Remember What Wil Wheaton Says...

Now these are 10 commandments I can live with...

Kite-making 101

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1905

"The West Wing" and Religion

A short while ago I was watching The West Wing while getting ready for work.  I like The West Wing - it is one of the few shows I have all the DVDs to.  One of this morning's episodes (Bravo shows two episodes most weekday mornings) was one of my favorites.  I did not realize that it was the pilot, but based on that one show, it is easy to see how it got picked up.

The show centered on a gaff made by Josh Lyman on a Sunday morning show, in which he stated "you're god is too busy being indicted for tax fraud" to an evangelical, and the political fallout from "insulting millions of christians."  At one point, to coddle the outraged evangelicals, the White House staff holds a meeting with some of the evangelical leaders.  After Josh apologizes (sincerely, it seemed) things get heated, leading to the following exchange:

John Van Dyke (one of the evangelical leaders): The First Commandment says Honor thy father.
Toby Ziegler: No it doesn't
Josh Lyman: Toby...
Toby Ziegler: It doesn't.
Josh Lyman: Listen...
Toby Ziegler: No if I'm going to make you sit through this preposterous exercise, we're going to get the names of the damn commandments right.
Mary Marsh: Okay. Here we go.
Toby Ziegler: Honor thy father is the Third Commandment.
John Van Dyke: Then what's the First Commandment?
President Josiah Bartlet: I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt worship no other god before me. Boy, those were the days, huh?

The President then goes off on the evangelicals for not speaking out against radicals, one of whom had just sent his granddaughter a Raggedy Ann doll with a knife in its throat.

During the entire show, respect was shown for people's belief systems, but little respect was granted to those who wished to abuse the power of their religion, or force it on to others.  This was true for any faith - if you want to watch a scene with anger, check out the episode where CJ announces that a girl's school in the Middle East was allowed to burn with children in it because radical muslims refused blocked access due to the school's unholy teachings.

The President Bartlet character was a catholic with very deep faith, but his religious beliefs were never forced on anybody else.  They guided his actions, but never predetermined them.  All of his actions and decisions were based on reality, not a book.  The show even handled his crisis of faith when Mrs. Landingham died well.

"The West Wing", the product of that damned liberal commie atheist Hollywood elite, showed religion and faith in better light than anything Pat Robertson could possibly dream of.

Separation of Church and State - Not Just a Good Idea, It's the Law

In addition to the christianists pushing for the merger of their god and our Constitution, we have dozens of lawmakers presenting the National Day of Prayer as Constitutional, even though a Federal judge just ruled otherwise.  Paliban Daily posts this entry from the Secular Coalition for America discussing the issue.

"Separation of Church and State" is Beneficial To All

A couple of weeks ago Sarah Palin, failed/abandoned half-Governor of Alaska, started spewing nonsense about this country being a christian country and that the founders wanted their flavor of god to be the basis of all we did.
(Please see: Palin rejects notion that God is separate from the state, Palin denies church-state separation, acknowledges Prayer Warriors affiliation, Sarah Palin Says We’re a Christian Nation — She’s Wrong, and Palin & the Religious Right: A Trojan Horse in the GOP)  


She's even prompted other christianists to add their two cents worth, including Chuck Norris.  After all - who should we listen to concerning the American government than a B-list actor who makes hyper-patriotic movies based somewhere JUUUUUSSTTT a bit outside of reality, a TV series that spends quite a bit of time on Indian affairs concerning Indians that are no longer in Texas, and certainly nowhere near Dallas, and is most recognized now for touting his exercise machine...


Anyways - Palin and her ilk are again doing the combined declaration of "cry for us for we christians are oppressed" and "this is a christian nation and god watches over us".  Any inkling of "Separation of Church and State" is met with "quit oppressing the 70-80% of us god-fearing christians", followed by playing loose with facts concerning the founding fathers' beliefs.  Read "Yeah, What She Said" and "...and What He Said, Too" for some thoughts on the founding father's beliefs...


The christianists have been kind of getting their way lately.  They are 2-1 in recent judicial rulings, with their only loss being a Federal justice ruling that a portion of the law that set up the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Christianists did win two cases - one in which the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance was declared "patriotic, not religious", and the other declaring that a cross is not a religious symbol.  Talk about activist judges!  Declaring "god" is not religious, and the cross is not a religious symbol!


So the christianists are getting what they want - official recognition and interpretation of the bible as it pertains to the United States.  Based on those rulings and interpretations, I may need to change some habits I've built up over the years.  You see, I had a good friend in high school that was a good catholic, and he took offense to my exclamations of "god damn (it)".  Since that time, I have tried to refrain from using that phrase as it is unnecessarily offensive.  But a Federal court has ruled that god is not a religious term - so I think I will feel less self-conscious about using the phrase "god damn (it)" - how can it be offensive to religious people if "god" is not a religious term?  I might even create some art using bodily fluids and a cross.  Again - no offense should be taken due to the cross not being a christian symbol...

... and What He Said, Too

Adding to PalibanDaily's comments on the U.S. not being a Christian nation, here are 2 cents from Bad Astronomy.

Bad Astronomy is a neat site that has a mixture of Science (with a capital "S", no less!), hack demolition (specializing recently in demolishing idiots in the Anti-vaxxer community), and poor examples of astronomy and science in TV and movies.  Definitely worth checking out.

Yeah - What She Said

Jenny Donati runs a very nice site called Paliban Daily, and this post for May 6th, 2010, in reference to the unconstitutional National Day of Prayer, presents some great quotes from the Founding Fathers and other sources concerning the separation of church and state.

The post and Paliban Daily are both worth checking out...


You might also want to jump to Paliban World - a page on Paliban Daily that accumulates numerous atheist blogs, including NoYourGod.  You can find work from a LOT of fine bloggers there.

WWtZWD?*

A nice relaxing song by Axis of Awesome.

h/t UnreasonableFaith

And for some unrelated fun from Axis of Awesome, check out this ditty played in Four Chords.


*What Would the Zombie Wizard Do?

The Dangers of Blind Faith

There is faith all around us, in everything we do.
 - Every time I pull out a dollar bill, I am reminded that the currency is backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government".  I have faith that the system designed to handle finances in this country and the value of that bill are valid - there is (ironically) a theoretical solid foundation to that dollar and every other one flying around;
 - When I am driving through an intersection and I have a green light, I have faith that the folks with the red lights at the intersection will actually stop and grant me my right-of-way;
 - When I drink some milk (or Silk or similar product), I have faith in the system that has been put in place to make sure that the food I eat is safe to eat;
 - When I turn on the TV and watch the evening news (ABC, NBC, NBC, or PBS), I have faith that the information being broadcast is true.  There may be varied opinions mixed in with that information, but the basis of those opinions are facts.

Faith is a wonderful thing - when based in reality.

Blind faith, however, is neither a wonderful thing, nor based in reality.  It does not matter if that blind faith is in a supreme being, a driver's ability or willingness to grant right-of-way when they should, the financial system, or even the food delivery system.
 - I have the skills and tools needed and the ability to protect myself should our financial system collapse.  (No, I am not a survivalist nor do I believe in any sort of armageddon - but I do believe in personal protection);
 - While I may have faith that the next guy will stop at a stop light, I still purchased a vehicle with many safety features in case some fool has had too much to drink, is IM'ing on their cell phone, or their brakes fail;
 - I give my food a quick sniff-test (for what that is worth), and have my doctor's phone number on speed-dial;
 - I double- and triple-check the data that is the basis of news reports, and filter out the bullshit.

Those that have blind faith are doomed to failure.  Those that foist that blind faith on the rest of us doom us.

A common refrain during Bush the Second's administration was that business was capable of regulating itself.  This was not limited to W's administration - it has been a factor in many administrations during my lifetime - both Democratic and Republican.  In the late 90's some new financial instruments came about (well, they existed prior to that, but started being used widely during that time).  Some financial geniuses decided that the market was the best regulator of, well, the market for these instruments.  In fact, a law was passed specifically prohibiting the governmental regulation of the market.  Those who had blind faith in the ability of the financial industry to regulate itself were wrong.... very, very wrong.  They failed to take into consideration that people controlled those markets, and that those people may consider their own selves and their own short-term needs and desires over the market's long-term well being.  The cost of that blind faith?  Trillions of dollars.

Another arena where blind faith by a few has failed many is the current oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  5,000 barrels of oil per day are being discharged into the Gulf.  The Deepwater Horizon was a reasonably new rig - built in 2001.  Those in charge of the rig, and of regulating the rig, had blind faith that a major catastrophe could not occur.  In fact, up until the April 20th explosion that killed 11 and led to the oil spill, some people responsible for the safety of the rigs, workers, and environment mocked the possibility of a major spill (see "Landrieu mocks offshore drilling safety concerns" at Daily Kos).  A U.S. Senator, sitting with a BP executive, deriding the concerns of those who feared a disaster... See what blind faith can get you?

It doesn't matter if that blind faith is in technology, markets, people, mythical creatures, or a church leader's connection to that mythical creature.  Accepting anything as gospel (so to speak) without any question will simply lead to trouble.  And if the person doing that is a leader, they are simply leading their people into trouble - and those people deserve better.

To the Pope (NSFW... REAAAALLYYY NSFW)

To get this little ditty out of your head you will probably have to resort to Afternoon Delight, or maybe even Waterloo.  But it expresses things just oh so well.

OMFG (Oh, My Father Groped me) Part V

Courtesy of PalibanDaily...

Catholics aren't the only perverts and child rapists.

Pass The Loot and Load the Ammunition

This is Pastor Donnie Swaggart, son of Jimmy Swaggart:  "I've got my 45s loaded and polished."  Granted, the guy did not come from the highest quality genetic material (whether you determine quality to mean "ethical, decent human being", or "top-o-the-line huckster"), but this astounds me.

Whatever happened to followers of "the prince of peace"?  (Courtesy of Wikipedia - check out the second line on the page: "...(for) the religious figure, see Jesus.)  This bozo should be preaching about helping your fellow man, being good, acting good, etc.  Instead he proclaims that there is "a philistine in Washington".  Because of his perverted "holy" views, he feels violence may be justified.  After all, he has his guns loaded and polished.

The "man" needs to learn about the country he lives in.  Civilized people really, really need to learn about this country.  If you do not like somebody who is in office, fire them the legal way - by not electing them.  Have they broken laws?  Impeach them.  Don't like who they are working with?  Work to get your folks elected.  But to imply that armed revolution is justified now is simply treasonous.  I hope the Secret Service and FBI have their eyes on Swaggart.

Why is this guy NOT in a psychiatric ward?  If I were to go to a street corner, and start preaching that "there's an alien working in Cosmetics at the Macy's in Newark, the police would whisk me away for an evaluation.  But, because the voices this guy hears in his head are the same voices millions others claim to hear, he is given a pass.

Listen to the whole message if you can.  I did a while back, but could not bring myself to do it again for this post.

And I have mentioned this before, and I will mention it again - Swaggart and his ilk are not the only ones with guns.  I love my country, and I WILL defend its Constitutionally elected government.

I Can't Draw, but I Can Link

Mark your calendars for May 20th - it's the first annual Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!


I can't draw, so instead I'll just add a few links for fun:

The brouhaha

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/04/20/aims/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/04/22/bear/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/04/15/fear/

Just remember - the gods wrestle over who gets to smite/kill a cute little kitten each time you chuckle at one of those cartoons (unless you are a dog person - then they wrestle for a puppy!)!

STFU Unbelievers submission FTW

STFU Believers can be rude, crude, and even disrespectful.  Maybe that's why I like it so much!  Well, that and the brutal honesty of some submissions, and downright idiocy shown by some believers.

I really liked this one:  Via SullivanStreet

Bonus (2-parter):   Part-1, Part-2

Unbelievable

Based on polls taken by Gallup between May 2005 and May 2007, one-third of Americans believe the bible is literally true.  (h/t FriendlyAtheist for the link)

Can yo believe that?

One out of three people read the bible, and say "yes - that actually happened."  One-third believe Noah built an ark, filled it with 2 of every species (except unicorns and dinosaurs), and waited for the rain.  One-third believe that a man lived to be 969 years old (give or take a century or two).

I have already discussed bible literalists - but I did not realize (and have a hard time comprehending) that there were so many.... The US population is approximately 300,000,000, and some simple math puts that one-third figure at one hundred million.

Of course, some questions are raised by the thought of "the bible is the literal truth"...
 - The first has to be: "Which bible?"  (Why are there so many versions?)  Some list Methuselah's age to be 969 years at death, while others put it close to 700.  Was he a ghost only partially there for 200+ years?  Which translation is THE translation?  (As a bible literalist once told me - "if god can create the universe, the earth, and man, don't you think he could find a good publisher?"  Well - which "publisher" is right?)
 - How old is the earth?  Science and carbon dating put the earth at between 4-5 billion yeas old.  Literalists looking at genealogies in the bible put it close to 8,500 years.  (Detractors of the 4-5 billion year age claim the reason there exists conflicting or confusing "evidence" of the earth's age is that the devil put that false evidence there.  Hmmm - you think that if god could find a good publisher, he could also find a good groundskeeper to remove such rubbish.)
 - If these 100,000,000 true believers are REALLY true believers, and if failure to follow their god's words and commands are sins, why are theses 100,000,000 people not going around killing gays, adulterers, non-believers, etc?  Please do not get me wrong - I do not want them to do those horrid acts, and if somebody does try to follow through on those acts, I will do what I can to defend myself and others targeted by their brand of mythology.  But it seems to me that if your really Really REALLY BELIEVE, you should be doing something about it.

Am I ever glad I am not a science teacher right about now...

National Day of Prayer = Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin has ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.  I think that is appropriate - although the government can acknowledge that religion has played a part in this country's history, making a declaration of "OK - now EVERYBODY pray!" crosses that line that should exist between church and state.

Many religious may exclaim that the NDoP does not promote a single religion.  That is true - it does not promote a single religion, but prayer in itself is (to paraphrase Jim Morrison) a petition to a lord.  Whether that lord or higher being is jehova, zenu, the flying spaghetti monster, gaea, or buddha, the implications are that there is something out there.  The government, by declaring "PRAY!", takes that stance, and that is unconstitutional.

As PZ says:  Let the fireworks begin.

OMFG... Part IV

Well, at least that Bishop of Tenerife has some good company.  The troubles the catholic church is having with their child rapers?  As PZ writes - It must be…The Jews!!!

xkcd for the win (again)

Lego

As Funny as Telling a Kid His Parents Died in a Car Crash!

Practical jokes have always interested me.  Not in a "my gosh, I love practical jokes and admire those who pull them" way, but more in a "how low does some fool have to go to get his jollies?" manner.

Practical jokes have been part of mainstream entertainment for years.  Candid Camera hit the airwaves in 1948, and was broadcast in one form or another through 2004.  Punk'd has been a hit on MTV for years.  Scare Tactics and Boiling Points , two of the more vile versions of this type of show, have also had their runs.

Now, christians frequently claim that theirs is a religion of love and peace.  Where in the lexicon of "love and peace" does "scare the crap out of a fellow believer by convincing them that their greatest fear has come true" fall?  A so-called comedian tricks people into believing that the rapture has occurred, but those people were "left behind", taping their horrified reactions.  That's not "love and peace" - that's childishness and downright cruelty!  How funny would it be to tell a child that his parents died in a car crash just to watch his reaction, then tell the kid "ahhh, just kidding."  That's what these cruel SOBs are doing.

While researching these painful shows, I did notice one interesting (but not surprising) tidbit - Candid Camera was last broadcast on PAX between 2001-2004.  PAX TV was launched by a christian who felt there was too much violence and sex on TV.  I guess he also felt there was not enough abject cruelty on TV.

OMFG... Part III

Is this audacity?  Myopia?  Obliviousness?

My guess is YesYesYes.  The Vatican is now claiming that the pedophilia and rape allegations are due to people not liking the Pope and church's "stance on abortion and same-sex marriage."

"By now, it's a cultural contrast," Sodano told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. "The pope embodies moral truths that aren't accepted, and so, the shortcomings and errors of priests are used as weapons against the church."

"The pope embodies moral truths"....  HE PROTECTED AND ENABLED PEDOPHILES AND RAPISTS!  I am curious as to which moral truths the protection and enabling of pedophiles and rapists embodies.

OMFG... part II

Try not to retch while reading this one from Pharyngula.

PZ links to a rather troubling (aka - completely disgusting) comment by a bishop.

My guess is that there will be a Part III, Part IV, Part V.... (I think the usage of Roman numerals is appropriate in this case.)

Maybe Hell Does Exist...

(No - this is not another post on raped kids, although the title certainly would fit.)

XKCD's version

Happy Happy Happy

Another gem from

Calamities of Nature

OMFG...

There are a few reasons I did not start writing about the catholic church and their serial rapist priests***.

First - So many folks were writing so much about it that I thought nothing more needed to be added.

Second - The atrocities were so numerous, once started where would I end?

Third - it was just so damned depressing.

This morning I was reading yet another story of yet another serial rapist.  This one involves not only a cover-up, but atrocities forced upon the weakest and neediest.  According to a lawsuit filed in Alaska, some pedophile priests were moved to low income, isolated areas in Alaska where the priests could run wild.  h/t Pharyngula for that story - read PZ's analysis/rant of disgust on the situation, but you may not want to read the whole story on a full stomach.  Preferably - have a good stiff drink next to you.

But wait - there's more.... Also courtesy of the same Pharyngula article, a link to a call for the Pope's resignation.

So, yes, there is still a lot being written, and I don't know where/when/how it will stop  And it is still so...damned...depressing.


***Please note - I do not believe that every priest or that even more than a small minority are sick rapists/pedophiles.  I attended catholic church for years, and even got to know the local priest in the catholic church during my teen years.  The Father lived in the house 3 doors down from me, right next to the church, and I delivered newspapers to him daily - he was a good guy, and was happy do discuss/debate religious issues in a constructive manner.  After a few of those discussions (some involving teachers and friends) we left each other agreeing to disagree - and to the best of my knowledge he never damned me to hell.  Most priests probably are very similar to him.  Sadly, the small percentage who are rapists and pedophiles were protected by a corrupt administration.

How Hard of a Concept is This to Grasp?

Don't.F**k.Children.

Rawstory.com shows how the Vatican has company in the Boy Scouts of America.  And not in a good way.

Pretty simple, really.  Everybody is born with 2 major orifices.  Females get 3, while males get to play fireman and have visual aids to count to 21..  (We'll ignore the nose and ears since those are not relevant to the situation.)  

It doesn't matter if you belong to the catholic church, Boy Scouts of America, NAMBLA (not the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, but the sick mofos), or fundamentalist Mormons, sex for adults should be limited to consenting adults.  That means NO KIDS.

Really - how difficult of a concept is that?

A Good Rundown of a Corrupt Organization, and an Abused One

OpenLeft has a nice description of a corrupt organization, and a good organization that was abused to death.

Read it and weep.

That's Funny, I'm Not Laughing...

Just as during Bush the younger's administration the truth sometimes came out most clearly from Comedy Central's Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) and Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report), the truth about the catholic church's cover-up of child-raping priests and the current Pope's involvement in that scandal can be quickly described by a couple of comics: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/03/30/visit/ & http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=355.

Sadly, as funny as those two comics are, I am not laughing.

(Update - of course, The Onion has to get in their two bits:  The Onion's Take)

How can an organization that purports to do "god's work" and claim to be a tool for good let priests sexually abuse children, hide the fact that some priests did that, PROTECT those same priests from the law, and then reassign them to other dioceses to work with other children?

This happened in the US, UK, Brazil, Ireland, Austria, The Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, as well as the pope's native Germany.  (ABC story about the popes and the pedophile in Mexico.)  There is no excuse.

I had a discussion the other day with a buddy who was raised and is still a Catholic.  I asked him what he thinks about the pedophilia and how the church has handled it.  I figured he is like most Catholics - disturbed by the priests who rape the kids, and disgusted at the church hierarchy for the cover-up.  That is pretty much how he felt, he had said.  You could tell the crimes really, really bothered him, but that he hoped the rest of the parishioners, clergy, and administration would help the church recover.

I was leaning towards that view - that the catholic church would recover and clean house, but then I read this.  Two instances - eight years apart, but all too similar.  Folks so caught up in the wonderfulness of their guy, that they look right past the rapist part of that guy.

“We didn’t need to clap him,” parishioner Maura McClean said afterwards, “because I think God will applaud him”.

“But that was the reaction of the decent people of Armagh. I think he’s a true genuine person who’s done no wrong.”

Even if I believed in such a creature, I do not think any god would applaud a pedophile enabler.  And to that parishioner who stated he had "done no wrong" - I can only hope that nobody "does no wrong" to a child he is close to.

As a reader of Andrew Sullivan notes, one-time Cardinal Ratzinger was a micro-manager.  I find it hard to believe that he would call an American university about firing somebody, yet would not know anything about a child molester in his organization.  The Pope has stated that his flock should not listen to "petty gossip".  I've not heard any gossip.  I've read stories of rape and pedophilia and cover-ups, but no gossip.

And for one final WTF approach to the whole priestly pedophilia/rape/cover-up situation, read this and try not to get sick to your stomach.  That "not me - the devil made me do it" bullstuff did not work for Family Circus, and it shouldn't work for the child rapists and their enablers.


In a previous post about being raised catholic, I wrote that one action I may take is to contact the diocese where my parents had me baptized and where my first communion was, and request they remove my name from their records.  That takes place Monday. 

What an Evil, Evil Man

Via UnreasonableFaith.com:

------The Real Jerry Falwell.------

(Index for the Pillars of Faith series)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Inigo Montoya said that to Vizzini after Vizzini's repeated (mis)use of the word "inconceivable".  I think that quote is just as appropriate for the catholic church and their use of the word "celibate" (or "celibacy").

For years we have heard of child sex abuse by catholic priests in the United States.  A priest would abuse kids.  If he was caught, or is suspicion became too great, the church would move the priest to another city/diocese.  And as the commercial goes - lather... rinse... repeat.  The church hierarchy was complicit in allowing these pedophiles to continue raping young boys.

Celibacy is "abstention from sexual relations".  Some would argue that "sexual relations" means the act of intercourse.  Common sense has a more liberal view of sex - if genitals are involved in an act of pleasure, it is sexual in nature.  (We'll ignore the non-sexual contact with genitals when one washes oneself, unless, as Stewie Griffin said to Brian: "You were clean fifteen minutes ago. Now you're just on vacation.")

Celibacy for priests should effectively ban their coming in contact with another's genitals, or others coming in contact with the priests' genitals.  Yet many priests have been accused of sexually abusing children.... Priests being celibate?  "(They) keep using that word.  I do not think it means what (they) think is means."

Did I Go Too Far?

There are a couple dozen folks I went to high school with that, after no contact for 25 years, I now communicate with via Facebook.  As mentioned in an earlier entry, most seem to have fallen in with the very christian groups.  One's comments I even had to hide due to the incessant "oh my, ain't that J a great guy" right after her husband died of cancer.

Health care reform passed the House this past Sunday, so yesterday (Monday) there were a LOT of comments on the bill passing.  Way too many were decrying America's downward spiral into socialism/nazism/communism/obamaism (choose one or all - the folks making the claims did not seem to have a clue).  Here are some:
"Everybody sing - 'Welcome to the USSA...'"
"Home of the fee and land of the caved..."
"Well, we now took a step farther towards loosing our freedom last evening. We are well on our way to a Socialist country."
"Sorry guys...my freakin husband had said it passed...going to have to go and hurt someone now..."

All but the last were from ex-classmates.  Then I read another comment.


"Okay its time to put the coffee cup away and get motivated. I am so glad that the state of our country is not my savior. Jesus is and he never changes and provides in all situation",

I responded

"Here here! Why grant 32 million people affordable health care when you can simply slap a bible down in front of them! How about alternative medicine - you know, stuff like the torah, quran, or dianetics?
I am curious - what verse do you use to cure tonsillitis, and which verse is best for appendicitis?" 

To say the resulted in a firestorm ("fire" was not the 4-letter word I was thinking) would be an understatement.  Folks I did not know were berating me for being mean and uncaring.  I even had folks say they would pray for me.

One of her friends claimed that the writer was simply stating "time to get going and do the housework", but I did not read it that way.  I did offer to apologize to the writer if, as her friend stated, her comment was that innocent.  I sent the writer's friend, whom I do respect to a certain degree, the following note:

So where did my response come from?


I read (a comment) that I interpreted as "time to get off our butts, the country is going to pot, only the big J-man can save us now". Legislation is well on its way to helping 30 million people, and the response is "the country is going to hell - let Jesus help them"? Last I checked, a bearded and robed figure was not walking around emergency rooms curing folks (at least not for a couple of millennia) - that is being done by doctors and nurses. So when I read a note that says "let Jesus do it", that had to be straightened out.


I did not write what I wrote to be mean. Straight-forward (based on how I read her note), yes. Mean? No. (Mean would have been making my last sentence "I am curious - what verse do you use to cure tonsillitis, and which verse is best for appendicitis?... know any that cure Cancer???") I am aware of the hell she and her family has gone through. It was horrible reading about it, let alone living through it. I've lost two brothers already (sitting in a hospital next to my mother, siblings, and my brother's wife and kids waiting for one's body to die), so I don't screw with people about that sort of thing.

So, the question of the day is - Did I Go Too Far?

I may be biased, but my answer is "no".  (Would have been a "yes" had I included that cancer shot.)

"Affirmative Atheism"

In my first post for this blog (In The Beginning....) I stated:

"I am not a "militant atheist" - last I checked, I had not firebombed a church, nor shot any doctors, flown any planes into any buildings, etc., nor are those actions part of any plan I have. I've never tried to convert somebody from belief in a god to atheism, nor do I think I ever will. I will debate beliefs with somebody if they bring it up, but pox on me if I ever go door to door to instruct people about the lack of god (and pox on those that do go door to door to instruct people about their god)."

Based on that statement, it's pretty clear that I can add "fundamentalist atheist" and "evangelical atheist" to the list of things I am not.  I used to joke about being a "devout atheist", but that just fed into the ignorance of those who feel atheism is simply another religion.  John Wilkins, who writes Evolving Thoughts, has come up with the label "Affirmative Atheist", which seems to fit the bill nicely.  (h/t PZ Myers)

As John Wilkins wrote:  "I have often said that I want atheism to become a normalised aspect of modern society (and of course that implies also that I want religious belief and agnosticism, but not religious exclusivism, to be normalised)."  That pretty much covers what I would like, too.  I can deal with the stupidity of folks who call atheists "satanic" (how can one be satanic when one does not believe in Satan?), but I am distressed by the ignorant view of atheists.

I like that label, Affirmative Atheist.  

More Insight from Liam Fox

Liam Fox looks into Scientology.

Expect Tom Cruise to have a tantrum and start jumping on Oprah's couch again.

Another Nice Christian Organization

By now, we are all sickeningly aware of the various sex abuse cases involving priests in the catholic church - here in the U.S., over in Ireland, and now in Germany.  Apparently, there is another nice christian organization that has a history of having officials abuse little boys while their "superiors" cover up that sexual abuse.

BSA - Boy Scouts of America.  That oh-so-holy organization that has booted out top ranking Eagle Scouts because they were gay or atheists, may have been covering up sex abuse for decades.  My only involvement with scouts was as a Webelo, although I never really belonged  - I did not submit the sign-up papers. Ironically, the one thing I remember from the handbook is that Webelo stands for "We'll Be Loyal Scouts".  (Wikipedia has a nice tidbit about the Webelo Scout badge requiring the demonstration of "religiosity"...)  I guess that loyalty only encompassed the BSA, not the boys...

I don't get it... I really don't.  Boy Scouts are supposed to be trustworthy.  Boy Scouts are supposed to be valiant.  When I grew up the BSA PR machine made it seem that Boy Scouts were the crem-de-la-crem of fine young men.  I do not doubt that most Boy Scouts, past and present, are darn fine people.  So how can these men attend these meetings, claim to be doing everything they can to make these boys better people, then rape them.  Worse yet, how can the leadership of the BSA then HIDE it, yet claim to be leading a good christian organization?

(more here)

Must Have Been the Other Brother, Daryl

Courtesy of 27b/6.

:-D

Catholicism, and My Embarrassing Connection to It

I grew up Catholic.  My father was born into a Catholic family, and my mother converted to Catholicism so that she and my father could get married in a Catholic church.  My three oldest siblings attended Catholic schools for years (they graduated from public schools), and each of us (there are 8) spent some time in some sort of religious class, either after school or during the summer.  I even remember making macaroni art on paper plates (so take that, Kyle... Jews aren't the only ones who emote artistically with pasta!).

As a Catholic child, I went to church most Sundays.  I faintly remember and have heard stories of the whole family piling into the station wagon and going to church Sundays, but that kind of fell apart.  By the time I was 6 or 7 we were Good Catholics, helping create the overflow crowds in church on Easter and Christmas as a family.   Other than those two Sundays, Dad would declare "you kids need to go to church today", although he would only go infrequently.  I also remember going to the church on Sunday morning with a couple of older siblings and not going in - just hanging out in the parking lot until the masses were let go, then we would head home.  Mom and Dad must not have been fooled, because they became less insistent on our going over time.

All 8 kids went through First Communion, and the religious instruction that preceded. it.  I recall coming up with some bogus "sins" ("I fibbed to my mother", etc) when in Confession, and the yucky wafer that we had to eat for communion.  It was disgusting (and that was even without considering that I was being a cannibal by accepting it), and would paste itself onto the roof of my mouth, guaranteeing that I would be tasting it for the next half hour.  I believe my 6 oldest siblings made it through Confirmation, but my closest brother (2 years older than me - I am the youngest) and I never took that step.

Because I never was Confirmed, I guess I was never truly a member of the Catholic church.  As I understand the ritual, Confirmation is where a young adult swears fealty to Jesus and the Church.  Until Confirmed, young folks are simply attending with their family - they need to take that final step as an adult (or at least not as an infant - Confirmation seems to be around the ages of 13-14).  It seems to me that 13-14 is a bit young for somebody to be committing to something for life.  Shoot - the Wikipedia article in the above link notes that some consider the age for Confirmation to be as low as 7.  (I guess the priests wanted to ensure they only raped true Catholic alter boys...)

I really had nothing to say about any of the above.  Kids very rarely have any say about their religious upbringing.  Even so, as shown above I identify myself as having been raised a Catholic.  I have never taken the steps some folks have taken to distance themselves from the religion they grew up in, such as unbaptisms or decertification of their baptism.  I am torn about those actions.  Since I have done nothing as an adult to imply that I belong to the Catholic church, taking such an action would essentially give credence to the idea that my baptism and first communion actually mean something to me now - which they don't.  On the other hand, the symbolism of actively breaking away can't be discounted.

I will not bother with the decertification/unbaptism.  I may still write the diocese where my parents had me baptized to request they remove all records of my belonging to the church.  Since I had no decision in that membership, it is not unreasonable to correct the error my parents made.  But I am not sure.

Respect Needs to be Earned

Want some respect for your beliefs?  Then maybe you should believe something that is not so laughable...

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2)
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3)

For more educational and entertaining videos, check out the Thunderf00t YouTube channel.

So Much For 'Separation..."

Two troubling items from this week concerning the deterioration of the Separation of Church and State.

Number One:
In California, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.  This is the same Circuit Court that ruled it unconstitutional in 2002.  Writing for CrooksAndLiars.com, Nichole Belle states one of the troubling aspects (for the record, I do not agree with her first statement about even saying "under god"):


The ruling itself is not so much an issue with me; I don't have a problem with saying "under God". But I do have an issue with Judge Carlos Bea's reasoning in his decision:

Bea wrote that the pledge is indeed a patriotic exercise, and the words "under God" must be viewed in that context.
"The pledge reflects many beliefs held by the founding fathers of this country -- the same men who authored the Establishment Clause -- including the belief that it is the people who should and do hold the power, not the government," Bea wrote. "They believed that the people derive their most important rights, not from the government, but from God."

At the risk of being crude - bullshit.  That is pure, unadulterated bullshit.  God granted me the rights I have in this country as much as the Trix Rabbit,  Harry Potter, and Captain Ahab granted me those rights.  PEOPLE granted me those rights - intelligent, caring people.  Some of those people worked on the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, others worked on later Amendments, and others worked through the Court system (sadly, it appears no system is infallible).  And, of course, the armed forces personnel who have fought to keep this country free.

The other aspect of this ruling is that, should the courts here in my home state of North Carolina decide to follow the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling, children in public schools will be directed to state a belief in a god every school day.  (Circuits outside of the 9th are not obligated by this ruling as nothing done in the Ninth Circuit sets a direct precedence in other Circuits, although it is not uncommon for one Circuit Court to lean on other Circuits' prior decisions.)  A few years back, the State of North Carolina passed a law that stated that the Pledge MUST be said in class every day.  Children do have the option of sitting out the Pledge, but how many 6, 7, or 8 year olds could contradict their teachers and the pressure laid on them by their peers to do this?

I have a niece that felt the U.S. was not worthy of her pledge due to the treatment of the Indians and other injustices.  In junior high decided she would not say it with her class.  Her teacher tried to force her to say it, sending her to the Principal when she continued to refuse.  The Principal was prepared to punish her for not stating the Pledge.  Fortunately, her parents were intelligent folks and were able to talk some sense into the school officials.  How many parents would go to bat with a school like that for their kids?

Basically, a state law requiring that children state a Pledge with "under god" in it grants state sanction to the existence of a god - which is clearly against Separation of Church and State.

Number Two:
Feel for the children of Texas, for they (in the words of the BadAstronomer) are DOOMED.

The Texas "Education" Board has just approved guidelines for textbooks to be used in the next 10 years.  If you were to name the five people most influential in the American Revolution and our system of government, Thomas Jefferson would HAVE to be on that list.  What did they do with Jefferson?  They removed one of the major basis of his actions - Jefferson's impact in the Enlightenment will no longer be taught.  John Calvin's religious viewpoint?  Yep - that's been added.  Jefferson and the idea of Separation of Church and State?  Nahhh.

Per a live blog during the dreadful meeting when that was decided (h/t The Loom and Carl Zimmer):

Here’s the amendment Dunbar changed: “explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.” Here’s Dunbar’s replacement standard, which passed: “explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau,  Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.” Not only does Dunbar’s amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.

A majority of that Board considers themselves religious fundamentalists.  Their ultimate guide is not the Constitution, but their bible.  Their leader is so out of touch with even his Texas constituents that he just lost his bid for reelection - but that will not keep him from taking one last shot at true liberty and the ideas that lead to it. "We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. "History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."  His solution to that "skew"?  "They added apologetics for the McCarthy hearings.  Yes, you read that right. They added to the standards that America was being infiltrated by Communists, and therefore McCarthy was right."  (again, courtesy of Phil Plait of BadAstronomy)

Textbook publishers tend to give more weight to desires of big states when it comes to the content of their textbooks.  Large states such as Texas (as well as California, NY and Florida) have a huge impact on textbook content, so what those states demand the other states will get.  I just have to hope that most of the other states have sense enough to force the textbook publishers to create two sets of textbooks:
For Texas - "US History - GOD and country" (with a forward by Edith Hamilton)
For the rest of us - "US History - Mythology Free Version"

Holy Bacon, Batman!

Feed a man a fish, and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.  Teach a man to fry bacon, and JESUS CHRIST!!!

Jeeze - Do You Think???

I was watching ABC News tonight, and up popped a story on the gay-hatred that is going on in Uganda now.  This is all being led by assorted religious leaders, who claim (similar to Christianist Lauren Ashley) that homosexuality is evil and subject to death per their bible.  One of the questions Diane Sawyer posed prior to doing a lead-in to Nightline (which also carried the story) was "could visits by conservative American christian leaders recently have encouraged the Ugandan hatred of gays?"  As the title states... jeeze - do you think that might have had an effect?!?

An American christian leader writes a book stating homosexuals will rape children, turn those children into homosexuals, and destroy society  That same leader then visits Uganda with other christian leaders and speaks with many Ugandan religious and government leaders.  Shortly after they leave, bills are being passed stating that gays can be put to death for being gay, jailed for being gay, and their family and friends jailed for not narcing on them.  Yeah - our own American Taliban / christianists helped push their hatred into Uganda, leading to the terrorism of an entire group of people there.

I just hope Nightline gives credit where credit is due, and does not let the American religious leaders who spurred the Ugandans to action off easy.

Here's to Liam Fox

I have a growing respect for Liam Fox, whose writings can be found at his own site as well as Paliban Daily.  His latest post on intolerance is very, very well thought out and written.

These are the Fools Andrew Sullivan Refers to as "Christianists"

Courtesy of Pharyngula, a scary description of some folks who take themselves way too seriously.  Why are they scary instead of just funny?  They are armed, and believe they truly are an army of their god.

The Dangers of Superstition

I remember back when I was in grade school the teacher showed a short film on superstitions.  This film showed "bad things" that can happen when people take foolish actions based on those superstitions.  The one "bad thing" I remember (there were quite a few, but this is dredging up a 40 year old memory) concerned a middle-aged guy avoiding cracks in the sidewalk.  He could not "step on a crack or he'd break his momma's back", so he was not watching where HE was going, only where his feet were stepping.  Two workers carrying a 2x4 across the sidewalk clotheslined the guy, much to the comic delight of the children watching.

Other superstitions growing up were the traditional ones:  The number 13 is bad, and Friday the 13th is REALLY bad (well, I guess if you are a Templar knight, it is really bad);  If you spill salt, toss some over your left (right?) shoulder or you will get bad luck;  You must give somebody who sneezes good wishes so that their soul will not leave their body with the sneeze (or to prevent the devil from entering the body);  Cross your fingers to bring on good luck!

Think about those superstitions...
13:  It is 1 greater than 12 and a baker's dozen is better than a regular dozen.
Friday the 13th:  Some folks think that since one bad event happened on a Friday the 13th over 700 years ago, all subsequent Fridays the 13th should be feared.  In 700 years there have been approximately 1,200 Fridays that fell on the 13th.  Many of them have been perfectly fine days, and can even mean MONEY!  (When I was paid weekly or biweekly on Friday, the date did not matter - I got paid.  Now I get paid semi-monthly, on the 15th and 30th/31st.  If the 15th is a Sunday, I get my money on Friday the 13th.).
Spilled Salt:  I think throwing away more of an item you just spilled and wasted is just silly, regardless of which shoulder you toss it over.
Sneezing:  Your soul leaves your body when you sneeze?  If it does that, then can you imagine what it does when you fart?  But nobody ever says "gesundheit" when you fart.
Step on a crack...:  Sorry, mom - I've never paid this one much attention.  Of course, you've never had back problems, either.

Superstitions are created when we give individual events or small sequences of events too much weight.  It's part of being human to find patterns wherever we look, so if we wore our red t-shirt while watching our football team beat the hated rival, then we will find a connection, a pattern.  A superstitious person will wear that same red shirt during the next game.  This will continue until: the wearer finds something with MORE connection to 22 men playing in a stadium 1,200 miles away; or the t-shirt falls apart; or the wearer realizes that nothing he does in his living room can affect the success or failure of 22 men playing in that stadium 1,200 miles away.

I was listening to the BBC Newshour on the way to work the other day.  One of the reports they aired concerned children, I believe in Africa, being beaten and threatened for being witches.  Witches.  Yeah, let's beat the children because they might just be witches.  What is the thought process behind these beatings?  Well, when something happens, there has to be a reason.  When a farmer's animal dies, there has to be a reason for that death.  If one of the local kids happened to be hanging around near the animals the day before, doing something the farmer could not see.... WITCH!

So these folks accuse kids (and each other, I imagine) of being witches.  When the accusation is made, others in the village gather around to beat the witch into submission.  What evidence do they have?  Sadly, the question becomes "what evidence do they need?"  Even more sad, that answer is "none".  One of the people interviewed stated that the government officially does not recognize the existence of witchcraft, but that a friend of his, a lawyer and official in that same government, has accused his own children of witchcraft.

But what is superstition except faith in something that has no basis in reality?  I've known folks from all walks of life laughing at other's superstitious acts, such as crossing fingers, wearing hats inside out (rally caps), or the wearing of that red t-shirt.  But those same folks have no problems making crossing themselves when walking by a cemetery, or wearing a piece of jewelry in the shape of a cross, or stopping the constructive activity they were involved in 5 times a day to kneel towards a place across the globe.  Religions are simply organized groupings of superstitions.  Watch a superstitious person with OCD for a while ("Monk"), then watch a "holy person" perform his or her duties.  Then tell me what the difference is.

Atheist Eve

The only problem with Atheist Eve is that it only comes out once a month.  So, enjoy today's (well, March's) comic, and spend the next 30 days reading the archives (conveniently linked to on each page).

Sunday Funny - Robertson on Chile

The Desperate Blogger nails it.

Ohhhh, He's Goin' To Hades for that Fib!

Faux News piece of crap talking head Sean Hannity apparently forgot that wonderful 9th (8th if you're Catholic - I guess they were too busy with the alter boys to learn to count correctly) Commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  Friendly Atheist (Hermant Mehta) has a clip of Hannity spewing falsehoods about the recent meeting of White House officials and the Secular Coalition for America, claiming religious folks don't get such nice treatment (I guess they do even better...) and attendance of a person who was not there.

You'd think a nice Irish Catholic boy like SH would know better than to lie.

Spare the Rod - Use the Quarter Inch Plumbing Supply Line Instead

I wish I could say this is very curious coming from a religion that supposedly follows "the Prince of Peace".  I really wish I could.  Sadly, for all the good words they attribute to Jesus, and all the praising and glorification of the son of god whose birth and death was to usher in a new image of god, some believers have not yet caught on.  Maybe they will in another 2,000 years.

Found on Salon is a story of parents who have murdered their 7-year old adopted child, and put another adopted child, this one 11 years old, into the hospital in critical condition.  Why did they do this?  The little girl mispronounced a word in her home-schooling lesson.  That may seem a bit harsh, but the parents subscribe to a brutal, sadistic, (and in my opinion) evil method of child rearing.  It is referred to as "child training" (as if you were training a dog to jump through a ring of fire, or as a proponent of the method wrote: "the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules, the same technique God uses to train his children"), and it has too, too many followers (see also).

I am not a parent, so I cannot comprehend the intentional, scheduled, beating of a child.  I do have a temper, so I can understand (not condone, but understand) folks who get into trouble for hitting their kids.  But to actively pursue a plan of beating a child proactively to make sure the child behaves?  Only a monster would do that, and only monsters would preach it.

"Funny - You Don't Look Like an Atheist!" (part 2)

Part 1 of "Funny - you don't look like an atheist" described some of the erroneous preconceptions believers have about the physical properties of an atheist.  Those preconceptions can be somewhat humorous, expecting atheists to basically look like lowlifes, or criminals, or satanists.  I mean, Jimmy Bakker was as low as they got, the finest criminals go to confession, and if atheists don't believe in a god, how in the hell (pun intended) are they supposed to worship a non-existent devil?

Part 2 gets a little more serious, and by "serious" I mean in part "depressing", in part tremendously frustrating.  This part focuses on that vile preconception of good vs evil, and whether atheists can determine one from the other.  Sometimes I am able to ignore fools who proclaim you cannot know goodness without a belief in their flavor of a higher being.  Their ignorant statements may be frustrating, but they whither away.  The depressing part is when somebody you know, whom you've been friends with for years, makes the declaration that "you can't be an atheist - you're too good."  How do you respond to something like that?

I heard it from a neighbor, a friend.  I knew she and her husband were hardcore believers, but they were the good kind of believers - they believed what they believed, but did not try to force it on anybody else.  They did say a quick prayer before eating, but never tried to get me to pray with them, or do anything related to their faith.  But one day we were talking and she described a visit she recently was paid by a couple of Mormon missionaries.  She had a good chuckle at some of the things they said and her response to them ("they mentioned only 250,000 are allowed into the inner sanctum of heaven, and asked if I would like to be one of them.  I told them 'sure - but which one of you will be pushed out because I was let in?'").  A couple more minutes of conversation about religion led her to ask if I have ever believed in (her) god.  The topic had been discussed in the past, and I told her that, no, I had never felt there was any sort of deity, or higher being(s) of any sort, and repeated that I was an atheist.  That's when she said "you can't be an atheist - you're too good."...

At first blush I was depressed by that statement - that somebody that I thought knew me pretty well would completely disregard a declaration that I was dead serious about with such ease.  But then, I started getting angry.  Not green "Hulk smash" angry, but as angry and frustrated as I had ever gotten with her.  She made another statement, this one about "you can't know good without knowing (her) god".... At that, I told her straight out how arrogant, how condescending, and petty those statements were.  "What you are saying is that, unless I believe EXACTLY WHAT YOU BELIEVE, that I cannot be on your level.  Without believing in your god, nothing means anything.  My parents taught me what is right, and what is wrong, but without a mysterious all-powerful ghost looking over my shoulder, they wasted their time.  Do you realize how arrogant that is?"

"Well, I didn't mean it like that" she said.
"But that is exactly what that means - unless I am exactly like you, I mean NOTHING.  What my parents taught me - nothing.  My experiences of 40+ years - nothing.  Philosophical debates within myself about existence, and the results of those debates - NOTHING.  That...is...arrogance."

The conversation dropped rather quickly - she is not one who enjoys direct confrontation like that, and I believe she sensed she had offended me.  Every once in a while, though, the subject of religion comes up, and I still get the question "you really don't believe there is a god?" in a somewhat astounded manner, as if it was inconceivable that somebody would NOT believe...   It was almost like somebody who loved peanut butter, and could not understand why anybody would not love peanut butter - even those with allergies to peanuts.

"Funny - You Don't Look Like an Atheist!" (part 1)

I have heard that statement numerous times in my life.  It seems that I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to dispel erroneous preconceptions of atheists that are held by believers of all sorts.  The "looks" issue is one of the least of them.

I am not shy about announcing my religious (non)belief, and discussions about belief systems have popped up occasionally at the various places I have worked.  And, it seems that there is one person at each employer that makes that statement.... "Gee, you don't look like an atheist."  If I was quick-witted enough, my automatic response would be "well, I do take the time to file down my horns daily."  (I have always had a very high forehead - the spots where horns would grow has never seen hair...)

So it appears that erroneous preconception #1 is that we must look like, well, something other than "normal" (whatever that is).  Trust me, I am as white-bread as they come.  I guess the folks telling me I don't look like an atheist were expecting, oh, a hardcore biker dude, or punker, or a tattoo canvas - something that is definitely not me.  Funny thing, though - I have known hardcore biker dudes and dudettes, punkers, and heavily tattooed folks who were believers in a god (most the same god as the folks who made the statement). On the flip side, some of those who were viewed as having the appearance of being most holy ended up being anything but (see Jimmy Bakker, Pat Robertson, the current Pope...).  I worked with a lady who was as sweet to you to your face as anybody you'd ever meet, but behind your back, you were mud to her and anybody she could tell.  She tried to get people fired, rumor was she worked to bankrupt an ex-business partner of her husbands... quite the conniver.  So much for looks and appearances.

God's Early Warning System Needs to be Tweaked

Courtesy of Unreasonable Faith, we find out that a woman who raped was actually warned by her god that it was going to happen.  Why did she allow the rape to happen, then?  Well, it seems that SHE WAS ALREADY TIED UP WHEN HE TOLD HER, alone with an attacker.  Great timing, g.  What is your next trick - You going to tell us that Booth is going to shoot Lincoln?
(Although there are more gory (not graphic) details about it  here, Unreasonable Faith has a good rundown on the foolishness (fallacy?) of prophesy when it is too late to do anything about the prophesied event.)

This led me to think about other sources of prophesy.  Bizarre things like "The Bible Code", NospheratuNostradamus, tea leaves, tarot cards, astronomy, etc.  These "prophesies" fall into one or more of the following categories:

1)  Ambiguous - Astronomy, tea leaves, and tarot card readings (among others) - "Get together with friends today," "stay focused," "You're possibilities for success in your field of endeavor look very good in the days ahead" (all of these were culled out of this morning's paper).  They either describe a normal day's activity, or in the example "success in your field of endeavor", is so wide-open as to be true if you happen to not trip over your own shoelace.

2)  Hindsight is 20/20 - Nostradamus, Bible Code (and many, many more) - After a (major) event, folks scour over these sources of "prophesy" to find a quatrain to misinterpret, or biblical verse that "foretold" the event.  Humans have been writing for thousands of years, and the human imagination is vast.  Some time in the past, somebody thought of something that sounded like the event that just occurred.  Here - let me try one.... "A sphere will drop, a flame will appear, a red river will flow."  There - I can say I foretold the next war!

3)  A Room Full of Monkeys - Bible Code, others - If you take a big enough book, break it down into blocks of various sizes, "read" the book going forward, backward, and diagonally like you would a word jumble, you will find "hidden words".  These hidden words are then manipulated/combined in a haphazard way to create "prophesies".  Sadly, they are usually combined *afterwards* (hindsight being 20/20, after all) to "prove" the event was "foreseen".  Why don't they make these claims ahead of time?  Probably because, with nothing to guide them in putting the words together, they'd end up with something as meaningful as "mended as well as their bruises, their tempers and their hopes. Their plans were improved with the best advice. So the time came to mid summer eve, Elrond knew all about runes of every kind".  (That was taken from a spam email.)

I saw a documentary a couple of years back about prophesies, and one section centered on 9/11.  Of course, proponents of the Bible Code and Nostradamus all rushed forth AFTERWARDS to declare that their source FORETOLD that horrible event.  Penn Jillette had a line that was something like "If you have the ability to foresee these events, or you have information of them before they happen, AND YOU DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, YOU ARE EVIL, and should be prosecuted!" (I'll try to find the exact quote).  He nails it.

Whether your prophesies are bible related, or come from some other form of witchcraft, unless you come forward ahead of time, the just STFU.

What Do They Have Against Gays?

What is it with the religious right and their absolute hatred of gays?  Not only do they push their hatred here in the U.S., but they also export it?

The fiasco of Uganda's recent "we can execute you if you are gay" bill, which was put together with the assistance of notable US pastors has been big news over the past few weeks.  That bill would allow anybody who is gay to be jailed and anybody who has AIDS to be executed..  But you know what - even straights are subject to execution - if they know one of those dreaded gays!


Seriously - if a person (regardless of sexuality) does NOT turn in a person whom they know is gay, they can go to jail.  If they know two gays, and are caught not turning in the 2nd, they are subject to execution!


Those whackos need to go read their good book again...

Tim Tebow, his god, and the NCAA

Tim Tebow is headed for the NFL.  He may consider it truly the "No Fun League" (or maybe even the "No Fundamentalist League") since they will not allow him to wear his biblical verse reference under his eyes like the NCAA was happy to.  I had no problem with his noting those passages in his eye-black.  As long as the NCAA didn't restrict any other player from displaying similar items, all is fine.  Shoot - Tebow was just making a small statement of his belief.  He did not preach, from all I have heard he never put somebody down because they did not believe his flavor of god... it was just him making his own statement.

Of course, can you imagine the NCAA allowing John Smith, a reserver tight-end from Podunk U., to write "Satan Rules" in his eye-black?  Of course you can't - you'd need be be on a nasty 60's LSD flashback to picture that scenario happening.

So what can the NCAA do to prevent that from happening?  Well, they could bar all players from any eye-black message, but that would seem hypocritical since they allowed their golden-boy to do it for years - and the NCAA would NEVER allow themselves to be hypocrites....

HA!!!  Barring all eye-black messages is exactly what they JUST DID.  Now that their christ-boy has left the manger, time to make sure nobody sullies their eye-black with something that may offend another (at least another christian).  As long as they were confident that the message would be coming from a good, christian boy, they were fine with it.  Heaven forbid somebody declare "allh akbar" in white on black...  or even (dare I say) "No god".

Friendly Atheist has a slightly different outlook on "The Tebow Rule" you may want to read.

Do We Really Need a Religious Bill of Rights?

That is the question the Dr. Phil Plait, the author of the Bad Astronomy blog, asks here.

Individuals should be able to express themselves in a non-disruptive manner, and a t-shirt that states "Jesus is Lord" is not disruptive (unless the school discriminates against "Allah is Great" or "Satan is my God").  But to let students who are supposed to be learning about the real world (physics, biology, geology) answer with biblical or other religious platitudes is appalling.  And to require that a teacher get away with not teaching, and to do so without any penalty, is atrocious.

I hope that Colorado saves itself from the idiocy that is this foolish act (pdf).

-----------------------
Update - It appears they saved themselves.... Courtesy (again) of Dr. Phil (the one who does astronomy, not Oprah's sad-eyed puppy).

Sunday Funny - Passionate Beliefs

Calamities of Nature

Coexist? It would be nice.

Paliban Daily has a tremendous article on the idea of religions coexisting.  It delves into that nice idea of religions coexisting, then gets into the nitty-gritty of how their tenets may prevent that from happening.

Sadly depressing in its honesty, but sometimes the truth is depressing.

What A Father! (part 2)

I was thinking about the logic (?) behind an ex-classmate thanking a god for putting her husband through months of a painful, debilitating illness before killing him in his 40's.  Since the bible is fond of parables and allegories, maybe I should try one....

-------------------------
A 2-year old child, Joanie, is abducted by a kindly, graying man.  This child is taken to the man's house, where there are many other residents, some of whom were also abducted, others joined the household willingly.  As time goes on, the Joanie comes to accept this man as Father.  Father provides as well as he can for all in the household, making the effort that all have enough to eat.  He does not succeed all the time, but the family members all thank Father whenever they get anything.

As this 2-year old grows up, other youngsters are brought into the family.  All are instructed to worship Father, just like Joanie was.  One day, seemingly for no reason, Father comes along and takes one of the young girl's "sisters" by the hand, stating that they are going for a walk out back.  Neither little girl questions why Father is carrying a shotgun and a shovel.  The little sister walks away with Father.  A short while later, a bang is heard, and Father comes back alone.  When one of Joanie's little "brothers" asks Mary why Father took their "sister" away, never to be seen again, all Joanie can answer is "nobody can know what is behind Father's great plan."

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

As I think about Joanie in the story above, some words come to mind.... "brainwashed", "insane", maybe even "confused".  When I think of Father, "INSANE", "megalomaniac", "murderer" come to mind.  How is that different from the god my ex-classmate worships?

What A Father! (part 1)

A few years ago, courtesy of Facebook, I was reconnected with quite a few high school classmates.  I grew up in an area in the North that, many years ago, had been a hotbed of new fanatical churches.  Interesting - if the focus of those churches had been something besides Jesus, they would have been considered cults, but because the big-J was involved, the phrase fundamental (or fanatical) church was used.  The small town I grew up in had the usual selection of religious flavors - Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.

When checking out the religious affiliations listed on Facebook for my ex-classmates, I saw one atheist (me), and the rest Christian of one sort or another.  But their affiliation was generally not simply listed as Christian, or Catholic/Methodist/etc.  No, what I saw was a ton of "Friend of Christ", or "Christian - I love Jesus and believe in miracles", or "Jesus is the only Way!!!"....  While in school, though, I only knew of one evangelical.  Kids just did not preach to you, or spew quotes from the bible.

Now it is different.  On Facebook, there are daily missives from multiple ex-classmates.  Some are biblical quotes, while others are other assorted praises of their personal gods.  I read some, I skip others.  One person, though, I just had to "hide".  Hers were soooo bad, so (if I may say) godawful, that I could not take them anymore.

I joined Facebook right around the time that her husband was dying of a horrible, debilitating disease.  I don't know how long it took him to die - my guess is it was over 3-12 months, none of them comfortable.  And what was her reaction to her life-partner and children's father's death?  "Praise god, for he is good and my love is now at his side...", ".... Jesus is great and kind..", "I pray hourly to my loving god...".  Her love, her husband, her kids' father has just been ripped from her by her god, and she praises him?!?  She praises the omniscient and all-powerful being who could have healed her soulmate for the inaction her god has taken in saving her man?  Daily, she still praises that beast, that mythical being who was so heartless that he would send his own son to earth, just to have that son brutally tortured and murdered, all in a public relations move.  That is just insane.

Forget Dirty Dancing... That's Dirty Pool.

Yet another example of somebody who reads a book, maybe hears somebody discuss that book, and decides that HIS interpretation of the words in that book trump everything else in a civilized society.

Courtesy of Dvorak Uncensored, we hear of a religious fanatic who decided that people should not touch while dancing.  Now, if this guy decided that it was a sin to do that, and he chose to not touch his dancing partner, that would be cool.  A personal decision made by an individual - happens all the time.  BUT NOOOOOOO (sorry, Mr. Belushi), he decides that not only would it be a sin for him, but for EVERYBODY.

So, he grabs a stun gun, picks up a freaking sledge hammer (what it the world do you think he needed a sledge hammer for?), makes an appointment with a dance instructor, and zaps the crap out of the instructor.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the whack-job went to the instructor's home and zapped him to "scare the instructor 'and tell him to leave the women alone.'"  Nothing about the instructor dancing (or touching!) his wife, nor any of his fellow congregation members.  The instructor just did something the radical religious fanatic did not approve of ("his church does not condone touching while dancing,"), so he took the law into his own hands.

Sick MoFo

And those that claim they are righteous say that OTHERS are evil???

Pastor prayed for Murtha's death.

A Good Landscaper

A while ago I wrote of bible literalists and how I have a better grasp of where they are coming from, courtesy of a discussion with a literalist (he proclaimed "God was able to create the cosmos, the Earth, and man... Don't you think He could find a good publisher?").


Today, while reading Unreasonable Faith, a reference to fossil records (and how they conflict with creationism) was made.  Rather than think about how fossil records might debunk the idea of the earth being 6,000-8,500 years old, some declare a bogeyman is the source of the conflict: "some Christians do this with the fossil record (”Satan put the fossils there to confuse us!”)"

It occurred to me as I read that sentence - if "a good publisher" is all that is needed to create a literal bible, shouldn't that same all-powerful god be able to find a good landscaper to take care of those pesky fossils?

Divine Intervention ?!?

So, at the recent Teabagger convention, priestess Sarah Palin stated "It would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention in this country again..."  Sorry, ma'am... the "Hairspray" star died in 1988, so won't be able to come to your aid.

But seriously - haven't we had enough "divine intervention" over the past 10 years already?  We had fanatics working towards their interpretation of their god's wishes fly four jets into three buildings and the ground in 2001.  We had a number of doctors murdered because some fools interpreted their divine inspiration as meaning "get a high-powered rifle with a good scope and fire at will (even if it means taking out a husband in front of his wife in their kitchen)".  We've had a decider in chief follow his insipid divine inspiration to intervene in the Middle East, starting a war in Iraq.

How many bombings and acts of retribution can be attributable to divine intervention in Israel and Lebanon?  Is Salman Rushdie still under a fatwa courtesy of fanatics intervening into literary affairs, inspired by their flavor of a divinity?  And those same Teabaggers - how many of them feel President Obama is their version of satan, and will any be evil enough to intervene via violence based on their delusional beliefs of divinity's words?

Ex-governor Palin - we do not need any more "divine intervention", and your call-out to your fanatical base was, if I may say, an astoundingly retarded act.

Kidnapping By Any Other Name is Still Kidnapping

So the christianists in Haiti who had the 33 kids in their possession are being charged with kidnapping.  From everything I have read, these folks felt they had the children's best interest at thought.  I feel, though, that they were severely twisted in their "thoughts".

First, check out chattahbox.com for some background on the church and folks involved.  (h/t crooksandliars.com for that link and other references)

Then, consider this hypothetical scenario:  You are raising your kid the best you can.  Sure, you might not have all the niceties in the world, like a 72" TV, a luxury SUV to drive them to soccer practice, or a nanny, but you are doing the best you can.  The problem is - you are raising them as christians.  Why is that a problem?  Because I believe, deep in my heart, that raising children as christians is deeply harmful to them.  Because I believe that you are harming your kids, I am justified in taking them from you - because I believe it is the only way for them to be saved!

What is the difference between christians kidnapping kids to raise them in christian orphanages, and my taking your kids?  Yeah, the kids in Haiti had gone through a hellish situation, but these fanatics ripping them from their parents (some were not orphans) to raise them as the kidnappers saw fit is no different than my coming to your house (the house with the cross hanging on the wall) and stripping them from you.

Please remember - mine is a hypothetical situation.  I do not feel it is right to interfere with the religious upbringing of a child (baring true abuse such as prevention of needed medical attention or sexual or other physical abuse).  These fanatics have no such restraint.

Oppression, Suppression, Whatever.... Either Way it is Wrong

Again we have a "man of god" - the leader, in fact, of a billion believers - abusing his god's influence to oppress those who are not like him...

'A celibate man in a dress and a beanie pontificates about how a law granting equal employment rights to homosexuals in the UK is "against the natural law."'  (skepdic.com)

This man, as a leader of a billion people, could do a lot of good in helping make people's lives better.  Instead, he tells his subjects "those others are not like you, so they deserve to be treated as less than human!"

But then, what else would you expect from the leader of the group that defended the catholic church during the sex abuse scandal, covering up for the church for 20 years.

He's a helluva guy.