If you're like me, then you're a non-theist who's tired of being told that you "hate God." Obviously, I can't hate God, because God isn't real (if you're religious and reading this blog, please substitute "because I don't believe in god" for "because God isn't real" in that last sentence, for the sake of argument).
Bernard Schweizer has come along to save the day with his book called "Hating God: The Untold Story Of Misotheism." Schweiser makes the distinction between the Atheist (who says there is no god) and the Misotheist (believes that God is loathful and not deserving of worship). I'm not sure why it has to be an entire book, but I bet it's really interesting.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
South Dakota Putting A Target On Abortion Doctors?
This isn't fooling anybody, and anyone who supports this bill in its current language either has an agenda, or is completely stupid. The bill deals with defining "justifiable homicide," or when it's not against the law to kill a person.
"Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished."
Supporters of the bill argue that it's aimed at people who intend to "illegally" kill an unborn baby, and they argue that abortion in South Dakota is legal, therefore this isn't intended to protect abortion doctor killers. However, the bill clearly states "if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, OR to do some great personal injury..." Hmmmm, what other way is there to "harm an unborn baby" other than by committing a felony to do so? Maybe to abort the baby? Obviously, the language of this bill protects people who kill abortion doctors. Whether or not this could stand up as a defense is secondary. The issue is that somebody could actually murder an abortion doctor with the idea that they'll be immune to punishment because of this bill. This is seriously socially irresponsible.
"Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished."
Supporters of the bill argue that it's aimed at people who intend to "illegally" kill an unborn baby, and they argue that abortion in South Dakota is legal, therefore this isn't intended to protect abortion doctor killers. However, the bill clearly states "if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, OR to do some great personal injury..." Hmmmm, what other way is there to "harm an unborn baby" other than by committing a felony to do so? Maybe to abort the baby? Obviously, the language of this bill protects people who kill abortion doctors. Whether or not this could stand up as a defense is secondary. The issue is that somebody could actually murder an abortion doctor with the idea that they'll be immune to punishment because of this bill. This is seriously socially irresponsible.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Christian Superstition Means Support For Mubarak
Here's a great article on Glenn Beck's 180 turn on supporting Democracy in the Middle East. It's pretty hypocritical to me that anyone associated to the Tea Party, which claims to desire "revolution" in this country in order to pursue "freedom" and a "return to our constitution" (ie: stop having to pay taxes) would oppose another nation whose people are in the process of real revolution because their freedoms are genuinely trivialized, and their constitution has been altered to the whims of an autocratic ruler. That's right Tea Party, this is what a real revolution looks like.
But it makes perfect sense if you look at how Fundamentalist Christians view the Middle East. Egypt has been viewed as friendly towards Israel, and Christians believe that we must support Israel at all cost, or we risk being on the wrong side of the battle of Armaggedon. Therefore we must support Egypt, else Israel could fall into the hands of Islamic radicals who'd join forces with Iran to oust God's chosen people. It's all in the book of Revelations. John Hagee, one of the biggest blow hards of all pro-Israel-at-all-costs Fundamentalist Christians recently posted an update on his website that includes this quote (in big, fat, appropriate John Hagee caps): "REMEMBER THIS; THE DAY AMERICA FAILS TO HELP ISRAEL IN ITS DAY OF TROUBLE IS THE DAY GOD ALMIGHTY WILL SEND AMERICA A DAY OF TROUBLE AND NO ONE WILL COME TO OUR AID." No doubt, much of the rhetoric you will hear in support of Mubarak (or in opposition to the protestors) stems from this same Christian idea.
It is a precarious situation, and there is a real possibility that Egypt could become an Islamic theocracy, but would that be worse for the people of Egypt than their current situation? Many of them don't seem to think so.
The bottom line is that Mubarak has grossly abused his power and the people of Egypt aren't taking it laying down any longer. Mubarak has announced that he will not run for President again, but that isn't enough for the people of Egypt, and why should it be? They do not trust the election system, and they aren't dumb enough to think the game will have changed simply by the President letting his term expire. A presidential candidate from an opposition party was jailed in 2005 after contesting the questionable election results. It's pretty obvious that the system itself needs to be scrapped to prevent this sort of corruption in the future. How can anybody oppose a revolution under these circumstances?
Obviously, I'm not in support of an Islamic theocracy. I hope the people of Egypt opt for democracy, but I realistically cannot expect them to. Not when their crooked president has misrepresented democracy to his people for 30 years.
But it makes perfect sense if you look at how Fundamentalist Christians view the Middle East. Egypt has been viewed as friendly towards Israel, and Christians believe that we must support Israel at all cost, or we risk being on the wrong side of the battle of Armaggedon. Therefore we must support Egypt, else Israel could fall into the hands of Islamic radicals who'd join forces with Iran to oust God's chosen people. It's all in the book of Revelations. John Hagee, one of the biggest blow hards of all pro-Israel-at-all-costs Fundamentalist Christians recently posted an update on his website that includes this quote (in big, fat, appropriate John Hagee caps): "REMEMBER THIS; THE DAY AMERICA FAILS TO HELP ISRAEL IN ITS DAY OF TROUBLE IS THE DAY GOD ALMIGHTY WILL SEND AMERICA A DAY OF TROUBLE AND NO ONE WILL COME TO OUR AID." No doubt, much of the rhetoric you will hear in support of Mubarak (or in opposition to the protestors) stems from this same Christian idea.
It is a precarious situation, and there is a real possibility that Egypt could become an Islamic theocracy, but would that be worse for the people of Egypt than their current situation? Many of them don't seem to think so.
The bottom line is that Mubarak has grossly abused his power and the people of Egypt aren't taking it laying down any longer. Mubarak has announced that he will not run for President again, but that isn't enough for the people of Egypt, and why should it be? They do not trust the election system, and they aren't dumb enough to think the game will have changed simply by the President letting his term expire. A presidential candidate from an opposition party was jailed in 2005 after contesting the questionable election results. It's pretty obvious that the system itself needs to be scrapped to prevent this sort of corruption in the future. How can anybody oppose a revolution under these circumstances?
Obviously, I'm not in support of an Islamic theocracy. I hope the people of Egypt opt for democracy, but I realistically cannot expect them to. Not when their crooked president has misrepresented democracy to his people for 30 years.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Can Conservative Christians Support Homosexuals?
Everyone who knows me knows that the biggest bone I have to pick with conservative Christians regards their view of homosexuals. I'm specifying "conservative Christians" because I think we all know liberal Christians who have a much friendlier attitude towards gays. Us non-theists are never going to be able to convince Christians that homosexuality isn't a sin. It's not our place to tell people of faith what to believe inside their faith. Us non-theists don't believe in sin anyhow. But there's nothing wrong with letting Christians know when their actions or statements towards homosexuals aren't respectful or loving. Every good person can and should speak out against mistreatment and discrimination.
I've tried to keep up with a Christian cause that I read about on Friendly Atheist. It's called "Changing the Face Of Christianity." While I don't agree with some of what CTFOC has to say right now, I absolutely support the direction they seem to be heading. Their mission is to hold up a mirror to themselves and try and reverse the public image of Christianity. At the time of the Friendly Atheist interview with CTFOC founder Brad White, I was happy to accept that Mr. White had completely missed the mark. Some of the things he said, and some of the things that were on his website were offensive. After personally communicating with Brad, and researching more conversations he's had since the interview, I think that he's learning about how to cummunicate better to those who don't share his Christian perspective. The jury is still out, as it should be.
Here's a quote from his site, which I either didn't previously notice, or I didn't previously take seriously: "One of the things we would ask in this subject area is your patience with our ministry." I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Most importantly, after reading a communication between himself and Craig James, I've been inspired to look more critically at my own approach to communicating with believers. I'm encouraged, and I now think that Christians can change their perspective on homosexuals. It is clear that in time homosexuals will certainly have equal civil rights. It's bound to happen as long as it continues to receive support. In the mean time, it's easy to get angry and yell at people about what we feel is an obvious thing, but it doesn't do any good, even if we're right.
I've tried to keep up with a Christian cause that I read about on Friendly Atheist. It's called "Changing the Face Of Christianity." While I don't agree with some of what CTFOC has to say right now, I absolutely support the direction they seem to be heading. Their mission is to hold up a mirror to themselves and try and reverse the public image of Christianity. At the time of the Friendly Atheist interview with CTFOC founder Brad White, I was happy to accept that Mr. White had completely missed the mark. Some of the things he said, and some of the things that were on his website were offensive. After personally communicating with Brad, and researching more conversations he's had since the interview, I think that he's learning about how to cummunicate better to those who don't share his Christian perspective. The jury is still out, as it should be.
Here's a quote from his site, which I either didn't previously notice, or I didn't previously take seriously: "One of the things we would ask in this subject area is your patience with our ministry." I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Most importantly, after reading a communication between himself and Craig James, I've been inspired to look more critically at my own approach to communicating with believers. I'm encouraged, and I now think that Christians can change their perspective on homosexuals. It is clear that in time homosexuals will certainly have equal civil rights. It's bound to happen as long as it continues to receive support. In the mean time, it's easy to get angry and yell at people about what we feel is an obvious thing, but it doesn't do any good, even if we're right.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
What's Wrong With Learning Chinese?
Some people (you can probably guess who) are actually bitching about the Chinese language being offered in public schools. They've been complaining for a while, but with Chinese President Hu Jintao visiting the USA, the talk is heating up a bit. Do we really have that many conspiracy theorists out there?
Chinese taught in schools isn't a "sign that Obama will lead us into Communism." It's not a sign that China is taking over the world (not exactly). It's the recognition of a changing world and a changing global economic landscape. Education needs to prepare people for the future, and that's what's happening. Sure, China is funding many of these programs. Who cares? We send thousands of people into the world to teach English, and the world is better for it. This isn't any different. Kids want to learn Chinese so that they can get good, interesting jobs. We shouldn't take that away from them because some people are frightened bigots.
Chinese taught in schools isn't a "sign that Obama will lead us into Communism." It's not a sign that China is taking over the world (not exactly). It's the recognition of a changing world and a changing global economic landscape. Education needs to prepare people for the future, and that's what's happening. Sure, China is funding many of these programs. Who cares? We send thousands of people into the world to teach English, and the world is better for it. This isn't any different. Kids want to learn Chinese so that they can get good, interesting jobs. We shouldn't take that away from them because some people are frightened bigots.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Lost Boys Vote On Sudan Separation
The Lost Boys of Sudan are voting this week for North/South Separation of Sudan. Sudan has a violent recent history of civil war, with the northern Muslims (who have controlled the country) literally hunting down and killing the southern Christians and Animists. Starting in the mid 1980s, an entire generation of Sudanese children traveled on foot to flee the Texas sized country, surviving against all odds. Many of them now live in the United States, but they are scattered all over the world.
The Lost Boys are hopeful that their homeland will gain independence and finally be free from Sharia law, which was one of the major issues that started the civil war in 1983. It's estimated that over 2 million Sudanese were murdered by the violent Muslim regime.
If you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely check out the documentary called "God Grew Tired of Us." It's an amazing story of hope and human triumph, as well as a reminder of the potential horror of religious regimes.
The Lost Boys are hopeful that their homeland will gain independence and finally be free from Sharia law, which was one of the major issues that started the civil war in 1983. It's estimated that over 2 million Sudanese were murdered by the violent Muslim regime.
If you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely check out the documentary called "God Grew Tired of Us." It's an amazing story of hope and human triumph, as well as a reminder of the potential horror of religious regimes.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Tibetan Monks Learn Science in USA
It looks like the Dalai Lama makes sense sometimes. He's sent 6 monks to the US to study science, in an effort to better educated future generations of monks and nuns in the knowledge of the physical world. The best part of the article is when the Dalai Lama is quoted saying "Even Buddha himself said 'All my followers shouldn't accept my teachers out of faith, but out of constant investigation.'" I think that most religious leaders would consider this approach to be threatening, so the Dalai Lama deserves some credit.
Obviously, the monks are going to struggle grasping the concepts of science, as most of them are in their 30s and don't even understand the basics of biology and chemistry, but this is clearly a step towards "nlightenment"for them.
They're also shopping at the dollar store, and use Facebook as a way to communicate with their friends back home. Emory University, where the monks are studying, has translated math and science books to the monk's native tongue, which has enabled this project to take place. The Dalai Lama has planned on introducing science and mathematics into his teachings for more than 20 years.
Obviously, the monks are going to struggle grasping the concepts of science, as most of them are in their 30s and don't even understand the basics of biology and chemistry, but this is clearly a step towards "nlightenment"for them.
They're also shopping at the dollar store, and use Facebook as a way to communicate with their friends back home. Emory University, where the monks are studying, has translated math and science books to the monk's native tongue, which has enabled this project to take place. The Dalai Lama has planned on introducing science and mathematics into his teachings for more than 20 years.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Pakistani Governor Killed by His Own Guard, A Muslim Extremist
This is absolutely crazy, but another excellent example of just how hard it is to separate religion from state once they're allowed to be one and the same.
The governor of Pakistan's central Punjab province, a senior member of the ruling party, was shot dead by one of his bodyguards in Islamabad on Tuesday, plunging the country into a new political crisis...Salman Taseer was killed because of his opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law.
Is there really a place on this earth this fucked up? Is this what happens when you give a fundamentalist Muslim a firearm and expect him to protect a man who supports freedom of speech? The killer/bodyguard/coward Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri surrendered and is quoted saying "Salman Taseer is a blasphemer and this is the punishment for a blasphemer."
The Times of India is calling it a "warning to Pak's liberal politicians," and proof of "the insidious spread of radical Islamist sentiment, infiltrating even the elite security services in Islamabad." The Times also emphasizes that Taseer was an advocate of free speech, a vocal proponent for minority secular rights, and strongly against the blasphemy law:
In the Aasiya Bibi case, which has polarized Pakistani society, Taseer, as governor of Punjab stood up publicly in her defence. Aasiya Bibi is on the threshold of a death sentence under this law. Taseer, in an interview last week defended his stand.
"Aasiya Bibi ... has been incarcerated for a year-and-a half on a charge trumped up against her five days after an incident where people who gave evidence against her were not even present. So this is a blatant violation against a member of a minority community."
Taseer drew a lot of fire from religionists and Islamists who want Pakistan's blasphemy law to remain tougher than ever and have been agitating in the streets for this. "The mindset got to him," said Vikram Sood, former RAW chief.
The governor of Pakistan's central Punjab province, a senior member of the ruling party, was shot dead by one of his bodyguards in Islamabad on Tuesday, plunging the country into a new political crisis...Salman Taseer was killed because of his opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law.
Is there really a place on this earth this fucked up? Is this what happens when you give a fundamentalist Muslim a firearm and expect him to protect a man who supports freedom of speech? The killer/bodyguard/coward Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri surrendered and is quoted saying "Salman Taseer is a blasphemer and this is the punishment for a blasphemer."
The Times of India is calling it a "warning to Pak's liberal politicians," and proof of "the insidious spread of radical Islamist sentiment, infiltrating even the elite security services in Islamabad." The Times also emphasizes that Taseer was an advocate of free speech, a vocal proponent for minority secular rights, and strongly against the blasphemy law:
In the Aasiya Bibi case, which has polarized Pakistani society, Taseer, as governor of Punjab stood up publicly in her defence. Aasiya Bibi is on the threshold of a death sentence under this law. Taseer, in an interview last week defended his stand.
"Aasiya Bibi ... has been incarcerated for a year-and-a half on a charge trumped up against her five days after an incident where people who gave evidence against her were not even present. So this is a blatant violation against a member of a minority community."
Taseer drew a lot of fire from religionists and Islamists who want Pakistan's blasphemy law to remain tougher than ever and have been agitating in the streets for this. "The mindset got to him," said Vikram Sood, former RAW chief.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Mosque Wars Rage On
NYC construction worker Andy Sullivan has made a name for himself with his public opposition of the WTC "Mosque." He founded the Hard Hat Pledge, where construction workers pledge to not work on the construction of the Mosque/Community Center. Now he's moving on to promoting a boycott of teen pop star Justin Bieber, who had the nerve to voice support of the mosque project in an interview with Tiger Beat magazine.
In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, taxpayers are footing the $75,000 bill for legal fees in the doomed-from-the-start legal challenge of the planned construction of a mosque that was approved by Rutherford County earlier this year.
Once again, Evangelical Conservatives remain the largest threat to religious freedom in this country.
In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, taxpayers are footing the $75,000 bill for legal fees in the doomed-from-the-start legal challenge of the planned construction of a mosque that was approved by Rutherford County earlier this year.
Once again, Evangelical Conservatives remain the largest threat to religious freedom in this country.
Harry Potter A Christian?
Harry Potter is a good guy with a strong value system, so therefore he must be a Christian. This is the connection Episcopalian author Danielle Tumminio is making in her new book "God and Harry Potter."
Her reasoning: “I see him best as a seeker in a world where Christianity is not the vocabulary. I see him best as a seeker trying to live a life of faith in the same way a Christian seeker tries to live a life grace,” Tumminio told CNN.
So in a world where Christianity doesn't exist, she sees Harry Potter as a Christian?
The Harry Potter series has been seriously criticized by conservative Christians, even to the point where it ranks first in the American Library Association’s Top Banned/Challenged books from 2000-2009, and the Salvation Army banned Harry Potter and Twilight toys because they aren't in line with Christian principles. You can donate a toy gun, but not a figurine of a boy wizard.
Tumminio argues (correctly) that the Christian stance against Harry Potter is "very narrow," and that criticism of the books "wasn’t just doing the books an injustice, it was doing Christianity an injustice. First of all I was astounded so many of (the critics) hadn’t read the books.”
Personally, I think her argument is a little too narrow. Christian criticism is not unusual and reserved solely for the Harry Potter series. Christians are known to take a hard line stance against supernatural things that aren't about Christianity. And just because Harry Potter is the hero who's always trying to do what's morally right, that doesn't make him a Christian. In fact, I find the implication that all good people must be Christians even more offensive and narrow minded than Christians rejecting a book series that's supernatural.
Her reasoning: “I see him best as a seeker in a world where Christianity is not the vocabulary. I see him best as a seeker trying to live a life of faith in the same way a Christian seeker tries to live a life grace,” Tumminio told CNN.
So in a world where Christianity doesn't exist, she sees Harry Potter as a Christian?
The Harry Potter series has been seriously criticized by conservative Christians, even to the point where it ranks first in the American Library Association’s Top Banned/Challenged books from 2000-2009, and the Salvation Army banned Harry Potter and Twilight toys because they aren't in line with Christian principles. You can donate a toy gun, but not a figurine of a boy wizard.
Tumminio argues (correctly) that the Christian stance against Harry Potter is "very narrow," and that criticism of the books "wasn’t just doing the books an injustice, it was doing Christianity an injustice. First of all I was astounded so many of (the critics) hadn’t read the books.”
Personally, I think her argument is a little too narrow. Christian criticism is not unusual and reserved solely for the Harry Potter series. Christians are known to take a hard line stance against supernatural things that aren't about Christianity. And just because Harry Potter is the hero who's always trying to do what's morally right, that doesn't make him a Christian. In fact, I find the implication that all good people must be Christians even more offensive and narrow minded than Christians rejecting a book series that's supernatural.
Monday, December 27, 2010
A Broadway Musical I Want To See....
I would brave the bedbugs of NY City to watch this musical by Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Avenue Q's Robert Lopez. The Book Of Mormon opens in March, and I'm sure it will be hilarious and offensive. According to Advocate.com (which quotes Vogue), the musical is "the story of a pair of teenage missionaries who get sent to Uganda, where can-do Mormon pep meets its match in disease, starvation, and warlords who shoot people in the face." One of the lead characters in the show is gay and will attempt to contain his sexuality.
In my search for photos from the South Park episode "All About The Mormons," I came across a Mormon website called "southparkmormon.com." This website compares the portrayal of the Joseph Smith story on South Park to what Mormons actually believe. Their "truth" is just as crazy, that's for sure, but you've got to admire the Mormons for being so opportunistic and diplomatic with this approach.
In my search for photos from the South Park episode "All About The Mormons," I came across a Mormon website called "southparkmormon.com." This website compares the portrayal of the Joseph Smith story on South Park to what Mormons actually believe. Their "truth" is just as crazy, that's for sure, but you've got to admire the Mormons for being so opportunistic and diplomatic with this approach.
Better Than Bad, It's Good...
 |
| photo from "lifeincatalonia.com" |
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
FCC Net Neutrality a Joke?
The FCC passed their Net Neutrality standards yesterday, and nobody seems to like it.
The gist is that the new rules allow the FCC to step in and investigate disputes about how internet service providers manage their networks if they think the ISPs are violating their rules. The problem is, the FCC hasn't even posted the rules yet for the public to see, or hadn't at the time of this post. So we only have a vague idea of what's going on. What we do know is that the rules differ slightly between fixed ISPs and wireless providers. At least for now. But with Internet service trending more and more towards wireless providers, this doesn't look like true "net neutrality" to me.
I was kind of waiting to read the rules for myself before I posted, but I'll just have to follow up when they finally do.
Al Franken calls this issue the "most important free speech issue of our time," and I'm kind of starting to agree with him (though every free speech issue is very important). "...This principle is called 'net neutrality' -- and it's under attack. Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to pay for it.
The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't do that at all. They're worse than nothing."
I really appreciate the last line in that quote, but I'd like to reserve total judgement until I read the actual rules. Anybody have any interesting insights or specific concerns about this?
The gist is that the new rules allow the FCC to step in and investigate disputes about how internet service providers manage their networks if they think the ISPs are violating their rules. The problem is, the FCC hasn't even posted the rules yet for the public to see, or hadn't at the time of this post. So we only have a vague idea of what's going on. What we do know is that the rules differ slightly between fixed ISPs and wireless providers. At least for now. But with Internet service trending more and more towards wireless providers, this doesn't look like true "net neutrality" to me.
I was kind of waiting to read the rules for myself before I posted, but I'll just have to follow up when they finally do.
Al Franken calls this issue the "most important free speech issue of our time," and I'm kind of starting to agree with him (though every free speech issue is very important). "...This principle is called 'net neutrality' -- and it's under attack. Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to pay for it.
The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't do that at all. They're worse than nothing."
I really appreciate the last line in that quote, but I'd like to reserve total judgement until I read the actual rules. Anybody have any interesting insights or specific concerns about this?
Palin's Anti-Anti-Obesity Stance...
Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign is nothing new. Bill Clinton campaigned on Nickelodeon in 2005 to promote physical fitness and healthy nutrition to children, only a year after his quadruple bypass surgery. George W. Bush urged Americans to improve their health through exercise, proper diet, and regular doctors visits. Ronald Reagan issued an Executive Order on Physical Fitness and Sports in 1982 "in order to expand the program for physical fitness and sports." The program that he referred to is the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, which has been around since 1956.
From 1989 until 1993, Arnold Schwarzenegger was appointed as Council chairman, and traveled to all 50 states to personally advocate the importance of daily physical education in American schools. Was this considered "interfering with parental freedoms," or "big government telling us how to live our lives"? Imagine any of George HW Bush's critics complaining about the Council on Physical Fitness, and how Arnold and Bush were "telling us how to live our lives."
But suddenly now, Sarah Palin seems to have a serious problem with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. In a twisted misunderstanding of the campaign itself, Palin has labelled Obama's efforts as an attack on personal freedom. I don't even really want to quote the dumb bitch. All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK? I can't wait to hear this rhetoric thrown my way sometime soon by a fat, bible thumping conservative who can't wait to defend his/her right to commit gluttony...
And just before I blow my top, along comes Mike Huckabee to calm me down and remind me that Evangelicals aren't always irrational about the same things. From politicsdaily.com: "With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do," Huckabee said. "Michelle Obama's not trying to tell people what to eat or force government's desires on people. She's stating the obvious: that we have an obesity crisis in this country." It's great of Huckabee to side with reality here, and his comments will definitely prevent many Evangelicals from falling for Palin's divisive tactics, but don't forget that Huck believes that Dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.
From 1989 until 1993, Arnold Schwarzenegger was appointed as Council chairman, and traveled to all 50 states to personally advocate the importance of daily physical education in American schools. Was this considered "interfering with parental freedoms," or "big government telling us how to live our lives"? Imagine any of George HW Bush's critics complaining about the Council on Physical Fitness, and how Arnold and Bush were "telling us how to live our lives."
 |
But suddenly now, Sarah Palin seems to have a serious problem with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. In a twisted misunderstanding of the campaign itself, Palin has labelled Obama's efforts as an attack on personal freedom. I don't even really want to quote the dumb bitch. All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK? I can't wait to hear this rhetoric thrown my way sometime soon by a fat, bible thumping conservative who can't wait to defend his/her right to commit gluttony...
And just before I blow my top, along comes Mike Huckabee to calm me down and remind me that Evangelicals aren't always irrational about the same things. From politicsdaily.com: "With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do," Huckabee said. "Michelle Obama's not trying to tell people what to eat or force government's desires on people. She's stating the obvious: that we have an obesity crisis in this country." It's great of Huckabee to side with reality here, and his comments will definitely prevent many Evangelicals from falling for Palin's divisive tactics, but don't forget that Huck believes that Dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Baby Jesus And A Half...
I love the blog "Hyperbole and a Half," and there's finally something on it that's relevant to Cram and Ballwell. Just in time, because I'm working on a post idea for tomorrow and I needed some filler for today.
Today's post is called "The Year Kenny Loggins Ruined Christmas," and it's an absolute riot. Do yourself a favor and check it out. The author recalls her first experience with the story of the Nativity, and how she attempted to improve the story as a 6 year old. As usual, the drawings are just as funny as the story.
Today's post is called "The Year Kenny Loggins Ruined Christmas," and it's an absolute riot. Do yourself a favor and check it out. The author recalls her first experience with the story of the Nativity, and how she attempted to improve the story as a 6 year old. As usual, the drawings are just as funny as the story.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Conservatives Fear DADT Repeal Harms Religious Freedom....WTF?
One thing we can count on is that bigots will usually make themselves heard. There are atheists in fox holes (Pat Tillman), but there aren't many wallflower bigots. The rest of us have to be the unofficial bigot police, enforcing our own unwritten "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding bigotry. The rule goes like this: "You can think whatever you want. You can feel however you want. But when you say something that reeks of hatred or intolerance, it's our responsibility to point it out and ridicule it. Especially when your voice makes a difference."
How in holy fuck does the repeal of DADT threaten the religious freedoms of Christians in the military, especially Chaplains? Can anybody on the religious right explain this to me in a way that doesn't sound bigoted? Cathy Lynn Grossman points out that "Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command," but, "A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such." The Chaplains are afraid that if they preach against homosexuality, they'll be punished for "hate speech." I wonder if Chaplains still speak out against interracial marriage? I wonder if chaplains still speak out against divorce? Aren't there already plenty of non-believers in the military? They need to adapt to it, just like religion has always (reluctantly) adapted to society.
John McCain is really going crazy about this DADT repeal. "Today is a very sad day," he said on Saturday before the Senate passed the legislation, calling it "great damage" to the military, despite the Pentagon's study suggesting otherwise. I really hope this harms his career as much as it should, but we'll have to settle for knowing that it will be an ugly black mark on his legacy in the long run.
How in holy fuck does the repeal of DADT threaten the religious freedoms of Christians in the military, especially Chaplains? Can anybody on the religious right explain this to me in a way that doesn't sound bigoted? Cathy Lynn Grossman points out that "Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command," but, "A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such." The Chaplains are afraid that if they preach against homosexuality, they'll be punished for "hate speech." I wonder if Chaplains still speak out against interracial marriage? I wonder if chaplains still speak out against divorce? Aren't there already plenty of non-believers in the military? They need to adapt to it, just like religion has always (reluctantly) adapted to society.
John McCain is really going crazy about this DADT repeal. "Today is a very sad day," he said on Saturday before the Senate passed the legislation, calling it "great damage" to the military, despite the Pentagon's study suggesting otherwise. I really hope this harms his career as much as it should, but we'll have to settle for knowing that it will be an ugly black mark on his legacy in the long run.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Beefheart steps out of a triangle, into striped light
Captain Beefheart finally cashed is tropical hot dog paycheck, and we at C&B are truly sad. If you ever need a little help remembering that it's okay to be different or just truly strange and weird, listen to some Beefheart and smile. It's dangerous business to walk around thinking that everything has to make sense, that everything not classifiable is odd and unpleasant. If you need a reminder, listen to Beefheart.
Atheist After Dark...
I know this is a total cop out of a post, but this Youtube video by atheistafterdark has all kinds of interesting updates on current happenings that we skeptics would be concerned with. The most recent installment: SF DMV worker proselytizes to a transgender woman, Salvation Army throws away toys that are "evil", Texas mega-church launches campaign to publicly shame stores not celebrating Christmas, some Glenn Beck ranting, Macy's Santa fired for questionable judgement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)