![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Religious politics: The dangerous facts
Here's an article about religion in politics, 1932-2007. I'll let the article do the talking (it's not really that long), but here are the distressing talking points:
and even more disturbingly:
This isn't just Republicans, folks. Sure, they may be the most forthright in their theocratic bent, but just listen to the God talk flowing from the Democratic camps.
This begs the question... Are we headed towards theocracy, regardless of which party wins in 2008?
It scares me that I even have to ask that question.
-pb
Here's an article about religion in politics, 1932-2007. I'll let the article do the talking (it's not really that long), but here are the distressing talking points:
the total number of references to God in the average presidential speech 1981-early 2007 was an astounding 120% higher than the average speech 1933-1980. References to broader religious terms, such as faith, pray, sacred, worship, and crusade increased by 60%.
and even more disturbingly:
To declare that liberty (or freedom, a term used interchangeably by presidents) is a gift from God is to position oneself as a prophet: that is, the wording suggests that one has knowledge of divine wishes and desires.... the ratio of petitioner to prophet style speech has almost completely reversed, from ~85% petitioner 1932-1980, to ~75% prophet 1980-2007.
But the prophetic approach is not the only way to link God and liberty/freedom. Pre-Reagan modern presidents more often spoke as petitioners, asking for God's blessing or guidance. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, in his famous "Four Freedoms" address in 1941, used this approach when he spoke of the nation's "faith in freedom under the guidance of God."
This petitioner style used to be the norm in presidential politics, but no more.
This isn't just Republicans, folks. Sure, they may be the most forthright in their theocratic bent, but just listen to the God talk flowing from the Democratic camps.
This begs the question... Are we headed towards theocracy, regardless of which party wins in 2008?
It scares me that I even have to ask that question.
-pb
You should all know by now that I trust the so-called "mainstream" news media to report accurately about as much as I trust the Bush administration to do the right thing... on anything.
You should also know that I think Mitt Romney (and his Republican opponents) are all despicable people. All of them.
And, you should know that I think that people who can't write proper English, even though it's their native tongue (especially those who fancy themselves media outlets), should be flogged.
This post will address all of those issues.
So, Mitt Romney gave a speech yesterday that he'd like you to believe was akin to John F. Kennedy's "I AM NAWT BEHOLDEN TO THE POPE" speech. It wasn't. He wants everyone who didn't hear the speech to think that he gave some massive statement about how he's a Mormon, but everyone should be cool with that because he's not going to answer to Salt Lake City when it comes to Presidenting. He didn't.
Here's what he said about it:
If you don't understand my reaction, uh, I can't help you.
The Media, predictably, reports as Romney likes:
First off, this speech wasn't really about his Mormon faith. It was about how he agrees with paying lip service to the Constitution and installing a theocracy. But the real tragedy of the article is this:
BUY A FUCKING EDITOR.
-pb
You should also know that I think Mitt Romney (and his Republican opponents) are all despicable people. All of them.
And, you should know that I think that people who can't write proper English, even though it's their native tongue (especially those who fancy themselves media outlets), should be flogged.
This post will address all of those issues.
So, Mitt Romney gave a speech yesterday that he'd like you to believe was akin to John F. Kennedy's "I AM NAWT BEHOLDEN TO THE POPE" speech. It wasn't. He wants everyone who didn't hear the speech to think that he gave some massive statement about how he's a Mormon, but everyone should be cool with that because he's not going to answer to Salt Lake City when it comes to Presidenting. He didn't.
Here's what he said about it:
If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.I highlighted "Mormon," because that's the only part of the speech where the word appears. A speech about being Mormon. Now, taken out of the context of the rest of the speech, these are some pretty words. But...
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect respecters -- excuse me -- believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They're the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
We believe that every single human being is a child of God.
Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent jihad, murder as martyrdom, killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.Wait, I thought we were talking about how you're a Mormon? But, it gets better. Romney lands his space-ship in Wackyjobland and flashes the correct gang-signs:
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.DANGER WILL FUCKING ROBINSON! DANGER! FUNDIE WHACKJOB IS GOING TO RAPE YOU!
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
If you don't understand my reaction, uh, I can't help you.
The Media, predictably, reports as Romney likes:
Ann Romney made two campaign stops in Las Vegas Thursday night, telling crowds that the address husband Mitt Romney gave earlier in the day on the role of religion in America and his Mormon faith was a “historic moment.”
First off, this speech wasn't really about his Mormon faith. It was about how he agrees with paying lip service to the Constitution and installing a theocracy. But the real tragedy of the article is this:
a “historic moment.”
BUY A FUCKING EDITOR.
-pb
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George H. W. Bush, 27 August 1987
"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." - Mitt Romney, 6 December 2007
I fail to see the difference in these statements.
-pb
"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." - Mitt Romney, 6 December 2007
I fail to see the difference in these statements.
-pb
So, this story about the Governor of Georgia leading a prayer for rain is, in my mind, fucking ridiculous. Seriously. I mean, come on. The Governor of Georgia is getting on the horn with his constituents and saying "Well, we apparently fucked the dog here on drought preparation, so the only thing to do is blame Jesus and ask him to fix this shit, because it's certainly not our fault. Great waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe up here in PA we can get Ed Rendell to just tell Jesus to knock it off with all the goddamned snow so we don't have another Route 81 clusterfuck. Screw preparation, Jesus sent the snow, he can bloody well fix this for us.
The outcome of this is mind-numbingly easy to predict, as it's eventually going to rain in Georgia, barring the explosion of the planet. So, no matter how long this drought goes on, when it does rain, people will insist that God (that's pronounced 'gawud') has answered their prayers, and this is unassailable proof that he exists and loves America, and Baptists are his favorite denomination.
Bullshit. Are these people really stupid enough to believe that their god is actively withholding rain until enough of them to get together and pray? What kind of barbaric monster-god do these people worship? "Ha ha! DIE OF THIRST! I'll not send you relief until you get at least 30,000 people together to pray publicly for me to send you rain! HA!"
This prayer for rain runs contrary to everything I learned when I was a Christian. Jesus taught his disciples precisely how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13 (specifically 9-10 for this argument): "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."
This prayer - nay demand - for rain, runs contrary to that. You don't demand rain from the Almighty, you accept that maybe this is part of his plan.
Of course, you could take the temporal tack and realize that your population has stretched your natural resources to the point that any stress on the system is a catastrophe and not just an inconvenience, and try to solve your situation from that perspective.
But I guess it's easier to demand that Jesus fix your mess.
-pb
The outcome of this is mind-numbingly easy to predict, as it's eventually going to rain in Georgia, barring the explosion of the planet. So, no matter how long this drought goes on, when it does rain, people will insist that God (that's pronounced 'gawud') has answered their prayers, and this is unassailable proof that he exists and loves America, and Baptists are his favorite denomination.
Bullshit. Are these people really stupid enough to believe that their god is actively withholding rain until enough of them to get together and pray? What kind of barbaric monster-god do these people worship? "Ha ha! DIE OF THIRST! I'll not send you relief until you get at least 30,000 people together to pray publicly for me to send you rain! HA!"
This prayer for rain runs contrary to everything I learned when I was a Christian. Jesus taught his disciples precisely how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13 (specifically 9-10 for this argument): "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."
This prayer - nay demand - for rain, runs contrary to that. You don't demand rain from the Almighty, you accept that maybe this is part of his plan.
Of course, you could take the temporal tack and realize that your population has stretched your natural resources to the point that any stress on the system is a catastrophe and not just an inconvenience, and try to solve your situation from that perspective.
But I guess it's easier to demand that Jesus fix your mess.
-pb
Tired of having god-dick shoved down your throat? SEND IN THE MARINES.
Toys for Tots rejects Jesus dolls
It's not a war on Christmas, people. It's a war on religion* (* conservative Christians may be exempt).
-pb
Toys for Tots rejects Jesus dolls
A Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the 1 foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season.That's a dirty ploy, don't you think? Now they get to tar Toys For Tots as anti-Christmas, anti-Jesus, anti-child grinches.
As a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another," [TFT vice president Bill Grein] said Tuesday. "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."
"The idea was for them to be three-dimensional teaching tools for kids," [one2believe business director Michael La Roe] said. "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."Teaching tool? Good one. Believe that, and I've got a bridge to sell you.
According to the company's Web site, the button-activated, bearded Jesus, dressed in hand-
sewn cloth outfits and sandals, recites Scripture such as "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" and "Love your neighbor as yourself."
It's not a war on Christmas, people. It's a war on religion* (* conservative Christians may be exempt).
-pb
Missouri town to evict couple w/3 children on the basis that they are not married
"The couple had closed on the home and sought an occupancy permit. City officials asked to see their marriage license and the children’s birth certificates. That is when they were told they were in violation of the city ordinance."
Excuse me? The simple fact that they were required to present such documents is despicable. The whole concept of an "occupancy permit" is despicable, too. They bought the house, they own it, it's their property, and since it was built as a residential structure, it's logical to assume that it's correctly zoned for a residence. What right does the government have to tell them that they can't live in a house that they legally own, for any reason?
"The current ordinance prohibits more than three persons from living together unless they are related by 'blood, marriage or adoption.' It had been used to prevent unwed people from living together with their children."
So, these people are not married, but have three children together.
Therefore, three out of five people in the house are related by blood to everyone else, and the other two are related to three of the other four.
Under the *loosest* interpretation of this I can see, the city can enforce this by evicting ONE of the parents, but not both. If they try to evict any of the children, they'd be violating the law as written.
I consider this a seperation of church and state issue, but for a reason deeper than the obvious "they're fornicators, that's a sin, so let's git 'em" excuse. They're being denied a permit to reside on their own property because they have not sought official sanction from the state to be MARRIED. Why, exactly, does the state have any say over who can and cannot enter into marriage, which in this country, is a RELIGIOUS definition? I've got no problem with the government licensing and regulating civil unions, but marriage should be strictly off-limits.
Of course, even in this case, I would have a problem if they were denied a permit based on a lack of a civil union. There is simply no excuse for this family to require an occupancy permit for residential-zoned land that they own. This is tyrrany, and I distinctly remember something from high school where they talked about the consequences of that.
-pb
"The couple had closed on the home and sought an occupancy permit. City officials asked to see their marriage license and the children’s birth certificates. That is when they were told they were in violation of the city ordinance."
Excuse me? The simple fact that they were required to present such documents is despicable. The whole concept of an "occupancy permit" is despicable, too. They bought the house, they own it, it's their property, and since it was built as a residential structure, it's logical to assume that it's correctly zoned for a residence. What right does the government have to tell them that they can't live in a house that they legally own, for any reason?
"The current ordinance prohibits more than three persons from living together unless they are related by 'blood, marriage or adoption.' It had been used to prevent unwed people from living together with their children."
So, these people are not married, but have three children together.
Therefore, three out of five people in the house are related by blood to everyone else, and the other two are related to three of the other four.
Under the *loosest* interpretation of this I can see, the city can enforce this by evicting ONE of the parents, but not both. If they try to evict any of the children, they'd be violating the law as written.
I consider this a seperation of church and state issue, but for a reason deeper than the obvious "they're fornicators, that's a sin, so let's git 'em" excuse. They're being denied a permit to reside on their own property because they have not sought official sanction from the state to be MARRIED. Why, exactly, does the state have any say over who can and cannot enter into marriage, which in this country, is a RELIGIOUS definition? I've got no problem with the government licensing and regulating civil unions, but marriage should be strictly off-limits.
Of course, even in this case, I would have a problem if they were denied a permit based on a lack of a civil union. There is simply no excuse for this family to require an occupancy permit for residential-zoned land that they own. This is tyrrany, and I distinctly remember something from high school where they talked about the consequences of that.
-pb
Religious Conservatives Gather to Discuss 'War Against Christians'
"The message of 'V for Vendetta' is that Christians are plotting to seize the reins of power."
No, the message of 'V for Vendetta' is that fascist, totalitarian governments can only control the people for so long until someone stands up and refuses to be put down. It only features your uber-corrupt version of Christianity as the antagonist because it's something familiar to the target audience. And why is that? Because you've been forcing this Christofacist ideology down our throats for years, and screaming about how we're attacking you when we choke on it.
"...a self-described progressive evangelical..."
Well hole-e-shit. What is that? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? (Sir, a self-described progressive evangelical, sir!) Not a self-described pagan, but a self-described progressive evangelical. Of course, this is to be expected. Anyone who falls outside the "mainstream" can only be "self-described", and therefore, not legitimate.
Because no one who is anything ever calls themselves that.
"I'm the President of the United States." ~ George W. Bush, 12/17/2005 - George W. Bush, self-described President of the United States. How come we never see that from the goddamned liberal media?
I digress.
This so-called "War on Christianity" is a fabrication. It's a smokescreen and a strawman. "We're under attack!" they scream. "Gather to our banner and help us! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US!" Sounds like the same tired old rhetoric. Newsflash: Christianity is not under attack. Simply because you perceive it to be does not make it so. Liberal Judges are not trying to erase you. In fact, the judges that have made decisions that you don't like (i.e., activist judges) tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Hollywood is not out to get you. In fact, most of the battles in this so-called war are battles that you, the Religious Conservatives have started!
Gay marriage is not an assault on Christianity. Christians trying to ban it, that's an assault on homosexuals.
Evolution is not an assault on Christianity. Intelligent Design is an assault on science.
Abortion is not an assault on Christianity. Bombing abortion clinics in an assault on women.
It's not a "War on Christianity", it's a "War for Ideology". Right-wing Christians believe, despite being the priviledge majority, that they are the repressed minority. They want their ideology pushed on everyone else, and recoil in horror when everyone else objects. They started this war, and labeled it a war against them. Sounds like a kid getting his hand caught in the cookie jar and then complaining that there weren't enough cookies in it.
-pb
"The message of 'V for Vendetta' is that Christians are plotting to seize the reins of power."
No, the message of 'V for Vendetta' is that fascist, totalitarian governments can only control the people for so long until someone stands up and refuses to be put down. It only features your uber-corrupt version of Christianity as the antagonist because it's something familiar to the target audience. And why is that? Because you've been forcing this Christofacist ideology down our throats for years, and screaming about how we're attacking you when we choke on it.
"...a self-described progressive evangelical..."
Well hole-e-shit. What is that? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? (Sir, a self-described progressive evangelical, sir!) Not a self-described pagan, but a self-described progressive evangelical. Of course, this is to be expected. Anyone who falls outside the "mainstream" can only be "self-described", and therefore, not legitimate.
Because no one who is anything ever calls themselves that.
"I'm the President of the United States." ~ George W. Bush, 12/17/2005 - George W. Bush, self-described President of the United States. How come we never see that from the goddamned liberal media?
I digress.
This so-called "War on Christianity" is a fabrication. It's a smokescreen and a strawman. "We're under attack!" they scream. "Gather to our banner and help us! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US!" Sounds like the same tired old rhetoric. Newsflash: Christianity is not under attack. Simply because you perceive it to be does not make it so. Liberal Judges are not trying to erase you. In fact, the judges that have made decisions that you don't like (i.e., activist judges) tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Hollywood is not out to get you. In fact, most of the battles in this so-called war are battles that you, the Religious Conservatives have started!
Gay marriage is not an assault on Christianity. Christians trying to ban it, that's an assault on homosexuals.
Evolution is not an assault on Christianity. Intelligent Design is an assault on science.
Abortion is not an assault on Christianity. Bombing abortion clinics in an assault on women.
It's not a "War on Christianity", it's a "War for Ideology". Right-wing Christians believe, despite being the priviledge majority, that they are the repressed minority. They want their ideology pushed on everyone else, and recoil in horror when everyone else objects. They started this war, and labeled it a war against them. Sounds like a kid getting his hand caught in the cookie jar and then complaining that there weren't enough cookies in it.
-pb
Once again, Chuck Asay makes up his own reality and peddles it as fact. Barry Lynn wouldn't be bursting into classrooms to arrest teachers who hold a 'moment of silence' for a fallen soldier. He might, however, object to teachers who say "let's recite the Lord's prayer and ask Jesus to ease their pain blah blah blah etc". You know what? So would I. Because that makes the Jewish kid in the class feel very pressured to fall in line with his Christian classmates. It makes the Pagan kid the target of ridicule because he doesn't want to talk to Jesus. If anyone thinks that this is just a "well, you don't have the right to not be offended" case, I 'm going to assume that you never dealt with any sort of discrimination in school. You have no idea what it's like to be the kid that everyone thumps on. You have no idea what it's like to be the target of persecution because you're different. It's bad enough that our schools basically encourage bullying, but to allow religiously-motivated harrassment, or even foster an environment where a student is made to suffer for his religion goes against the precepts of the First Amendment.
If kids want to get together on their own and pray on school grounds, go for it. It should be a student activity with no pressure to join and only supervised by staff. Organized prayer should have no place in the classroom. Moments of silence do not count as organized prayer. They count as a moment where everyone shuts up, and if people happen to pray, then that's ok. If people happen to think about last night's rerun of Seinfeld, then that's ok too.
Keep your Jesus out of the school that I pay taxes to support, mmkay?
-js?!
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Times Herald the other day, and today, I got a response:
( The Response! )
Here's my response:
( I fire back! )
I found this particularly amusing:
I don't believe our founding fathers intended anything close to the separation of church and state that we live under today. I believe as our founding fathers believed; that I will live free or die.
So, by living free or dying, that 'freedom' is contingent on my not living free, so that your god can be supreme? Good one.
-js?!
( The Response! )
Here's my response:
( I fire back! )
I found this particularly amusing:
I don't believe our founding fathers intended anything close to the separation of church and state that we live under today. I believe as our founding fathers believed; that I will live free or die.
So, by living free or dying, that 'freedom' is contingent on my not living free, so that your god can be supreme? Good one.
-js?!
Another loss for the ACLU waiting to happen
"A public high school in Virginia is being sued for removing prayer-themed posters from a Christian teacher's classroom wall while he was out sick for several days last fall.
"A poster promoting the National Day of Prayer and depicting George Washington praying at Valley Forge, and a picture of President George W. Bush praying were among the items school officials confiscated from Spanish teacher William Lee's classroom at Tabb High School in Yorktown. Even a small cross in a display about a former student was cut out with scissors and thrown away by the school while Lee was out."
Ok, maybe there were better ways to handle this. That stuff shouldn't have been there, but this was the wrong way to go about it.
"Lee had also put up posters of the Peruvian Inca sun god festival and Mayan creature gods -- things often discussed in his Spanish class. However, those religious items were not removed."
AT WHAT POINT DID PEOPLE NOT REALIZE THIS WAS STUPID?! This is why Christians think they're being attacked.
-pb
"A public high school in Virginia is being sued for removing prayer-themed posters from a Christian teacher's classroom wall while he was out sick for several days last fall.
"A poster promoting the National Day of Prayer and depicting George Washington praying at Valley Forge, and a picture of President George W. Bush praying were among the items school officials confiscated from Spanish teacher William Lee's classroom at Tabb High School in Yorktown. Even a small cross in a display about a former student was cut out with scissors and thrown away by the school while Lee was out."
Ok, maybe there were better ways to handle this. That stuff shouldn't have been there, but this was the wrong way to go about it.
"Lee had also put up posters of the Peruvian Inca sun god festival and Mayan creature gods -- things often discussed in his Spanish class. However, those religious items were not removed."
AT WHAT POINT DID PEOPLE NOT REALIZE THIS WAS STUPID?! This is why Christians think they're being attacked.
-pb
"The critics say [the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' curriculum] ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still."
"Some of the claims made in the national council's curriculum are laughable, said Mark A. Chancey, professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who spent seven weeks studying the syllabus for the freedom network. Mr. Chancey said he found it "riddled with errors" of facts, dates, definitions and incorrect spellings. It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings."
~ From a July 31st New York Times article (Pay only)
What's disturbing is that they've already managed to get this into the curriculums of over 300 public schools.
Are they going to start teaching douching and showering after sex as acceptable methods of birth control next? Hell, maybe they should go to Snopes and just run down the list of everything marked with a red dot and add that to their curriculum. I mean, they've already started.
They've gone beyond the "well, our theory is science, even though it's not been subject to any sort of scientific review" madness of intelligent design. Now they're into the "my brother's sister-in-law's cousin's mechanic's best friend, who just so happens to work near NASA in Houston, overheard some scientist say that they had discovered a lost day. PUT IT IN THE CURRICULUM, IT MUST BE SCIENCE."
America, the stupid.
-js?!
"Some of the claims made in the national council's curriculum are laughable, said Mark A. Chancey, professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who spent seven weeks studying the syllabus for the freedom network. Mr. Chancey said he found it "riddled with errors" of facts, dates, definitions and incorrect spellings. It cites supposed NASA findings to suggest that the earth stopped twice in its orbit, in support of the literal truth of the biblical text that the sun stood still in Joshua and II Kings."
~ From a July 31st New York Times article (Pay only)
What's disturbing is that they've already managed to get this into the curriculums of over 300 public schools.
Are they going to start teaching douching and showering after sex as acceptable methods of birth control next? Hell, maybe they should go to Snopes and just run down the list of everything marked with a red dot and add that to their curriculum. I mean, they've already started.
They've gone beyond the "well, our theory is science, even though it's not been subject to any sort of scientific review" madness of intelligent design. Now they're into the "my brother's sister-in-law's cousin's mechanic's best friend, who just so happens to work near NASA in Houston, overheard some scientist say that they had discovered a lost day. PUT IT IN THE CURRICULUM, IT MUST BE SCIENCE."
America, the stupid.
-js?!
So, I run an Alumni site for my high school, and I've been in touch with a number of alumni from various classes. One of them sent me info on a classmate that had died, and apparently, I wound up on her mailing list. She forwarded a message, and I felt compelled to respond.
Here's the response:
-----
"I celebrate Christmas...........but because it isn't celebrated by everyone..............we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings."
Please don’t send me things like this. While I am a very loyal American, I’m not Christian, and I find this very offensive and very slanderous to the 25% of Americans who are not Christian who comprise some of our armed forces who are fighting and dying for our country. People are welcome to their opinions, no matter how cynical, but I’d ask that they not make their way to my inbox.
------
( Here's the original message, which was originally in 14 point bold blue and red letters )
-js?!
Here's the response:
-----
"I celebrate Christmas...........but because it isn't celebrated by everyone..............we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings."
Please don’t send me things like this. While I am a very loyal American, I’m not Christian, and I find this very offensive and very slanderous to the 25% of Americans who are not Christian who comprise some of our armed forces who are fighting and dying for our country. People are welcome to their opinions, no matter how cynical, but I’d ask that they not make their way to my inbox.
------
( Here's the original message, which was originally in 14 point bold blue and red letters )
-js?!
"Censoring God: Why is the science establishment so threatened by the intelligent design movement?" is the title of the latest Whistleblower Magazine, the super-right wing tinfoil sombrero print edition of WorldNetDaily.
Why is the science establishment so threatened by the intelligent design movement? Because this movement is trying to force a quasi-religious philosophy down their throats and demanding that they call it 'science'. It's somewhat equivalent to forcing priests to unequivocally state that there is no proof that Jesus actually rose from the dead and that there is no real evidence that the Eucharist actually transubstantiates.
I can't imagine how a class on ID would go.
Day one: "Intelligent Design is the theory that all life was designed and created by an intelligence higher than humanity. Now, open your textbooks to chapter 1 and we'll start actually teaching you about real observable science."
If anything, it should be mentioned as "what science is not". They have a theory. They can offer no proof other than "Look at the eye! too complex MUST HAVE BEEN GOD! The bumblebee knows how to get back to the hive on its own MUST HAVE BEEN GOD!", whereas a microscope, a petri dish, and a small bacteria culture can unfold the concept of evolution in about 15 minutes, and it's available for the whole class to see.
-pb
Why is the science establishment so threatened by the intelligent design movement? Because this movement is trying to force a quasi-religious philosophy down their throats and demanding that they call it 'science'. It's somewhat equivalent to forcing priests to unequivocally state that there is no proof that Jesus actually rose from the dead and that there is no real evidence that the Eucharist actually transubstantiates.
I can't imagine how a class on ID would go.
Day one: "Intelligent Design is the theory that all life was designed and created by an intelligence higher than humanity. Now, open your textbooks to chapter 1 and we'll start actually teaching you about real observable science."
If anything, it should be mentioned as "what science is not". They have a theory. They can offer no proof other than "Look at the eye! too complex MUST HAVE BEEN GOD! The bumblebee knows how to get back to the hive on its own MUST HAVE BEEN GOD!", whereas a microscope, a petri dish, and a small bacteria culture can unfold the concept of evolution in about 15 minutes, and it's available for the whole class to see.
-pb
Arkansas House Rejects Affirming Separation of Church and State
The Arkansas House voted 44-39 against the proposal to re-affirm the Separation of Church and State.
Abraham Lincoln was a great president, but damn, Abe... If only you'd just looked at them and said "Fuck yerselves! Try and make it on your own!"
Obviously, not everyone from the south is a crazy bastard, but then again, not everyone in the north is sane.
Southern States: We offer you a trade. You give us all you 'subversive li-uh-ralz', and we'll give you the middle of Pennsylvania. And then you can be JesusLand, and we'll rejoin the world community. Deal?
-pb
The Arkansas House voted 44-39 against the proposal to re-affirm the Separation of Church and State.
'It's clear that our founding fathers, that they wanted Christian beliefs,' [Republican Rep. Michael] Lamoureux said. 'The separation of church and state is not in our Constitution.'I calmed down significantly from my "Yay Canada!" movement of November 3-10. Canada has its problems, to be sure, but we need to do something about this theocratic imperialism. A Democrat in the White House isn't going to stop it. These people (mostly in southern states, mind you) are showing a) a distinct contempt for the law of the land (and then accusing us of the same), b) a complete ignorance of history, and c) an amazing disregard for any sort of diversity or acceptance of people, like me, who DON'T WORSHIP THE SAME AS THEY DO.
'It's unbelievable to me. They have just voted against the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the state of Arkansas,' [Democratic Rep. Buddy] Blair said.
Abraham Lincoln was a great president, but damn, Abe... If only you'd just looked at them and said "Fuck yerselves! Try and make it on your own!"
Obviously, not everyone from the south is a crazy bastard, but then again, not everyone in the north is sane.
Southern States: We offer you a trade. You give us all you 'subversive li-uh-ralz', and we'll give you the middle of Pennsylvania. And then you can be JesusLand, and we'll rejoin the world community. Deal?
-pb
Tolerance is a two-way street
I simply could not have stated it better.
-pb
I simply could not have stated it better.
You believe abortion is evil? Then don't have one -- but don't stop someone who doesn't share your belief from doing what she thinks is right. You believe stem cell research is immoral? OK, put your health and your money where your beliefs are, refuse treatment developed through this scientific method and disinvest your money from companies that profit from it. You think marriage between people of the same gender is against God's will? OK, don't marry someone of your gender, and if you get invited to a gay wedding, don't go.THANK YOU!
If you don't want your children to learn evolution, then take your kids out of public schools.
-pb
Intolerance Of Religion Is A Tragedy
Evangelicals preach intolerance on a daily basis. They no longer preach the core values of thier religion, which are love, acceptance, and forgiveness. They preach hate, intolerance, and bigotry as a matter of course. American fundamentalists may not drive bomb-laden vans into convoys, but they are every bit as fanatical, and they're using their political clout to circumvent and even eradicate our Constitutional protections. So no, I don't have to like them. I don't have to respect them. They use the name of my religion as an epithet; they shouldn't get their hackles raised when I return the favor.
As for this quote: "[Separation of Church and State] wasn't meant to stop people from voting based on what they heard on Sunday."
No, it wasn't. In fact, I have no problem with a fire-and-brimstone Baptist minister getting up in front of his congregation and extolling the virtues of George Bush. I've got no problem with Bush himself holding a rally at a church. What I have a problem with is when that church remains tax exempt, because that means that the taxes that they *don't* pay get made up for by other citizens. Like me. And that means that taxpayer dollars have gone to promote a candidate, and that, my friends, is called propoganda, and it's illegal. So let preachers say whatever they want. Just make sure they're not tax exempt while they're doing it.
-pb
Evangelicals preach intolerance on a daily basis. They no longer preach the core values of thier religion, which are love, acceptance, and forgiveness. They preach hate, intolerance, and bigotry as a matter of course. American fundamentalists may not drive bomb-laden vans into convoys, but they are every bit as fanatical, and they're using their political clout to circumvent and even eradicate our Constitutional protections. So no, I don't have to like them. I don't have to respect them. They use the name of my religion as an epithet; they shouldn't get their hackles raised when I return the favor.
As for this quote: "[Separation of Church and State] wasn't meant to stop people from voting based on what they heard on Sunday."
No, it wasn't. In fact, I have no problem with a fire-and-brimstone Baptist minister getting up in front of his congregation and extolling the virtues of George Bush. I've got no problem with Bush himself holding a rally at a church. What I have a problem with is when that church remains tax exempt, because that means that the taxes that they *don't* pay get made up for by other citizens. Like me. And that means that taxpayer dollars have gone to promote a candidate, and that, my friends, is called propoganda, and it's illegal. So let preachers say whatever they want. Just make sure they're not tax exempt while they're doing it.
-pb
Kansas clergy turn attention to evolution debate
In 313 CE, Emporer Constantine converted Rome to Christianity
In 325 CE, the Council of Nicea was convened at the urging of Constantine
In 391 CE, Christianity was made the only legal religion in Rome
In 476 CE, barbarian tribes sacked the Western Empire in retaliation for years of MILITARY OPRESSION.
Yes, Rome fell for its immorality. It was also a Christian Theocracy. Last time, it was the Goths. Who will it be this time?
Any religion that claims its beliefs are superior to that of accepted science and demands that its practicioners use their political influence to force that on others has passed from 'religion' to 'organized mind control,' and needs to be stopped.
Christians think they're being persecuted? Well, here's a hint. STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR GOD-DICK DOWN OUR THROATS, AND WE'LL STOP TRYING TO BITE IT OFF.
-pb
The Rev. Lou Sheldon, leader of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, said conservative groups are driven by concerns about the nation's future.This is so fucking easy that I can't believe we are loosing to these people. This quote is proof positive that these people shouldn't be allowed in the same COUNTY as the board of education. A little history lesson for the woefully stupid:
"Rome fell because of its immorality," he said. "Moral anarchy will pull down any kind of a republican government, and that's where we're headed if we don't turn things around."
In 313 CE, Emporer Constantine converted Rome to Christianity
In 325 CE, the Council of Nicea was convened at the urging of Constantine
In 391 CE, Christianity was made the only legal religion in Rome
In 476 CE, barbarian tribes sacked the Western Empire in retaliation for years of MILITARY OPRESSION.
Yes, Rome fell for its immorality. It was also a Christian Theocracy. Last time, it was the Goths. Who will it be this time?
[E]volution — which describes species changing over time to adapt to their environments and avoid extinction — is a perceived threat [to Christian doctrine].You know what? Copernicus almost had a date with a stake and a bonfire for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun because it was perceived as a threat to Christian doctrine. Galileo had similar troubles. Hell, even Christopher Columbus risked being the main course at a barbecue for his insane notion that perhaps the world wasn't a FLAT DISK.
Any religion that claims its beliefs are superior to that of accepted science and demands that its practicioners use their political influence to force that on others has passed from 'religion' to 'organized mind control,' and needs to be stopped.
Christians think they're being persecuted? Well, here's a hint. STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR GOD-DICK DOWN OUR THROATS, AND WE'LL STOP TRYING TO BITE IT OFF.
-pb
Attention Fundamentalist Christians:
While I understand you have no use for science, I will ask that you defend your theories logically before you use my tax dollars to shove them down the throats of a new generation.
Answer these questions, please, and show your work:
1) Provide solid scientific evidence that is not circumstantial to support the theory of Intelligent Design.
2) If Intelligent Design is not specific to one set of values, is it possible that the "intellegence" behind it was not Divine?
If you answered "No" to the above question, please suck on the tailpipe of the nearest car until you see visions of The Virgin Mary, pass out, and die.
If you answered "Yes", then:
3) If a non-divine intelligence brought forth all life, from whence did said intelligence spring?
Thank you.
-pb
While I understand you have no use for science, I will ask that you defend your theories logically before you use my tax dollars to shove them down the throats of a new generation.
Answer these questions, please, and show your work:
1) Provide solid scientific evidence that is not circumstantial to support the theory of Intelligent Design.
2) If Intelligent Design is not specific to one set of values, is it possible that the "intellegence" behind it was not Divine?
If you answered "No" to the above question, please suck on the tailpipe of the nearest car until you see visions of The Virgin Mary, pass out, and die.
If you answered "Yes", then:
3) If a non-divine intelligence brought forth all life, from whence did said intelligence spring?
Thank you.
-pb
Virginia moves to legislate state-sponsored Christianity and sexual discrimination.
What's next? A return to Jim Crow, and then back to slavery? Watch out, female Virginians! They might come for your right to vote! They might declare you the property of your husband or father! Good old Virginia.
They want to make it ok to proselytize on public property, including schools. A rider to the bill would outlaw same-sex marriages.
"With only four dissenting votes, the House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced a proposed change to religious-freedom guarantees rooted in the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and reflected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
Back in 1786, they knew that messing with the separation of Church and State was a BAD FUCKING IDEA. Now, 14 members of a Virginia House committee think that Jefferson and Madison must have been HOMOSEXUAL SATANISTS, because they're trying to fix laws that were apparently 'broken'.
Meanwhile, the Kansas Board of Education is trying once again to push their "America, the Stupid" agenda by taking UNSUPPORTED, UNTESTED BULLSHIT (Intelligent Design), and pass it off as SCIENCE, instead of, you know, Evolution, which is supported, peer-reviewed, and as valid as the Theory of Gravity.
-pb
What's next? A return to Jim Crow, and then back to slavery? Watch out, female Virginians! They might come for your right to vote! They might declare you the property of your husband or father! Good old Virginia.
They want to make it ok to proselytize on public property, including schools. A rider to the bill would outlaw same-sex marriages.
"With only four dissenting votes, the House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced a proposed change to religious-freedom guarantees rooted in the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and reflected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
Back in 1786, they knew that messing with the separation of Church and State was a BAD FUCKING IDEA. Now, 14 members of a Virginia House committee think that Jefferson and Madison must have been HOMOSEXUAL SATANISTS, because they're trying to fix laws that were apparently 'broken'.
Meanwhile, the Kansas Board of Education is trying once again to push their "America, the Stupid" agenda by taking UNSUPPORTED, UNTESTED BULLSHIT (Intelligent Design), and pass it off as SCIENCE, instead of, you know, Evolution, which is supported, peer-reviewed, and as valid as the Theory of Gravity.
-pb
On November 3rd, 2004, voters in 11 states decided that a minority group was not entitled to the same rights and privileges that they, the majority, take for granted. They used wildly hypocritical catch-phrases, and obscure bits from the religious law of a nation 10,000 miles away to justify this decision. I am, of course, referring to the referendums in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Let’s be perfectly clear: The issue is religious. Plain and simple. The only argument that cannot be shot full of holes is that in the Bible, specifically, Leviticus 18:22, it clearly states “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”. Sounds pretty concise. It’s a specific prohibition against one man having vaginal intercourse with another man.
Wait, let’s back up there. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Ok, so, if we expand this definition to include intercourse of any kind, we’ve got a prohibition against men having intercourse with other men. Interestingly, enough, women are not specifically told to keep their hands to themselves around other women.
So, voters in 11 states decided that people who have a different sexual alignment from themselves were not fit to enjoy certain rights, they were using a few choice verses from Judaic Law to legitimize their positions. Interestingly enough, the Bible is a great place to start.
God’s Word describes homosexual intercourse with a particular term: Abomination. God’s Word also describes consumption of shellfish with that same term. Abomination refers to something worthy of or causing disgust or hatred, or something detestable. God refers to the act of two men having sex, whether it be in the context of wanton lust or lifelong commitment, with the same exact word he uses to describe enjoying Red Lobster’s Lobsterfest. Certainly, someone has missed a memo.
Of course, with the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas, it’s not about men having sex with other men anymore, is it? No one can legitimately claim that those 11 referendums were about enforcing biblical law upon gay men (the punishment for homosexual intercourse is, of course, death), because those referendums were not about curtailing sexual activity. They were about limiting the rights of people.
The term “defending the sanctity of marriage” came up a lot. I’m not certain how sacred a less than 50% success rate is, but I can guarantee you that the ‘sanctity’ has less to do with the thought of two people getting married than it does with what to do with their assets after one of them dies. No marriage, no merger of assets. If two men who have committed themselves to one another purchase a house jointly, and one is hit by a bus, the other has to pay an inheritance tax on half of the property value. Interesting, that.
There are a number of parallels to racial bigotry from our past here. Slaves were denied most rights under our own Constitution, counted as only 3/5ths of a person, and all of this was reinforced by Colossians 3:22 “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God”.
Bigotry, plain and simple. Having no logical arguments against something that they disapprove of, people turn to a religious document and strip things out that make their case for them. If we’re going to start legislating from Leviticus, I have a few suggestions:
Kill anyone that works on Sunday. Women are to be inspected to determine if they are menstruating, and if so, anyone who comes in contact with them must be required by law to cleans themselves in the proscribed manner. Women who have been widowed but remain childless must be forced to marry their oldest single brother-in-law, and conceive a child with him.
And that’s just for starters.
Few, if any, of the Judaic Laws discussed in Leviticus are relevant or even on our books now. In fact, the of the ten big ones, the Ten Commandments, only two are points of legality in America. And speaking of the Ten Commandments, notice that none of them involves homosexuality? God felt necessary to give his Holy Laws straight to man, and he left any mention of homosexuality out. He mentions marriage (adultery and covetous), but stops short of defining it. Ironically, a great deal of people feel that the Founding Fathers would have written in a marriage clause had they foreseen the issue coming up in 250 years or so. Do these same people think that God would have put this stuff in if he’d though for even a minute that in 4-5000 years, people would make an issue out of it?
Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? Voters in 11 states didn’t define marriage as a union between a man and a woman because God told them to, they did it because they have an irrational hatred for homosexuals, and used their power of majority to attack them in a manner that they could not be held accountable for: an anonymous ballot. It’s bigotry, it’s hate, it’s intolerance, and it’s all there waiting in the Holy Bible. All you’ve got to do is look, and find a verse that fits what you want to say.
-pb
Let’s be perfectly clear: The issue is religious. Plain and simple. The only argument that cannot be shot full of holes is that in the Bible, specifically, Leviticus 18:22, it clearly states “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”. Sounds pretty concise. It’s a specific prohibition against one man having vaginal intercourse with another man.
Wait, let’s back up there. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Ok, so, if we expand this definition to include intercourse of any kind, we’ve got a prohibition against men having intercourse with other men. Interestingly, enough, women are not specifically told to keep their hands to themselves around other women.
So, voters in 11 states decided that people who have a different sexual alignment from themselves were not fit to enjoy certain rights, they were using a few choice verses from Judaic Law to legitimize their positions. Interestingly enough, the Bible is a great place to start.
God’s Word describes homosexual intercourse with a particular term: Abomination. God’s Word also describes consumption of shellfish with that same term. Abomination refers to something worthy of or causing disgust or hatred, or something detestable. God refers to the act of two men having sex, whether it be in the context of wanton lust or lifelong commitment, with the same exact word he uses to describe enjoying Red Lobster’s Lobsterfest. Certainly, someone has missed a memo.
Of course, with the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas, it’s not about men having sex with other men anymore, is it? No one can legitimately claim that those 11 referendums were about enforcing biblical law upon gay men (the punishment for homosexual intercourse is, of course, death), because those referendums were not about curtailing sexual activity. They were about limiting the rights of people.
The term “defending the sanctity of marriage” came up a lot. I’m not certain how sacred a less than 50% success rate is, but I can guarantee you that the ‘sanctity’ has less to do with the thought of two people getting married than it does with what to do with their assets after one of them dies. No marriage, no merger of assets. If two men who have committed themselves to one another purchase a house jointly, and one is hit by a bus, the other has to pay an inheritance tax on half of the property value. Interesting, that.
There are a number of parallels to racial bigotry from our past here. Slaves were denied most rights under our own Constitution, counted as only 3/5ths of a person, and all of this was reinforced by Colossians 3:22 “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God”.
Bigotry, plain and simple. Having no logical arguments against something that they disapprove of, people turn to a religious document and strip things out that make their case for them. If we’re going to start legislating from Leviticus, I have a few suggestions:
Kill anyone that works on Sunday. Women are to be inspected to determine if they are menstruating, and if so, anyone who comes in contact with them must be required by law to cleans themselves in the proscribed manner. Women who have been widowed but remain childless must be forced to marry their oldest single brother-in-law, and conceive a child with him.
And that’s just for starters.
Few, if any, of the Judaic Laws discussed in Leviticus are relevant or even on our books now. In fact, the of the ten big ones, the Ten Commandments, only two are points of legality in America. And speaking of the Ten Commandments, notice that none of them involves homosexuality? God felt necessary to give his Holy Laws straight to man, and he left any mention of homosexuality out. He mentions marriage (adultery and covetous), but stops short of defining it. Ironically, a great deal of people feel that the Founding Fathers would have written in a marriage clause had they foreseen the issue coming up in 250 years or so. Do these same people think that God would have put this stuff in if he’d though for even a minute that in 4-5000 years, people would make an issue out of it?
Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? Voters in 11 states didn’t define marriage as a union between a man and a woman because God told them to, they did it because they have an irrational hatred for homosexuals, and used their power of majority to attack them in a manner that they could not be held accountable for: an anonymous ballot. It’s bigotry, it’s hate, it’s intolerance, and it’s all there waiting in the Holy Bible. All you’ve got to do is look, and find a verse that fits what you want to say.
-pb
- Music:Neuroticfish - Care
Parents sue to allow religious holiday messages in public schools
So, they sued to allow their kid to hand out candy-cane pens that had the story of how it's supposed to represent Jesus's blood and some whip marks and whatnot. Of course, this just further reinforces the fact that fundies aren't too concerned with "facts".
This is the same school that got sued for promoting Wicca by allowing the library to have Harry Potter books.
Wait, this all makes sense. Harry Potter is fiction, and it deals with witches. Must be promoting Wicca. The Bible is fiction and it deals with Jesus. Must be promoting Christianity. It's all so clear now.
-pb
So, they sued to allow their kid to hand out candy-cane pens that had the story of how it's supposed to represent Jesus's blood and some whip marks and whatnot. Of course, this just further reinforces the fact that fundies aren't too concerned with "facts".
This is the same school that got sued for promoting Wicca by allowing the library to have Harry Potter books.
Wait, this all makes sense. Harry Potter is fiction, and it deals with witches. Must be promoting Wicca. The Bible is fiction and it deals with Jesus. Must be promoting Christianity. It's all so clear now.
-pb
PA school board is presenting another challenge for evolution
"What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"
Oh, you were finished? Allow me to retort!
What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the Biblical creation story? Like the fact that it's told TWICE, and that the FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF GENESIS CAN'T EVEN AGREE WHO WAS CREATED FIRST. How about we ask where Cain's wife came from? How about we explore the idea that God created night and day before he created the Sun and the Moon? Good one, there, God. I guess that 40-watt bulb just wasn't going to hold out forever, so you needed something more permanent?
Could someone please point out the holes in the Theory of Evolution? In fact, while you're at it, perhaps you could point out some of the holes in the Theory of Gravity? Because there's an ape at my doorstep claiming to be my cousin, and I'm holding onto his hairy back to keep from floating away.
"If the Bible is right, God created us," said John Rowand, an Assemblies of God pastor and a newly appointed school board member. "If God did it, it's history and it's also science."
Ok, so, if we take the Bible as history, then we have to teach it in the classroom. Nevermind that we have yet to prove the authenticity, dates, or most of the content of the Bible. Nevermind that it's not a very good historical narrative. Nevermind that there are more accurate and verifiable accounts that contradict it. Nevermind that the Bible was assembled out of scraps in the third century by a bunch of men who wanted to codify everything. Nevermind that through various translations, a lot of shit has been lost. Nevermind that Leviticus lists BATS among the BIRDS that we're not allowed to eat. Nevermind that this book actually commands people to KILL people who don't believe in it. You think Grand Theft Auto is having a negative impact on your kids? Wait 'til they hear about all the sex in Song of Solomon ("My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." - SoS 5:4) Wait 'til they hear about all the rape and murder that God commanded. Wait 'til they hear about the fact that God defines EATING SHRIMP with the same word he uses for HOMOSEXUALITY. That'll really throw them for a loop.
You want to teach the Bible in school? Then you damn well better be teaching it objectively.
-pb
"What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"
Oh, you were finished? Allow me to retort!
What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the Biblical creation story? Like the fact that it's told TWICE, and that the FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF GENESIS CAN'T EVEN AGREE WHO WAS CREATED FIRST. How about we ask where Cain's wife came from? How about we explore the idea that God created night and day before he created the Sun and the Moon? Good one, there, God. I guess that 40-watt bulb just wasn't going to hold out forever, so you needed something more permanent?
Could someone please point out the holes in the Theory of Evolution? In fact, while you're at it, perhaps you could point out some of the holes in the Theory of Gravity? Because there's an ape at my doorstep claiming to be my cousin, and I'm holding onto his hairy back to keep from floating away.
"If the Bible is right, God created us," said John Rowand, an Assemblies of God pastor and a newly appointed school board member. "If God did it, it's history and it's also science."
Ok, so, if we take the Bible as history, then we have to teach it in the classroom. Nevermind that we have yet to prove the authenticity, dates, or most of the content of the Bible. Nevermind that it's not a very good historical narrative. Nevermind that there are more accurate and verifiable accounts that contradict it. Nevermind that the Bible was assembled out of scraps in the third century by a bunch of men who wanted to codify everything. Nevermind that through various translations, a lot of shit has been lost. Nevermind that Leviticus lists BATS among the BIRDS that we're not allowed to eat. Nevermind that this book actually commands people to KILL people who don't believe in it. You think Grand Theft Auto is having a negative impact on your kids? Wait 'til they hear about all the sex in Song of Solomon ("My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." - SoS 5:4) Wait 'til they hear about all the rape and murder that God commanded. Wait 'til they hear about the fact that God defines EATING SHRIMP with the same word he uses for HOMOSEXUALITY. That'll really throw them for a loop.
You want to teach the Bible in school? Then you damn well better be teaching it objectively.
-pb
While Benjamin Franklin is the Founding Father with whom I most wish to speak at length, Thomas Jefferson is the one whom I admire the most for his writings on the government that he helped create.
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.-pb
Thomas Jefferson, December 6th, 1813
Separation of Church and State
Above all else, the separation of religion from the state must be maintained. If spiritual influences are allowed to overwhelmingly influence temporal politics, we risk a return to the violent and backwards past where theocracy trumps democracy. In this country, we have a blend of cultures and religions. While there is a clear majority who practice one particular religion, even that majority differs wildly in the interpretation of its religion. There cannot be any legislation seen to promote a particular sect’s ideology without trampling on that of another sect. Therefore, any legislation that is motivated by the ideals or morality of a particular religion must be quashed.
Marriage
Marriage is religious institution, and in keeping with the above separation, the government should have no hand in it. However, the government should be able to regulate civil unions, that are at their core, partnerships between two consenting adults.
The government should have no say as to which two consenting adults should be joined in a civil union. If a religious organization has qualms or rules as to who it will consider married, then it is by all means entitled to make that descison. The state, however, should make no distinctions. For it to do so would be to foster discrimination, prejudice, and a religious bias.
(Polygamy, in and of itself, is not a societal ill, but it presents such a logistical issue as to not be feasible without extensive legislation, and therefore, should be avoided.)
Welfare
Our state is governed by a government "by the people, for the people". Therefore, the state has an obligation to give aid to those who are unable to provide for themselves. However, this aid should not be simply handed out with no return expected.
Welfare recipients of working age and capability should be expected to do so in return for continued support. The state should also provide education and advancement programs with the interest of producing a productive tax-paying citizen in order to recoup the costs of support. Those who do not wish to become productive citizens should therefore not be entitled to such benefits.
Those who are too young, too old, or too disabled to work should be given ample care to live, without exception.
The state should also guarantee a minimum living wage that would put a single full-time employee above the poverty line.
Healthcare
As all working citizens are required to pay taxes to support the state, the state should reciprocate by offering low-cost, quality healthcare to all citizens. This healthcare should include preventive medicine in an effort to increase quality of life, and reduce expenses for high-cost procedures that could have been prevented with ample care.
It is the duty of the citizen to be productive for the enrichment of themselves, and by extension, the state. It is the duty of the state to ensure that the citizen has every opportunity to remain productive.
Incorporated in this healthcare package should be a minimum vacation and sick leave guarantee of no less than two weeks vacation and 5 sick days per year.
Education
In accordance with allowing citizens to reach a higher potential, and therefore be more productive tax-paying citizens, the state should provide a minimum standard for high-school graduation that is based less on performance and more on actual learning. Cultural factors must be considered, especially for Natives Americans and Spanish speakers who may not have learned English as their first tongue. English fluency should be mandatory, but not at the expense of native languages, or arts and humanities.
Additionally, the burden of higher education costs must also rest partially with the state. As our society moves away from manufacturing, it is incumbent upon the state to ensure that all citizens are afforded every opportunity to become productive in the new economic model.
Feel free to agree, disagree, and/or call me names.
Above all else, the separation of religion from the state must be maintained. If spiritual influences are allowed to overwhelmingly influence temporal politics, we risk a return to the violent and backwards past where theocracy trumps democracy. In this country, we have a blend of cultures and religions. While there is a clear majority who practice one particular religion, even that majority differs wildly in the interpretation of its religion. There cannot be any legislation seen to promote a particular sect’s ideology without trampling on that of another sect. Therefore, any legislation that is motivated by the ideals or morality of a particular religion must be quashed.
Marriage
Marriage is religious institution, and in keeping with the above separation, the government should have no hand in it. However, the government should be able to regulate civil unions, that are at their core, partnerships between two consenting adults.
The government should have no say as to which two consenting adults should be joined in a civil union. If a religious organization has qualms or rules as to who it will consider married, then it is by all means entitled to make that descison. The state, however, should make no distinctions. For it to do so would be to foster discrimination, prejudice, and a religious bias.
(Polygamy, in and of itself, is not a societal ill, but it presents such a logistical issue as to not be feasible without extensive legislation, and therefore, should be avoided.)
Welfare
Our state is governed by a government "by the people, for the people". Therefore, the state has an obligation to give aid to those who are unable to provide for themselves. However, this aid should not be simply handed out with no return expected.
Welfare recipients of working age and capability should be expected to do so in return for continued support. The state should also provide education and advancement programs with the interest of producing a productive tax-paying citizen in order to recoup the costs of support. Those who do not wish to become productive citizens should therefore not be entitled to such benefits.
Those who are too young, too old, or too disabled to work should be given ample care to live, without exception.
The state should also guarantee a minimum living wage that would put a single full-time employee above the poverty line.
Healthcare
As all working citizens are required to pay taxes to support the state, the state should reciprocate by offering low-cost, quality healthcare to all citizens. This healthcare should include preventive medicine in an effort to increase quality of life, and reduce expenses for high-cost procedures that could have been prevented with ample care.
It is the duty of the citizen to be productive for the enrichment of themselves, and by extension, the state. It is the duty of the state to ensure that the citizen has every opportunity to remain productive.
Incorporated in this healthcare package should be a minimum vacation and sick leave guarantee of no less than two weeks vacation and 5 sick days per year.
Education
In accordance with allowing citizens to reach a higher potential, and therefore be more productive tax-paying citizens, the state should provide a minimum standard for high-school graduation that is based less on performance and more on actual learning. Cultural factors must be considered, especially for Natives Americans and Spanish speakers who may not have learned English as their first tongue. English fluency should be mandatory, but not at the expense of native languages, or arts and humanities.
Additionally, the burden of higher education costs must also rest partially with the state. As our society moves away from manufacturing, it is incumbent upon the state to ensure that all citizens are afforded every opportunity to become productive in the new economic model.
Feel free to agree, disagree, and/or call me names.
Concept stolen from a poster on WitchVox, rearranged and voiced with my own words:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands
one nation
under God
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.
How exactly can there be liberty and justice for all if that liberty is contingent upon the nation being "under God"? Is is "liberty for christians and justice for all"?
The line "under God" should be stricken from the pledge. Also, it should never be made mandatory to recide the pledge. Why should we be forcing children to declare their allegiance to a flag and the country for which it stands? Children aren't allowed to enter into a legally binding contract, and depending on their age, are completely unable to grasp the awesome weight of what they're saying.
We're making these kids take a solemn oath before a diety, with their hand over their heart, swearing unconditional allegiance to their nation. How can anyone not see the problem with this? It's indoctrination, plain and simple!
-pb
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands
one nation
under God
indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.
How exactly can there be liberty and justice for all if that liberty is contingent upon the nation being "under God"? Is is "liberty for christians and justice for all"?
The line "under God" should be stricken from the pledge. Also, it should never be made mandatory to recide the pledge. Why should we be forcing children to declare their allegiance to a flag and the country for which it stands? Children aren't allowed to enter into a legally binding contract, and depending on their age, are completely unable to grasp the awesome weight of what they're saying.
We're making these kids take a solemn oath before a diety, with their hand over their heart, swearing unconditional allegiance to their nation. How can anyone not see the problem with this? It's indoctrination, plain and simple!
-pb
Christmas Campaign to Protect Religious Liberty Launched
Now, I'd really like to see this title read "Christmas Campaign to Protect Christian Dogma Launched", because that's what this campaign is all about.
"At the same time, Liberty Counsel wants public employees and officials to know that it will defend any governmental entity that allows the equal expression of religious viewpoints."
"[G]overnment organizations and civil liberties groups can expect Liberty Counsel to be their foe 'when they try to intentionally exclude Christ from Christmas, when they try to say that religious symbols or religious songs are not permissible.'"
I'm guessing that they're not going to falling all over themselves begging for equal time for Haunnukah, Kwanzaa, or Yule symols and songs.
So, let's review: SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEANS KEEP YOUR CHURCH OUT OF MY STATE. Government offices shouldn't be decorating for Christmas. They shouldn't be decorating for Yule. They shouldn't be decorating for ANY RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY WHATSOEVER. How hard a concept is this? If your church wants to have a live nativity, knock yourself out. If you want to have a live nativity at your local post office, EXPECT SOME ACLU ACTION. Don't get all bent out of shape when someone points out that seperation of church and state doesn't make an exception for *your* religion.
-pb
Now, I'd really like to see this title read "Christmas Campaign to Protect Christian Dogma Launched", because that's what this campaign is all about.
"At the same time, Liberty Counsel wants public employees and officials to know that it will defend any governmental entity that allows the equal expression of religious viewpoints."
"[G]overnment organizations and civil liberties groups can expect Liberty Counsel to be their foe 'when they try to intentionally exclude Christ from Christmas, when they try to say that religious symbols or religious songs are not permissible.'"
I'm guessing that they're not going to falling all over themselves begging for equal time for Haunnukah, Kwanzaa, or Yule symols and songs.
So, let's review: SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEANS KEEP YOUR CHURCH OUT OF MY STATE. Government offices shouldn't be decorating for Christmas. They shouldn't be decorating for Yule. They shouldn't be decorating for ANY RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY WHATSOEVER. How hard a concept is this? If your church wants to have a live nativity, knock yourself out. If you want to have a live nativity at your local post office, EXPECT SOME ACLU ACTION. Don't get all bent out of shape when someone points out that seperation of church and state doesn't make an exception for *your* religion.
-pb
- Mood:
GRAAAAAHHHHH!!!!! - Music:Ministry - Psalm 69
Religious Conservatives Demand Changes at Nation's Parks
"Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book 'Grand Canyon: A Different View,' which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.
The book was written by a 'born again' river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he 'met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old.'"
When these Paulists piss and moan about being the most persecuted group of people in America today, perhaps they should look at the reasons why.
Of course you're going to be persecuted if you're running around saying "NO NO FUCK YOUR SCIENCE MY LITTLE BOOK HERE SAYS THAT BATS ARE REALLY BIRDS SO IT MUST BE TRUE OMFG JESUS JESUS DIE HOMO FAGGY-FAG-FAG ABORTIONIST BABYKILLER!"
And when you're making a concerted effort to make the government jam this lunacy down my throat, I'm going to sic the ACLU on you. Deal with it, or shut the fuck up, mmkay?
-pb
"Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book 'Grand Canyon: A Different View,' which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.
The book was written by a 'born again' river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he 'met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old.'"
When these Paulists piss and moan about being the most persecuted group of people in America today, perhaps they should look at the reasons why.
Of course you're going to be persecuted if you're running around saying "NO NO FUCK YOUR SCIENCE MY LITTLE BOOK HERE SAYS THAT BATS ARE REALLY BIRDS SO IT MUST BE TRUE OMFG JESUS JESUS DIE HOMO FAGGY-FAG-FAG ABORTIONIST BABYKILLER!"
And when you're making a concerted effort to make the government jam this lunacy down my throat, I'm going to sic the ACLU on you. Deal with it, or shut the fuck up, mmkay?
-pb
Board rejects comparative religion class
"Several Frederick County [Maryland] school board members earlier this month voted to oppose offering a comparative religion course for fear that students would be exposed to witchcraft and Satanism."
How many times does it have to be said? KEEP RELIGION OUT OF OUR FUCKING SCHOOLS. You know what? Were I a parent, I wouldn't like this class for fear that my child would be exposed to CHRISTIANITY. Did anyone think about that? Why the fuck are people trying to find various ways to peddle Jesus in school? Because that's how I see this. Sure, it was defeated, but had it been passed, it would have been an excuse to teach Christianity. "Lookee! We're teaching Islam and Buddhism too!" Give it a fucking rest. Keep religion out of the curriculum. If you want your kids to learn religion in school, send them to a private religious school. And don't ask for vouchers, either.
-pb
"Several Frederick County [Maryland] school board members earlier this month voted to oppose offering a comparative religion course for fear that students would be exposed to witchcraft and Satanism."
How many times does it have to be said? KEEP RELIGION OUT OF OUR FUCKING SCHOOLS. You know what? Were I a parent, I wouldn't like this class for fear that my child would be exposed to CHRISTIANITY. Did anyone think about that? Why the fuck are people trying to find various ways to peddle Jesus in school? Because that's how I see this. Sure, it was defeated, but had it been passed, it would have been an excuse to teach Christianity. "Lookee! We're teaching Islam and Buddhism too!" Give it a fucking rest. Keep religion out of the curriculum. If you want your kids to learn religion in school, send them to a private religious school. And don't ask for vouchers, either.
-pb
Hallowe'en is being attacked because it's on a Sunday. The arguement is that it's the devil's holiday, and shouldn't be celebrated on the Sabbath. [ link ]
BUT IT'S OK TO CELEBRATE IT ON ANY OTHER DAY OF THE WEEK.
Hallowe'en is being banned in some schools, and people are upset. They say it's offensive to pagans students to have other kids come in dressed up like witches. [ link ]
BUT IT'S OK TO FORCE THOSE SAME PAGAN STUDENTS TO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS IN SCHOOL.
A local Wiccan temple in Michigan has come under fire, because even though they've got the proper permits, are law-abiding citizens, and haven't broken a single law (except that their sign is about an inch too long), they might be Satanists who sacrifice animals. [ link ]
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS OK TO SACRIFICE ANIMALS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THAT SHIT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE GOOD NOW, BECAUSE THEIR SATANIST VIBE MIGHT MAKE YOU LESS OF A GOOD CHRISTIAN.
Nevermind that they're not actually sacrificing animals. THESE FUCKERS HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY ABORT ANY MORE BABIES OR MARRY ANY MORE GAY PEOPLE.
Truly, these pagans are the ones that brought 9/11 down on our heads. Fuck the peace-mongers. They got us into a holy war.
-pb
BUT IT'S OK TO CELEBRATE IT ON ANY OTHER DAY OF THE WEEK.
Hallowe'en is being banned in some schools, and people are upset. They say it's offensive to pagans students to have other kids come in dressed up like witches. [ link ]
BUT IT'S OK TO FORCE THOSE SAME PAGAN STUDENTS TO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS IN SCHOOL.
A local Wiccan temple in Michigan has come under fire, because even though they've got the proper permits, are law-abiding citizens, and haven't broken a single law (except that their sign is about an inch too long), they might be Satanists who sacrifice animals. [ link ]
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS OK TO SACRIFICE ANIMALS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THAT SHIT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE GOOD NOW, BECAUSE THEIR SATANIST VIBE MIGHT MAKE YOU LESS OF A GOOD CHRISTIAN.
Nevermind that they're not actually sacrificing animals. THESE FUCKERS HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY ABORT ANY MORE BABIES OR MARRY ANY MORE GAY PEOPLE.
Truly, these pagans are the ones that brought 9/11 down on our heads. Fuck the peace-mongers. They got us into a holy war.
-pb
- Mood: angry
- Music:Pride and Fall - Paragon (KGIB Radio)
Supreme Court to hear Ten Commandments Case
Here's my take on the 10 commandments, and why I want it removed from all government buildings, especially courts:
Of the 10, only two are illegal in any of the 50 states (theft and murder). Therefore, by posting them, the implication is that regardless of the lack of statute making 8 of these illegal, I'm still being held to that standard. Let's break this down Commandment by Commandment:
"One: You shall have no other gods before [Yahweh / Jehovah]."
The very first commandment is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to the First Amendment guaranteeing me freedom of religion, freedom to worship as I see fit whomever or whatever I see fit. Which holds precidence here? Can I, a Pagan, be arrested and tried for violating this?
"Two: You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Yet, the statue of Blind Justice also stands in courtrooms across the nation, a direct violation of this commandment. It's also interesting that the thing that sparked this new controversy is a GRAVEN IMAGE OF A BIBLE. The words as they are written are actually PHYSICALLY CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES.
"Three: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."
Again, with the free speech. So, if I say "Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah!", can I be arrested?
"Five: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday. Christians observe it on Sunday. Pagans observe 8 Sabbats a year, along with 13 Esbats. Do I have to keep all of them? If I miss one, can I be arrested? What if more than one falls on the same day!?
"Five: Honor your father and your mother."
So, does this mean that a child cannot testify against a parent that molested them?
"Six: You shall not murder."
Check that out, we finally get to one that's actually a law. Of course, the state compels people to murder all the time. Should an executioner be held responsible for those he executes? Should soldiers be held accountable for every enemy they kill in combat?
"Seven: You shall not commit adultery."
Whos definition of adultery are we going by here? Solomon? He had 500 wives and 300 concubines. Was he committing adultery when he shacked up with a concubine? Was he cheating on all 500 of his wives?How about Abraham? Jehovah commanded him to get vertical with a slave when his wife couldn't concieve. Does that make him an adulterer?
Not saying I condone it, but there is no legal statute preventing it.
"Eight: You shall not steal."
Finally! Ano
Here's my take on the 10 commandments, and why I want it removed from all government buildings, especially courts:
Of the 10, only two are illegal in any of the 50 states (theft and murder). Therefore, by posting them, the implication is that regardless of the lack of statute making 8 of these illegal, I'm still being held to that standard. Let's break this down Commandment by Commandment:
"One: You shall have no other gods before [Yahweh / Jehovah]."
The very first commandment is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to the First Amendment guaranteeing me freedom of religion, freedom to worship as I see fit whomever or whatever I see fit. Which holds precidence here? Can I, a Pagan, be arrested and tried for violating this?
"Two: You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Yet, the statue of Blind Justice also stands in courtrooms across the nation, a direct violation of this commandment. It's also interesting that the thing that sparked this new controversy is a GRAVEN IMAGE OF A BIBLE. The words as they are written are actually PHYSICALLY CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES.
"Three: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."
Again, with the free speech. So, if I say "Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah!", can I be arrested?
"Five: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday. Christians observe it on Sunday. Pagans observe 8 Sabbats a year, along with 13 Esbats. Do I have to keep all of them? If I miss one, can I be arrested? What if more than one falls on the same day!?
"Five: Honor your father and your mother."
So, does this mean that a child cannot testify against a parent that molested them?
"Six: You shall not murder."
Check that out, we finally get to one that's actually a law. Of course, the state compels people to murder all the time. Should an executioner be held responsible for those he executes? Should soldiers be held accountable for every enemy they kill in combat?
"Seven: You shall not commit adultery."
Whos definition of adultery are we going by here? Solomon? He had 500 wives and 300 concubines. Was he committing adultery when he shacked up with a concubine? Was he cheating on all 500 of his wives?How about Abraham? Jehovah commanded him to get vertical with a slave when his wife couldn't concieve. Does that make him an adulterer?
Not saying I condone it, but there is no legal statute preventing it.
"Eight: You shall not steal."
Finally! Ano