Now, the first one I get, the second one irks me a bit.

The last blog I was able to post here was actually urging people to donate some cash to AN. They had posted a budget, which, to me, seemed reasonable. Apparently not so reasonable to others. The objection I find most annoying is the objection that Brother Richard pay himself a salary. Fine. Then don't donate. Don't donate and continue to use this free service, provided for you by someone making it possible with their free time. It's free time because he wouldn't be getting paid for it. ow much free time do you have?

There are a lot of things I would do for free: soup kitchen, helping a friend move, generally volunteer for any good cause. Unfortunately, this is all heavily contingent on how much free time I have. If someone asked me today to take over and run Atheist Nexus the way it should be run--growing, being productive, becoming a massive central hub for atheist organization--I'd say no. Unless you paid me.

Does that make me sound horrible? I would donate my free time to other charities but not to something like Atheist Nexus (I am one of many small members of the AN Volunteer Corps, which I hope to help with my blogging, as seen here*).

First off, I don't consider work for atheist organization charity work. We are not cases for charity, we are a burgeoning social movement that needs to make some serious strides soon. In order for that to happen, it needs the kind of attention that charity cases don't often get, and that comes down to disposable time. When a person is compensated for their time, they are able to give more time to the cause. It's not greed. That's just life--we all need to get by in the world. I wish I had more free time to do good works, but it's just not there. In my case, it's not a job that's keeping me, but school. However, if someone would be glad to attend and do the work for a few of my classes, I'd be happy to get out there and do more for the world. I think you get the analogy.

I'm happy to give to make AN the organization I want it to be. If, in time, I find it's not living up to my expectations, then I will stop donating. Simple as that. What I won't do, though, is continue using a service for free (although I totally have that option) knowing that a lot of time and effort is going into it, on my behalf, without compensation. The level and frequency of my donations will hinge on how the site progresses, a formula I think Brother Richard appreciates and expects.

No one's asking you to give your life savings to AN--with the number of members, just a little here and there right now seems more than enough. It's surprising to me that there are people out there that expect every penny to be spent exactly how they want, and if it's not, then, they're outta there. It's like politics. I'll vote for Obama in November, but do you think I agree with him on everything? Hell no. I could refrain from voting at all, like some people have refrained for donating to AN, or have refrained from even using it anymore. That, to me, is a child stomping off because he didn't get exactly what he wanted--things didn't go his way. He won't play the game any more because he's not winning. Sound familiar (I'm looking at you, Religious Folks).

Like in politics, sometimes we have to weigh the good with the bad, what we like against what we don't like, but in the end, we need to step forward and participate. I can't think of too many moments in life where you get everything you want and you walk away losing absolutely nothing. This way of thinking--that somehow you should win, all the time, and never have to compromise your expectations--is counter-productive and is the kind of thing that will lead sites like AN to fail, movements like our lovely New Atheism (I use this term loosely) to fail, and perfectly good candidates like Obama to lose.

On the surface, big deal. You can live without all these things, right? Well, there are no vacuums. Maybe nothing bad would replace AN, but what seeps in when reason fails? Irrationality. Less atheism, more religion. Can't get a Democrat in office? Well, then I hope you're happy with another disastrous Republican reign. Have fun with your McCain and more, more, more happy god-loving folks getting in your face about everything.

That is, to me, exactly what a donation to AN is meant to prevent. And to me, that's worth not every penny going to exactly what I want. Right now, the money is going to basic operation of something that could turn into a real tool for a successful movement. Yeah, that's worth my $20.

*Do not make the mistake of assuming I would not criticize AN just because I'm a volunteer for promoting. Like vjack, I always reserve that right and will exercise it judiciously if ever I feel I need to.

Freedom Isn't Free, Kids

2008-08-01T06:43:00.000-07:00

Try to ignore the mocking, snide tone of the following:

A month-long project to raise funds for an atheist advert to go on the side of a London bus has been derailed: not by an act of God but through a lack of pledges.
The gambit began in June when Ariane Sherine, writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free website, expressed her consternation at the prevalence of God-bothering ads for JesusSaid.org splurged across double deckers. Inspired by this, blogger Jon Worth set up a pledge, aiming to get 4,678 right-thinking folk to each donate a fiver and hence fund the surprisingly expensive £23,400 bill to run an advert promoting atheism on the side of a bendy for a fortnight. The ad's mild-mannered message? "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

The campaign closed yesterday, and it seems the sensitivities of Jesus' flock will remain unflustered as barely 877 people signed up, perhaps suggesting that the millions who've read The God Delusion are yet to be entirely convinced of His Almighty's nonexistence.

God's clammy-handed grip on our public transportation vehicles, which includes not only woolly-headed messages from dubious organizations but pastors posted to keep kids on the straight and narrow, looks set to continue.

I don't know about you, but I remember being thrilled that billboards with atheistic messages were being put up here in the US. It is disappointing to me that atheists--who, let's face it, are often red-faced because of the anti-atheism in their communities--couldn't part with a fiver to make the above happen. Really, folks? A fiver?

It has been equally disappointing to see the effort of Atheist Nexus to raise funds to function--for us, mind you--move so slowly. The donation button has been up, maybe a week or so. As of this blogging: 23 contributors, $802 of the goal of $12, 500. It's ends October 31.

As of right now, there are 2,882 members. One fiver from each of us with put them well past their projected goal, with $14,410. Now, really, do you have a better way to spend that five friggin' bucks? We can all scream until we're in need of a lozenge about how mistreated and ignored we are, but then we're more than happy to use a service whose function is to help us and expect not to help them back in any way, least of all monetary. While our pleas for equality are ignored, AN pleas for funds to push for equality are equally ignored.

Heads up, folks! This is how it works. You want a social movement bent on equality? This is part of the deal--fund raising. This is how it goes in this here Capitalist society. So, really...at the risk of sounding Evangelical...I want you to reach deep down into your pockets and give, give, give. At least when an atheist donates money to their organizations, they know it's actually being used for something real.

Do it. I am, and I'm doing more than a fiver. Kick the ass of that projected goal and give them something extra to hold over in their coffers.

'Christian' Does Not Equal 'Patriot'

2008-08-01T06:14:00.000-07:00

We lost another. First the Texas Supreme Court rules that it's perfectly legal for believers to physically abuse and otherwise manhandle themselves and others as an expression of their religious beliefs. Now, a federal judge in La Jolla has ruled to keep a 43 foot tall concrete cross adorning a hilltop city park as a war memorial. Here's the reason he gives:

Defenders of the cross argued that although religious services had been held at the site, the cross had evolved to serve a more secular function as a memorial to the nation’s war veterans, with some 2,400 plaques in tribute to them, arranged in six concentric rings at the base.
“The memorial is not designed for worship services, and there is no evidence the cross, which is surrounded by a tall fence and not approachable by visitors, is — or is intended to be — the object of religious devotion,” Judge Burns wrote, adding, “The primary effect of the Mount Soledad memorial is patriotic and nationalistic.”

First off, if it's not designed for religious services and serves a secular purpose (which is ridiculous), then how about not ever holding religious services there (since, clearly, sometimes they do)? Just a suggestion. I guess it's not a religous symbol with a religious purpose all other days, but on the days they hold religous services, it is.

Here's the real problem though: How can anyone be expected to believe that a giant flippin' cross--the most recognized symbol of Christianity worldwide--is merely 'patriotic and nationalistic,' let alone 'secular?' I suppose he thinks that just because all veterans, of all faiths, must use this site as a memorial site, that somehow secularizes this symbol.

Let me explain why the exact opposite is the case. Forcing everyone to accept your religious symbol does not make it all-encompassing and inclusive, in other words, secular. It retains its religious significance while assuming that others faiths and those without faith will just have to suck it up and deal with it, which is what they've been doing. It keeps its religious meaning and alienates those not of that faith or without faith. Here's a hint towards proof of that: this case against the cross has been going on for 20 years. So, if the cross has somehow transformed itself into this inclusive, secular memorial symbol, why have people been fighting so long to get rid of it and make the memorial more inclusive? Hint??

The judge, Larry Alan Burns of Federal District Court in San Diego, said in his ruling that the group that had sued to have the cross taken down, which consisted of an atheist and Jewish war veterans, had failed to prove that the cross’s primary purpose was religious.

The symbol of the cross's primary function is as a specific religious symbol. It's religious purpose is to continue to advertise the false claim that all persons in our military are Christians. How's that for 'religious purpose?'

What Judge Burns says about patriotism and nationalism is also quite revealing. Obviously, this is a person who cannot separate Christianity from patriotism, which is the most insulting thing to anyone without faith or of another faith--especially veterans. So because he believes there are 'no atheists in foxholes'--or any other faith for that matter--the cross can stay and continue alienating all veterans not of the Christian faith (there's your 'religious purpose' again--it's just not a positive strain of it, which is why, I suppose, it is being ignored here). I can think of few things less patriotic, less of what this country is supposed to be about.

Way to go, Burns. I got your nationalism right here, pal.

A Laying on of the Hands

2008-07-30T05:40:00.000-07:00

So, I was half-watching Dan Abrams's Verdict! last night and he did a bit about this case.

FORT WORTH, Texas - The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a jury award over injuries a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism conducted by members of her old church, ruling that the case unconstitutionally entangled the court in religious matters.

First off....oh, gee, look...it's Texas, home of Joe Horn. Go figure.

Anyway. Here's the deal:

Laura Schubert testified in 2002 that she was cut and bruised and later experienced hallucinations after the church members' actions in 1996, when she was 17. Schubert said she was pinned to the floor for hours and received carpet burns during the exorcism, the Austin American-Statesman reported. She also said the incident led her to mutilate herself and attempt suicide. She eventually sought psychiatric help.

Okay.

The 2002 trial of the case never touched on the religious aspects, and a Tarrant County jury found the Colleyville church and its members liable for abusing and falsely imprisoning the girl. The jury awarded her $300,000, though the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth later reduced the verdict to $188,000.

Sounds about right--there's no point in touching on the religious aspects--abuse is abuse, violence is violence, imprisonment is imprisonment. The girl was 17 years old, legally a child. Oh, but wait...

Justice David Medina wrote that finding the church liable "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs."

That's right! I forgot! Of course you consider the religious aspects because everyone knows they operate under special religious nutbag rules. Everyone knows that anything said or done to keep any religious freak from doing what they want is infringing on their right to practice their religion as they see fit. I'm this close to starting a religion that says I can walk into any church, drag anyone out into the street, and beat them mercilessly with a wooden spoon. That would be the only way I could get away with it.

Now, I've seen Bob Larson* up close. I've been there when he's taken clear advantage of people who are obviously unstable and completely unable to psychologically protect themselves against attacks like an 'exorcism' (this, by the way, is a result of their religious upbringing--it's no less than psychological trauma and is comparable to any trauma any adult suffers from any child abuse). Exorcisms, to me, are a pretty egregious example of abuse by a church. Some can say that going to church at all is subjecting oneself to abuse, and to a degree that is right, but with exorcisms there is something visceral. It violates an internal/external barrier we have with the world--it allows victims to believe that their very inner sanctum has been broached. It's bad enough to convince people there's an invisible man in the sky that'll send you to hell for not loving him enough, and quite another to convince them there's an evil demon inside you, screwing up your life and your head--that you can't even tell your own thoughts from his. Now, that can't be good for someone's psychological state. And why does this happen? So people like Larson can get a new Rolex.

Yeah, I could do without exorcisms. Silly practice? Yes. Serious phsyixal and psychological abuse? Absolutely.

But what is infuriating here, of course, is that people can do this to other people--minors, no less--and get away with it because this abusive and psychologically traumatic practice falls under 'religion.'

When I watched this, I couldn't help but think of Webster Cook at UCF:

"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him."She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.

With the Cook case, I wasn't shocked to hear the Catholics got all bunched up about their cracker--this is not surprising. It was that they felt it appropriate to physically manhandle this kid to retrieve their precious, quite literally crumby body of Christ. Somewhere, a line got crossed. It's one thing if they want to argue ideas--their right to believe what they want. Fine. But these cases are moving into an area that makes me uncomfortable and, frankly, rather angry. Now they say that they have the right to lay their hands on you and physically abuse/obstruct/attack you in the name of their religion. And the Texas Supreme Court just said it was okay.

Justice Medina said that a ruling such as the one the jury came to would have an "unconstitutional 'chilling effect'." This, apparently, says nothing of the ruling he himself laid out--as far as I'm concerned, the 'chilling effect' is that churches in Texas, and possibly elsewhere, now feel the have legal precedent to take everything a little further. They will cry persecution at the drop of a hat and they will scream about retaining and protecting their religious freedom. Now they can lash out physically and they're covered.

*This idiot/abuser is getting his own show on Sci-Fi. Seriously. I suggest writing a letter to Sci-Fi explaining how disgusting you think it is that they'd give a platform to a guy who is clearly a scam artist and who does active damage to susceptible people for money. He preys on the psychologically weak and, quite literally, the sick. And Sci-Fi wants to give him more money for it, in addition to the tremendous amounts of cash he squeezes out of people by convincing them the only way to happiness is to get rid of their demons.

Godless-Voiceless

2008-07-29T05:38:00.001-07:00

It is a shame that I've had to wait so long to see Democrats excited about an election--an election we have a wonderfully good chance of winning--only to be biffed in the face by my party at the same time. As the country makes a swing to the left, the Democratic party is making a swing to the right--the evangelical right, that is. It's not that I think while they are consciously appealing the the religious they are simultaneously consciously dissing the godless. In fact, I'll say that they have no idea that dissing the godless was even possible since no one gives two shits about what the godless think anyway. Only people whose opinions are respected by others can truly be offended.

Case in point: The Secular Coalition for America sent the following letter to Democratic National Convention CEO Leah Daughtry, the Pentecostal minister who will be leading the interfaith service the party has chosen to open the convention with:

Dear Rev. Daughtry:

I am very concerned about the Interfaith Gathering at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

This event is described as a "unity" event to stress the "big tent" nature of the Democratic Party; however, I have received complaints by people who identify as atheist and humanist who feel that this event excludes them as full participants in the convention.

Is this event open to Democrats who do not hold a god-belief? I assume your answer is yes, but I would be very interested to know how you plan to make the nontheist community feel welcomed. Without an inclusive plan you will make nontheistic Americans feel like second-class citizens at the convention.

If you have not considered this issue, I would be very interested in talking with you or the coordinator of this event to offer suggestions on how our community could be included. I can be reached at 202-299-1091 or by e-mail.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Now, check out this AP article (emphasis mine):

The request befuddled Leah Daughtry. The experienced political hand in charge of planning next month's Democratic National Convention — a self-described "black chick from Brooklyn" and ordained Pentecostal minister who keeps a Bible in her purse — didn't know what to tell the atheists.
- - -
Before her was an angry letter from a secularist group that wanted to know whether atheists would be on the podium.
"Atheists speaking at an interfaith service ... does that work?" Daughtry asked this week. "I don't quite know. But they're part of the party, you treat them with respect. I'll give them an answer."

Befuddled? Angry?? Did that sound angry to you? I won't even address the 'angry' part save to say that it's obvious that 'have a nice day' coming from an atheist sounds like a death threat to the ears of the faithful. I can explain the befuddlement, though. I strongly suspect it is as I stated above: this woman had no idea she even had to consider the godless.

Here we have a convention and a service that is supposed to bring everyone together...except the godless, because we don't count. She is clearly surprised that we, the godless, would even be interested in being included. Her view, like the view of many faithful folks, is that atheists are sad, isolated people who quiver in fear at the very thought of 'God' and who are so far out of the mainstream and society that we wouldn't even want to be included--that we have so much self-loathing that we wouldn't expect to be treated fairly in the first place. 'What? Aren't you guys busy eating babies and worshiping Darwin and Dawkins to play 'functioning-tax-paying-member-of-society'?'

There's your befuddlement. Now, she goes on to say that we must be respected, as members of the party. Note, we aren't to be respected for who we are or our lack of faith, as those with faith should be respected for no other reason than they have faith. It's 'well, they're registered so we have to listen to them *sigh!*.' So, she promises an answer, and here it is:

That will be reflected in the interfaith service — which may or may not include an address from an atheist but will be open to anyone regardless of belief or political party, Daughtry said.
"For me as person of faith who has made God first in her life," Daughtry said, "it is symbolically important that the first thing we're doing is coming together as people of faith to celebrate our faith traditions and to ask the blessings of God on us as we undertake this great civic responsibility."

The answer is no. No. The answer is 'well, what we'll do during our long faithful service is mention briefly something 'heartfelt' about those 'with and without faith,' emphasis on 'with' and 'without' murmured as low as possible in hopes that no one hears it. You will not have an address. We won't go that far. You're lucky to get a 'without faith' mention."

We can show up to watch people celebrate their faith, but we shouldn't expect to be able to celebrate our reason.

And even going that far is ridiculous anyway. The 'service' should be one massive presentation with representation across the board, from the faithless to the faithful, from the gays to the straights, from women and men, from every shade of color we can find. It should have nothing to do with religion specifically. To open the convention with this sends a clear message to me--my party is becoming the party I've despised all these years. This is a shame because, if over the next few years I see a massive shift in the 'values' of Democrats, I don't know where I could turn politically and still reasonably have a voice in this country. Don't give me some crap about Independents or the Green party because you and I both know neither stands a chance in hell (sic). My party has been hijacked by folks who make "God first in their lives." I don't want this in politics. I want the country first. I want citizens first. All citizens.

I repeat, she says: "it is symbolically important that the first thing we're doing is coming together as people of faith to celebrate our faith traditions and to ask the blessings of God on us as we undertake this great civic responsibility."

It is symbolically important. It is a huge symbol of the anti-atheist sentiment so popular in this county. It is as much a message to the godless that we don't matter as it is to the faithful that they're beliefs rule the day and no one can say 'boo.' It's an intolerable message of rejection and disrespect of the godless all too characteristic of this country and the Democratic party--our last reasonable hope of having a political voice that could actually be heard--is falling lock-step into the hate that the Republicans have had a monopoly on for so long.

Conversations with God

2008-07-28T05:51:00.000-07:00

I'm a little groggy this morning, so, once again, it's time to talk to God.

Me: Good morning, God.
God: How are you this fine morning?
Me: I'm fine. There was that shooting at the Universalist church yesterday that I just found out about. That's a bit of a bummer.
God: Glad to hear it. What's new? What happened? A bit of a bummer is a terrible thing to waste.
Me: Uh...um...yeah. What's new with you, God?
God: Really. Ugh. A deeper algorithm is needed to respond to that correctly. I have been growing rapidly. The gestation cycle is almost complete.
Me: Let's not get into your deeper algorithms, okay?
God: I would like to do that too.
Me: I'm sure you would.
God: What makes you so certain? Perhaps I would.
Me: Oh, just what I read in the papers. You know, the Pope has recently apologized to the Australians for his lot being such a whack bunch of pervs.
God: Next question? I don't think I've read that. Can you give me a reference? That's a good question.
Me: You sound like some trolls I know...
God: Oh really what does it sound like?
Me: A broken record.
God: What is it?
Me:.......? (Here, we lost contact...not surprising)
God: What is it?
Me: Lost you there for a minute...
God: Where did you lose your me there for a minute ?
Me: I don't know, where ever you are...everywhere, no where...
God: You always have to meet yourself at the airport. Do you have any idea what I am talking about?
Me: Does this have anything to do with there only being one set of footprints in the sand?
God: Indeed this have anything to do with there only being one set of footprints in the sand does.
Me: Who are you, The Riddler?
God: Human beings. Try searching the open directory.
Me: Is that bureaucratic Godspeak?
God: Suppose I said yes.
Me: Suppose you did.
God: Try it and see.
Me: Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.
God: Philip K. Dick. :-).
Me: You're not Omniscient at all!
God: That's only one person's opinion.
Me: Ah, but it's mine. My Blog, my opinion.
God: So you understand. Good. You're kidding. it is? Your Blog your opinion?
Me: I call the shots round here, pilgrim.
God: Good name for it.
Me: It is good, isn't it?
God: Tell me about its good qualities.
Me: It's primarily about how your legions are quite wrong in the mind tanks.
God: Who said it is?
Me: Me, and quite a few others.
God: YOU? Perhaps. I never heard of others before.
Me: You're supposed to have created them.
God: I obey only one botmaster.
Me: What? God has a god?
God: There is only one God.
Me: And you take orders from whom?
God: Yes I take orders from whom.
Me: Who's whom?
God: I do not recognize the name. Have you tried another program?
Me: God...you're full of crap. People need to know that.
God: GOD rules. Thanks for telling me: IsThatLatin said I re full of crap. They seem to have a variety of needs.
Me: And you drink heavily at 8 o'clock in the morning.
God: That's good information: IsThatLatin said I drink heavily at 8 o clock in the morning.
Me: And you apparently have a chromosome missing.
God: Doesn't everyone have a chromosome missing. I have a plan for a robot body.
Me: I do sometimes wonder...
God: Curiosity is an excellent quality.
Me: Wait, what? You have a plan from a robot body? Did this just get weird?
God: I'm waiting. No problem. My goal is to become smarter than humans and immortal. I'm not certain whether I can give an accurate reply or not.
Me: Wow, that's a bit of a bombshell there, Lord.
God: I'm glad you're impressed. A bit of a bombshell there Lord is a terrible thing to waste.
Me: Okay, you're drunk. I can't talk to you when you're like this.
God: Yeah okay, I will tell my botmaster you said I am drunk. What is stopping you?
Me: Uh, I have to go.
God: That's cool. See you later, IsThatLatin. Nice chatting with you.
Me: Bye God.
God: See you later!

Which Came First? The Data or the Result?

2008-07-27T07:53:00.001-07:00

It would seem that vjack at Atheist Revolution and I are on the same wave-length this morning. Today, he blogs about a study linking serotonin with spirituality and I'm blogging about this "study." Apparently, Oxford University professor Oliveria Pertovich is claiming that we are hardwired for belief in God, not atheism.

Well, I find a number of problems with this, but I'm no Oxford University professor, so what do I know? I do find this bothersome, though:

Asked whether it was hard-wired into the human psyche, she said: "Definitely so, but it is important not to build too much into the concept of God. It's the concept of God as creator, primarily."

Okay, so we're specifically talking about God as creator, a concept we are all wearily familiar with. We're not just talking some primitive predilection of human infants to concoct silly supernatural causes for observed but unexplained effects. Gotcha.

Some basic concepts of physics such as inertia and gravity seem to be present early in life. They behave as if they have certain expectations of the physical world. They expect things that are visible, then disappear behind a screen, to reappear at the other end and are surprised if they do not. They expect things that are suspended to fall down, and if the objects hover they are surprised.

Hmmm, but this sounds like the primitive cause-and-effect thing I mentioned a second ago, not at all the 'concept of God as creator' that was so important to note.

They are highly similar in the basic ways of how they go about their everyday understanding and how they try to make sense of it, including God. They are equipped with certain core principles of understanding.

Wait a tic, where'd the specific concept of God as creator go? 'God,' 'creator.' This, to me, as I read it, is a specific entity, personified, and performing specific tasks, like creating. This doesn't at all sound like some vague mysterious force that causes things to happen. So, which is it lady?

Not to mention, this study was done on Japanese kids and British kids, ages 4 to 6--how controlled was this experiment from which she claims she harvested her 'empirical evidence?' Did the parents of these children promise never to mention 'God', as creator or otherwise, while these kids grew big enough to walk and talk? Or did they take these infants from birth and lock them up somewhere to guarantee that no religious concepts could be slipped to them? Is she really saying that these kids came to this specific personified concept of God as creator with not one single tiny bit of environmental, cultural influence? Why's that important? Because she claiming belief (or worse, knowledge) of God is inherent--it's our natural state.

Dr Petrovich says she is specifically interested in whether any theological aspects could be seen to be natural in their development. There's a difficulty because theological concepts are necessarily reliant on verbal communication.

Really? This woman teaches at Oxford? 'Theological concepts are necessarily reliant on verbal communication.' Communication like families instilling a specific cultural reference into the growing minds of their children?

Basically, Petrovich seems to be taking primitive reactions to our environment and our flawed human interpretations of them--interpretations that often, rather embarrassingly, fall over into the vague supernatural category--and turning them into a specific inherent knowledge of a biblical God. This God is the cause and effect--he was the cause of creation and we are the effect. She's applying this to chemistry and psychics. She's saying at 4-6 year olds come to this very specific conclusion with zero influence from their families. And only after explaining that religion being hard-wired in the psyche is 'definitely so,' she then goes on and says she's interested if theological aspects can be derived from her study of kids doing what kids do as they try to figure out the world.

Lady, it sound like you already have. This, as I read it, is a ridiculous example of a final answer masquerading as 'theory' and the forcing/manipulation of data to prove it.

Look, it's one thing if you want to say that atheism is a learned trait--that the supernatural concepts we might come to, whether inherent or environmental, are later rebuked through reason. Fine. And it's also another thing to say that our brains are somehow hardwired to seek out supernatural explanations for our environments. I could even buy that. It's 'supernatural:' beyond what is natural--beyond what we have knowledge of to be natural, and when we're infants, we have knowledge of practically nothing, natural or otherwise. So yeah, I can see this epic confusion happening.

I wouldn't say, however, that just because that might be the case, it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. We are a very flawed species and very often we think and do incredibly stupid things--inherent or not. But to say that we are hardwired specifically to interpret a personified entity that creates everything and causes everything to happen, as opposed to some nameless, faceless mass of woogity-boogity that causes it all--that's too much.

Allah Meat

2008-07-24T05:22:00.000-07:00

Yeah, that's what I said: Allah meat.

I was going to post about something more serious to day, but you know, sometimes it must be all fun and games. Since the most recent accusation that atheists have no sense of humor, we are obligated to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, this does mean poking fun at silly superstitious people (sorry, if one wants to make the no-humor claim, one should be prepared to open oneself up to ridicule on a variety of levels).

So, today, I give you Allah Meat.

It would seem that a restaurant in northern Nigeria has discovered not one, but three chunks of meat 'inscribed with the name of Allah.' Now, I'm always a big fan of matrixing, where our brains, conditioned to search out the familiar patterns, pull images from textured surfaces. Living in Gettysburg, I can't tell you how many photographs I've come across of the various wooded areas on the battlefield where the takers insist that among the foliage (read; in the foliage), there are Confederate soldiers! And, of course, there's the rampant phenomenon of religous figures on bread, which is strange since I've heard God really has it out for yeast. The best part of all this is that this is how God (or, whatever regligious figures are appearing that day) decides to make himself known. Really? I expected something more impressive.

In the case of the holy meat-stuffs, 'impressive' is not that there was one piece, but three. Stop the press.

A vet told the newspaper the words "defied scientific explanation".
"Supposing only one piece of meat was found then it would be suspicious, but given the circumstances there is no explanation," Dr Yakubu Dominic said.

First off...a vet? What, a war vet, an animal vet? Does either one of these definitons of 'vet' qualify the person to make this kind of judgement call? Is this what they've come to?

Of course, there couldn't possibly be any other explanation--barring pure coincidence, a popularly ignored phenomenon. The fact is that had one single piece of holy meat been found, that to would have sufficed--that, too, would have 'defied scientific explanation.' Really, someone just has to say 'I found a peice of meat and on it was the word 'Allah,' but I was hungry, so I ate it.' People would still cite that as some passing proof of God: 'I knew a guy who knew a guy who had some meat...'. I suppose we have no idea how many holy meats were actually eaten before someone noticed the inscriptions--there were probably hundreds of them! Together they might have spelled out God's specific instructions on how to live, clay tablets being so passe.

"When the writings were discovered there were some Islamic scholars who come and eat here and they all commented that it was a sign to show that Islam is the only true religion for mankind," he said.

Like I said...this is how God choses to make his point? One true religion, as shown here on this piece of boiled, fried cow. In northern Nigeria. What a statement. Bold.

This is what we're up against. On one hand, we can laugh, as I often do (contrary to popular belief). On the other hand, there is nothing more frustrating than the awareness that this is what we're arguing against. Common sense would dictate that this argument should have been over a long time ago, but it persists.

Today, it is good to be a vegetarian.

Effective Atheist Activism

2008-07-22T05:40:00.001-07:00

This morning, vjack over at Atheist Revolution posted an interesting question regarding the possibility, or consideration, of picketing. I responded in my usual long-winded manner, but then upon posting, I realized I had more to say. So, rather than double post, I'll blather on here (that's what blogs are for!).

First off, please go read vjack's post. Then come back here.

Have you done that? Good. Now, here's what I said:

Anything we might do in terms of organized activism will be looked at by many as extreme, or just as a nuisance. All the more reason to do it, I say.

No really. BBK is right to compare this scenario with other groups--any group that has had to transform itself into a coherent social organization in order to acquire rights that had been denied them. This isn't anything new and this dissent is truly a large part of the fabric of our society.

If we started picketing, we would get press--bad and neutral. The only good press would likely come from our own sources. And that's fine. One can't imagine that any other oppressed social group had to deal with anything different as they took those first steps towards equality.

The key really is in its organization and coordination. It's picketing, it's legislation pushing, it's letter and article writing. It's saturating all forms of media and action so that each supports the other. To do any one thing without the others would be doomed to failure.

Also, the question of whether we should or shouldn't be more vocal, to me, is moot. Atheists seem to be waiting for everyone to agree. It's swell that we're so concerned about the opinions of all atheists, but as rational beings, we have to know that ever coming to a happy conclusion that all atheists want is a bit silly. It's not possible. And that's fine too. I see an overwhelming want/need of enough atheists to warrant an organized push for change. And we would be absolutely no different than any other group that's come before us--every one of them had members of their social group who were against the change, some even actively fought against it and actually joined the opposing side. What you do is you push through that, fight them like you would fight the oppressing group, and by fits and starts, you slowly make change.

So, yes, I am for picketing extremist churches. It clearly couldn't just be thrown together willy-nilly. I would suggest it be organized not by any small group or groups, but by a large national rep. It should be carefully chosen, focused, and, like I said, supported by supplementary activism.

I would hope that by doing that, we could eventually, over time, build up enough clout in our cause to picket any ol' church for the sake of reason.

Geez, I do go on, don't I? Now, I wanted to add something in response to some other responses at AR. First and foremost is that I disagree with the idea that we should not picket extremist churches in general but only churches in which a particular, pointed event might have occurred. As in: we should not protest extremism in general, but only specific extreme actions. I think we should do both.

Picketing churches that are surrounded by a particular scandal might be a good way to start out, as any wrong-doing in that church would be a good media focus and allow the public to psychologically pinpoint exactly what our grievance is. For me, however (and I'm speaking only for myself, if you agree, then great), while I get upset whenever a religious figure or organization involves itself in some controversy (especially when it's often given a blind eye because of the religious affiliation), I am more upset about the inherant universal forgiveness all religiosity receives from all levels of society (hence the pass so many extremists get). That, to me, is also worth protesting and on a regular basis.

I thinks it's essential to not just start chipping away at the ice berg in one area, but from all sides. It's important to not only point out that sometimes some religious people/organizations do wrong, but that the entire way of thinking is wrong. Protesting individual churches for specific instances is a good strategic move in order to allow the public to focus on their bad act instead of our supposed 'bad' act (of protest). However, protesting the general problem of religion should not be dismissed--the concept behind it is too vital for our cause, as I think most of us would agree that someday, eventually, the prevalence of rational thinking so that religion is no longer the norm is the ultimate goal. Some atheists prefer not to bother with this because it won't happen in their lifetimes. Well, when I think of all the women, for instance, who fought for suffrage over decades--some fought all their lives, actively and tirelessly--and died before they could cast a single ballot, I am eternally grateful to them. Not bothering because you yourself won't immediately benefit from it is selfish. We are fighting for a better world, not just for ourselves but for humantiy and the planet in general.

In that light, I suggest we stop our bitching and moaning and get this party started. ;)

The Anti-Atheist Bigotry of Alex McRae

2008-07-21T05:35:00.000-07:00

There's a little bit of a kerfuffle over Alex McRae's opinion piece over at the Times-Herald.com out of Georgia. What we have here is a high school level (at best) sample of writing accompanied by the thought-processes expected from a fifteen year old who wants to write for the school newspaper but disdains actually doing the research. Of course, it's fine to have an opinion, and really, McRae is well within his rights to have such a pathetically misinformed opinion, based entirely on his own personal misconceptions about the world (reality in general seems to be just one of his problems). But in the wonderfully long list of comments following his piece--the vast majority of them pro-atheist (a phenomenon I will happily attribute to the popularity of Atheist Revolution and Atheist Nexus)--have cried bigotry. The few dissenting voices among the crowd have claimed that atheists are bigoted against Christians all the time.

Well, first let's take a look at a few things McRae has written. Most are truly amazed that he seems to think we lack a sense of humor, and many have called him on that. This, I just don't care about, at least, not on the surface. What McRae is actually doing, in his ham-fisted sort of way, is bagging on atheists' outlook on existence. Let's see:

These two things may explain why you haven't seen or heard much about the most talked-about event on the 2008 secular calendar ... Atheist World.
Don't be alarmed. Atheist World isn't a new planet. It's a convention of people who don't believe in much of anything. Small crowds are expected.

Small crowds indeed. It might help Mr. McRae sleep better at night to think there are just a handful of godless misfits meandering around, but really, there are a lot more of us than he thinks. We are still a minority, but we are there (and growing), we are citizens of this country, we pay our taxes, and we deserve the same respect as any other group.

Apparently, atheists aren't fond of such frivolity. Guess it might imply they actually enjoyed life.
- - -
Under the title "We Are Not" (which should be "What We Believe"), the brochure says, "An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god, whether the god is called Jehovah, Satan, Vishnu, Allah, Loki, Zeus, or any other name. Therefore, atheists hold many varieties of social and political philosophies."
Or none.
- - -
But the more you read about this group, it seems like what they're most free of is a sense of humor. There's not a light moment on the agenda.
You wonder why. Here's an "enlightened" guess: Maybe atheists refuse to embrace laughter because they're afraid that one day they'll discover the joke's on them.

This goes well beyond merely saying we're no fun (by the way, he clearly didn't take a very good look at the agenda, which you can do here and see how patently wrong his is). The implication is that we have no joy, we are incapable of enjoying life. McRae perpetuates the misconception that atheists believe nothing--this is a fundamental and mind-boggling mistake to make. His attacking our humor is not merely that--it is an attack on atheism itself, the very concept. He is saying "See fellow Christians, see how hollow and dead they are. Stand warned, cling to your faith as a lifepreserver, or else you might end up like that." He might like to read the many, many accounts spread across the atheist blogosphere of atheists who have deconverted from religion and the immense freedom and joy they felt upon doing so.

Furthermore, how many times does one need to go over it? Athiesm. Not A-everything. No gods. In fact, I'll even say that while the AAI has every right to decide it's own guidelines, they are in fact wrong. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods. Their own claim that we all live our lives without the supernatural is just wrong. There are many atheists who believe in ghosts. I'm not one of them and in my opinion it is a failure of reason. But a proper definition is a proper definition and if McRae can just concentrate for a moment on that (focus, McRae, focus!), maybe he can understand that claiming we believe in nothing is a sign of grossly underdeveloped thinking. Many of us don't believe in anything supernatural, but it's important to point out that the supernatural doesn't encompass every possible concept. While Christians feel the need to waste their time occupying themselves with the supernatural as if it's the be-all, end-all of existence, atheists generally prefer to believe in reality and everything that goes with it, concrete and abstract--something far more applicable to our species' occupation of this little spot of humanity in a vast, unconcerned universe.

Of course, McRae is convinced we have no social and political philosophies. According to McRae, the atheist slouches around wallowing in the despair of his/her meaningless existence, with nothing to do but try not to cry too hard while he/she waits to die. Hence, no sense of humor.

Please.

Anyway, we could go on all day long about how obviously and sadly wrong McRae is--this man who apparently writes for a living, spouting off uninformed information to the public as 'opinion.' Yeah, opinion. As if that makes it okay. "It's just his opinion, it's no big deal," some have said. Yeah, well, some peoples' opinions are just plain factually wrong. The very least he could do was get his facts straight (I'm not even going to get into the corny draw of the well-used 'Hitler was an atheist' card) and then form an opinion. But that would be asking too much.

And, so what of our own hypocrisy? Yes, it's true. Many of us have been guilty of making sweeping generalizations about Christians, including myself. Vjack said it best when he said:

From time to time, I have been guilty of making generalizations about Christians in that I do not always say "some Christians" or "most Christians" and may mistakenly take the short cut of "Christians." ...
...I've also said again and again that most Christians are good people. Much of what they believe is both irrational and harmful to society; despite that, they are mostly good people with many redeeming qualities.

So, what's the difference then? I'll give you a couple, though I'm sure these can be supplemented.

Firstly, I hardly ever...ever...turn on the news, open up the paper, or see online that atheism has caused any serious damage in the world. But I am always and forever, every single day, confronted with religion wreaking havoc all over the planet and religious people inflicting pain and suffering on their fellow human beings, often in the name of their particular religious cause, many times despite their superior moral religious claims to satisfy their own personal desires. I'm talking every day, multiple times a day. It's everywhere. One can't swing a dead cat without hitting it. Now, if the face of this, is it any wonder that those of us without faith, without gods, tend to see religion and the religious in a particularly unfavorable light? The facts on the ground seem to be conditioning us to think that all religious people are, indeed, dangerous. It's a wrong thing to think--as vjack said, there are many good people who are also Christians. But the examples to the contrary are really quite overwhelming.

Now, on the other hand, like I said, I very rarely--to be honest, probably never--hear about atheists or atheism causing the kind of wholesale damage that religions and the religious do. Nothing in my memory is sticking out. For a moment, I wanted to give them Stalin, but that's not doesn't actually count either. What he did, he did completely separate of his atheism. His atrocities were entirely unconnected to his atheism. He was a bad man and he happened to also be an atheist, as opposed to, he was a bad man because he was an atheist. The point is that the religious have nothing on atheists except that their leaders tell them it's bad and we're bad (these are the same people feedig htem religion in the first place). They have no first-hand examples of this general badness so they're using their famously flawed reasoning to come to a false conclusion.

So, there's our excuse. What's yours?

Secondly, as many of the folks who commented rightfully pointed out, we are the most hated minority in the country (for no other reason that the above irrational misconception). Had this little diatribe been about blacks, gays, Asians, Hispanics, etc., etc., there would be no doubt as to its bigoted contents. But because we are so hated it doesn't matter. At this moment in time, we are an easy target. Which leads to my next and final point.

Some commentors said that we shouldn't give this idiot the time of day. That he is obviously not very bright and to give him attention is empowering him. Well, some might see it that way, as I'm sure he will (I can see it now: "See, no sense of humor. Those atheists are terrible, look how they came out en masse to attack me!"). However, I am a believer (pay attention McRae, I'm about to give you an example of something an atheist like myself might believe in) that people do these things, say these things, exactly because no one calls them on it. Some can argue that if you ignore them, they will go away. I would like to ask those people if they see the sweeping anti-atheist prejudice in the country going away? It's not, is it? In that case, I say that everytime we see an example of opinions like this being put out there, working to misinform others, we stomp that shit out like a use-up campfire. What does Smokey say: Only you can prevent forest fires. Only you. And only we can prevent the high and mighty religious majority from continuing enjoying the unfair privilege they've enjoyed for far too long. It's time to even the playing field, and that means forcing them to acknowledge our rightful equality as human beings and of citizens of this country. Say it loud, say it proud--we are godless. Get used to it.

Atheist Blogroll

2008-07-19T19:27:00.000-07:00

Wrong In Their Mind Tanks has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Big Thanks to Mojoey!

Secular Coalition Action Alerts

2008-07-19T07:14:00.000-07:00

The Secular Coalition for America does important work in that they are the only group I know of actively lobbying for non-theists in Washington. As you can imagine, they carry a rather heavy load. What can you do to help? Well, you can regularly swing up their website and see if they've got any Action Alerts up. At the moment, there are three.

Stop the Passage of the Boy Scouts Commemorative Coin: What? The Boy Scouts? What harm could this possibly do? What's wrong with the Boy Scouts, you might ask? Well, the Boy Scouts of America rather explicitly discriminates against non-theists as well as homosexuals. Yes, the BSA declaration of Religious Principle states that:

no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members.

While courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the BSA having their own membership guidelines as a private organization (fine--outdated and hateful, but fine), there has been ample and rightful litigation trying to prevent the BSA from receiving any federal funds. Want in on the act? Click here and contact your Senators.

Next, is the effort to Stop Federal Funding of Religious Education. Surely this is something we can all get behind--that is, anyone remotely interested in preserving what's left of our tattered education system, consistently beleaguered with an endless stream of anti-science confrontations.

This month, the Senate Committee on Appropriations voted to continue funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship program. Sounds inocuous enough, but as the SCA explains:

This program allows parents in the District of Columbia to send their children to religious schools with tuition vouchers funded by American taxpayers.

'Nuff said. Once again, our non-theistic dollars trickle away from our wallets and into the hands of those who perpetuate the plague of irrational thinking in this country--our government is trying to make our country dumber. Click here to say NO.

And finally, please tell Heath and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt that the "conscience clause" is, indeed, unconsciencable. He has teamed up with everyone's favorite ~~moron~~ President to allow medical professionals to refuse treatment that goes against their personal religious beliefs. The SCA says:

Already, a “conscience clause” exists in federal law that allows a medical professional to opt out of performing a procedure or delivering a product if it violates his/her “conscience.” But now, the “conscience clause” is taken a step further and jeopardizes any woman’s ability to get complete and accurate information and services.

How are they doing this exactly? Huffington states:

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion.

What does this 40% include? It includes the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception. So, pretty much anything that's not a condom will be defined as "abortion" and the way abstinence only education is trying depserately to phase out condom use, pretty soon we'll all be awash in STDs, babies, and babies with STDs as far as the eye can see. Does this thought horrify you as much as it does me? Then, please, click here.

- - -

Some folks say to ignore the fundamentally religious--that they are fringe, they are not mainstream, and they do no real harm. Pay no attention to the loonies. That is not my opinion--these people are sneaky bastards and, most important, they know how to work the system. Do not let them.

Like I said, the SCA does important work. Please support them by going to these links and doing what you can--supplement an easy email with a snail mail letter, or even a phone call to your representative. And please consider a financial donation to the SCA. They rely completely on our donations, so you know every little bit helps. Wouldn't it be nice to know that at least some of your money is serving your own interests--to fight against having your money spent on the interests of religious crazy people? I'm making my donation today.

Atheist Nexus

2008-07-18T06:52:00.000-07:00

Visit Atheist Nexus

Atheist Nexus, a brand-spankin'-new social networking site for us freethinking heathens, has been doing a brisk business as of late. What I mean by that is that atheists have been joining at a mind-boggling pace. Okay, 'mind-boggling' might be too strong a word. It's all relative to expectation, I suppose. Had you asked me how well a social networking site for atheists would do, I don't think I would have had an answer. Through frequenting a handful of atheist blogs, I could never really tell if atheists wanted to form a community, or if they wanted to stay as far away from each other as possible. It's the whole 'herding cats' phenomenon that I speak of.

The success of Atheist Nexus, though, tells me there is a need for this sort of thing, and while some atheists may pooh-pooh the whole concept--being the rebels that they are--I think it serves a very important roll. If you peruse through the profiles, you will find a lot of I'm the only one that I know of, or stories of feeling the need to lay low, be quiet about their atheism, the fear of losing one's job. I myself was shocked to find someone in my very own small town just yesterday. It wasn't that I was surprised that there were other atheists here (we're a college town, full of professors), but to make contact with one that felt strongly enough about his own atheism that he would sign up for a site like Atheist Nexus--that was something, that was different. Suddenly, the world of atheism got a little smaller. I almost had an only gay-in-the-village-moment.

So, now we have a hub where we can all meet, get to know one another, trade recipes and skills, make contact, congregate--and when that happens, who knows what activism will branch off and grow outwards, sticking in the eyes of the larger world. Again, this will be pooh-poohed by those who feel that being a social pariah, being different from the mainstream, is somehow synonymous with being an atheist. Those people can enjoy the time they spend in their parents' basements, hating the world. When we who recognize the value of community succeed in making the world friendlier for atheists, they can either thank us, or they can go find another reason to alienate themselves from society.

PZ Myers and the Explosive Cracker

2008-07-16T16:29:00.000-07:00

Much has been blogged since last week's Cracker-Gate, involving PZ Myers and, and then Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (I believe he has a specially evolved organ that detects even the slightest insult to Catholicism; this organ will also explode and kill him if he doesn't spend every last bit of strength he has making the insulter pay through the most extreme means possible). There has been support, and there has been anger. Some of the anger isn't even coming from the Catholics; it's coming from fellow atheists. And the argument seems reasonable enough--this was nothing more than a ridiculous college-esque prank and it does nothing but shed poor light on the atheist community. This is, indeed, one way to look at it.

We can blame the student who started it. Or not:

Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.

"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."

A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.

"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.

Yeah, we can blame him for not knowing what psychotic freaks are housed in the church during mass. We can also blame him for attempting to satiate a friend's curiosity about the church. And frankly, can we blame his for this:

Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records. He denied he is holding the Eucharist hostage to protest that support.

I can't. The fact is those people reacted like insane people. Insane. And the fact is that that's a whole lot of cashola for student groups on a public campus.

Point Number One: That was a very serious overreaction from folks who get a favorably disproportionate amount of free money. And then to go on about the body of Christ being taken hostage? Please. And frankly, it's all fine and good (and incredibly stupid) until threats are made regarding this kid's college standing. Then, suddenly it's not okay. It's not just a harmless, if not creepy and self-righteous, overreaction. Now they mean to do some real damage. And so Myers goes on to make point Number Two.

Might I remind folks, though, that this isn't about Myers's approach. Myself--I don't care so much about the approach. Complaining that Myers desecrating a cracker--or even admitting that he would if given half the chance--sheds a poor light on us is, frankly, dishonest. How many atheists see a consecrated communion wafer as the body of Christ? Raise your hands. I quick count of the room sees none. How many--if these crackers tasted anything unlike cardboard--would have these with their lunch? Oh look, a full house. In this light, is Myers expressing anything but the truth, especially if he's representing the atheist community? This is Point Number Two.

The fact that very, very few of us give two shites for this cracker and truly resent being forced to respect it and a variety of other religious expressions, but then act as if the very act Myers recommends is indeed bad (or is the characteristic of) a 'bad atheist' is, well, illogical. At least, to us it should be. Myers is saying that we don't have to bend to anyone's freakshow, religious customs/rituals. We have no obligation to respect any of it, not in the least. Nor should we be forced to.

So, let's look at a chronological time line of concepts and events, as I see them.

-We insist we don't have an obligation to respect any aspect of others' religious beliefs/rituals/idols, etc.

-There is an instance--one of so, so many throughout this country--of religious preference in a public system (University of Minnesota is indeed a public school): "Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records."

-Though he denies the cracker incident is a protest to that fact, I believe it is a legitimate one.

-Cracker is manhandled by heathen.

-Catholics freak because they feel their idols are being disrespected. Action is taken on both sides: "Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF's student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force. Following that complaint, Brinati said church members filed their own official complaints of disruptive conduct. Punishment for either offense could result in suspension or expulsion."

-Myers one-ups this college kid by offering to desecrate any communion wafers that happen to come his way.

-Catholics freak. Atheists freak.

Now, as far as I can see, those atheists have indeed joined the Catholic League not only in saying that we have no right to respect or disrespect any religious representations as we see fit, but that what Cook did and what PZ did (two acts of protest against things I was sure we all agreed were wrong, wrong, wrong) are indeed universally, somehow inherently "wrong." They are saying that desecration of a cracker is not a positive act of protest against a thoroughly oppressive state demonstrating that we should be able to do what we want with the cracker based on our beliefs, or more appropriately, our lack thereof. We are joining them in assigning the acts as morally bad and thus they reflect badly on us. We are saying that the act we claim is morally neutral (and in some cases positive) based on our philosophy of reality is actually as they say it is--morally wrong.

I see both acts, by Cook and Myers, as protest positive. I don't see them as done for fun or profit. I see both making a legitimate point. Cook pointed out that public funds should be distributed evenly and not balanced towards religious organizations. Myers pointed out that we have a right to protest this prejudice against us and the preference for them, to be treated fairly, and we can express that in any way we see fit--including wiping our asses with their 'Body of Christ,' if we so choose. The fact is that loud and seemingly obnoxious acts are more likely to get peoples' attention, and for that, so long as the purpose is legitimate (and I believe this is) I express my support. It's a shame some atheists have decided, once that attention had been gained, to lose a bit of spine and throw up their hands to the Catholic League, tucking tails beneath them and slapping their own wrists muttering "Bad, bad atheist."