Monthly Archive for January, 2010

First day in Ireland!

And what have I accomplished? Thanks to Steve and Dierdre Metzler, who gave me a tour of the local pubs and restaurants, I have learned something important. Guinness in Ireland is a completely different beast from Guinness anywhere else; here, it's a silky smooth ambrosia with not a hint of bitterness. It went down so easy I could have easily slid 3 or 4 of them down my throat, but given my current sleep-derived state, I restrained myself to one.

Of course, then we had to follow up with Irish coffee, and yeah, in a few minutes my head will touch the pillow and I will be spending an evening deep in Tír na nÓg.

Read the comments on this post...

Why do we cry in the front seat of a BMW?

I truly expected a bit deeper book with more surprises when I got Alain de Botton's book "Status Anxiety" in my hands. I would go as far as to say that he has written this book with eye strongly on the mass-market, even if the ideas presented in this book are not light-weight as such.
Maybe just because of this emphasis on mass market "Status Anxiety" is extremely illuminating, well-written and even fun to read, and I did swallow it few big bites in a few days.
Alain de Botton is getting in this book at the bottom of why we are so anxious and uncertain amidst all this wellbeing and even luxury that surrounds us, but the answer is of course quite obvious.

Status Anxiety

According to Alain de Botton we are simply paying the price of rising expectations and rising material status with the wellbeing of our psyche.
The system needs us to raise our expectations constantly to produce growth, and in the end we are very easily left at a state where we are never being satisfied.
On the other hand we are constantly watching how others are doing. Our own material well-being can improve tremendously and we can still feel deprivation if the people with whom we want to compare ourselves do succeed in improving their status more than us.
It does not help if there are millions of people who have less, if just the five or ten people who we do see as our closest likes have more.

These facts have of course been well-known for ages or as long as humanity has produced written records of its anxieties. The Greece of Antiquity was a very similar growth-based society, where social and economical status were extremely important.
It is in fact surprising how Alain De Botton has not given room for Epicurus at all in this book, as he was one of the first people to speak for using restraint in material cravings and an concentrating developing ones inner wellbeing.

Alain de Botton gets to more controversial field when he says that feudal societies where psychologically much easier places to live, as one could not affect ones status and one could find contentment in the finality and inevitability of one's situation.
He says that meritocracy and social mobility have created a situation where a person is in a quite new way seen as being personally responsible for the status he or she happens to be in.

The true social mobility is too often only a pipe dream and a person in a difficult starting position in life has in real life very often great difficulty in changing their fate in real way.
Still they are seen as being personally responsible for the social status in which they end up. So a poor person is in a new way personally shamed for being poor.

Alain de Botton gives also some remedies to status anxiety that he sees as a major problem in modern industrialized societies. As the illness is in the mind, the remedies are aimed to the mind also. His medicines are philosophy, art, politics, Christianity and Bohemia. They are all ways of circumventing and denying the status expectations created by our minds and the society.

I must however say that I was a little surprised by the inclusion of Christianity in this lot, even if there has always been a distinctive anti-materialistic streak in Christianity.
Many practical forms of Christianity are however extremely status-oriented, even if in principle there are ideas on offer that can act as a counterbalance for anxiety over ones status that are pronounced in some forms of Christianity.

Philosophy, art and politics have however a clear-cut and meaningful ways of offering routes out of status anxiety, as one can with their aid put the need for the status and needs of the society into better perspective.
They also offer ways to find new to develop one's status in new environments, if one cannot succeed in the primary economical and social arenas of the society.

One can always have consolation that there is always alternative systems of status. These alternative routes can also give one's life new meaning if one is not equipped or willing to succumb one's identity into succeeding in the main rat-race.

Comments

Can They Really Do That In America?

Can you be fired because of a political bumper sticker on your car?  Can you be fired for drinking a few beers after work because your boss thinks drinking is a sin?  Can you be fired because your employer thinks you are too fat?

To put it bluntly, you bet your ass you can!

In fact, an employer can refuse to hire you based on  psychological tests, required by 40 percent of employers nationwide, which include questions about your sex life, religious beliefs, intimate feeling about family member and even your bathroom habits.

I thought I was fairly educated when it comes to my rights as an American but I've recently learned of my vast ignorance on this subject.

America is thought of as the country that practically invented human rights and we enjoy freedoms people in many other countries can only dream about but what many of us do not know is that some of those very important freedoms disappear every morning when we go to work.

According to Lewis Maltby, former head of the ACLU's National Workplace Rights Office and founder of the National Workrights Institute, "The United States Constitution applies to the government, not to corporations. A private business, large or small, can legally ignore your freedom of speech. Where your employer is concerned, you have no such right."

In his new book, Can They Do That?: Retaking Our Fundamental Rights in the Workplace, Maltby documents many such cases as those listed above and goes on to explain that:
Freedom of speech isn't the only right that disappears in the world of work. Privacy disappears too. If the government wants to tap your phone or read your e-mail, it needs to have evidence that you are doing something illegal. In most cases, it needs a court order. But employers routinely monitor telephone calls, e-mail, Web site visits, and virtually every other type of electronic communication.
This surveillance isn't limited to business-related matters; an e-mail you send to your spouse or doctor during your lunch break is just as likely to be read. When you bring your company-issued laptop in for updating or repair, the technician will probably look at anything that appears interesting. Even the contents of your home computer are at risk. Some employers, like Johnson County Community College, in Kansas, have gotten away even with installing hidden cameras in locker rooms and bathrooms.
Under the doctrine of employment at will, your boss can fire you for any reason, or no reason at all. Some employers use this power to control the private lives of their employees. Best Lock Company in Indiana fires workers for social drinking because its president believes drinking alcohol is a sin. Other companies, looking to curtail medical expenses, forbid employees from smoking in their own homes or engaging in risky hobbies like skiing.
I agree with Maltby, in his interview with NPR, that employers need to be able to make business decisions the way they think best when it comes to employee performance and the like but as he points out "it’s not a business decision when your boss tells you that you have to sleep with him to keep your job or to take the bumper sticker off your car or change your religion to keep your job. That’s not a legitimate business decision. That’s just abusing the power of the paycheck."

All this will probably come as no surprise to some of you who are smarter or more informed than I am; however, if like me, you thought your freedom of speech was protected by the First Amendment in all walks of life, you might want obtain a copy of this book and discover the debts of your ignorance. I know I’ll be checking to see if the library has a copy tomorrow.

Can They Do That? by Lewis Maltby: Book Cover

Discussion of this blog from facebook:

Joy:

Of course you can be fired for any pesky, silly, petty thing your boss or co-workers want you fired for; they'll just find some other legal excuse to use instead of what really motivates them - prejudice.

Bob:

This no news to guys like us, is it TPO? This is why we continue to work to protect the Constitution and the freedoms it struggles to preserve.

TPO:

Some of this is news to me. I've always known I could be fired for just about anything but I didn't know I would have no legal basis for challenging these type of firings in court.

Jeff:

"Your" job belongs to your employer. You have the job skills. The employer has the jobs. If the employer can make a profit by buying your job skills to perform his job then you get a paycheck.

Bob:

Basically: What Jeff says.

TPO:

Like I said in the blog Jeff, I agree that employers need to be able to make business decisions the way they think best when it comes to employee performance and the like but "it not a business decision when your boss tells you that you have to sleep with him to keep your job or to take the bumper sticker off your car or change your religion to keep your job. That’s not a legitimate business decision."

As an employer, do you think you should have the right to fire someone because they don't believe in the same sky daddy as you do?

Jeff:

OK I am in retail...I depend on my customers to keep me in business...so basically my customers are my boss, as in they can choose not to buy my services and products. I would never project an imagine in my community that would give my customers (my bosses) a negative perception of me or to in anyway discourage them from doing business with me. You would never expect my customers to be required by law to keep me in business even if they are offended by my views or beliefs. As someone who has to deal with employees, trust me when i terminate someone all my i's are dotted and my t's crossed. I have been in this business 18 years and no one’s religion or lack thereof has ever been an issue. The work place is not the place to promote a religion or ideology...especially if it is in opposition to the beliefs of the person or company that owns that job.

TPO:

I don't disagree with you there but let me make the question more clear. As an employer, do you think you or any other employer should have the right to fire an employee because you discovered they did not share a specific religious belief?

Now just to be clear, I'm not talking about an employee wearing a symbol of another religious belief to work or wearing a garment proclaiming their lack of belief.

Let’s say an employer like yourself invites one of their bag-boys or checkout clerks to attend their church and said employee politely declines saying they do not share your belief in a god. Do you think the employer should have the right to fire said employee?

Jeff:

should they have the right.....yes, would or should they do that of course not, if I were wanting to extend my faith or religious convictions to an employee firing them would not make any sense. I have had numerous customers invite me to their Church over the years, not being a regular church goer I usually smile and tell them "maybe one Sunday I'll get a chance to”, I am sure I probably have been fired by more than a few of these customers over the years and they had every right to do so....even if i feel it’s not really right. You could also think of this in reverse...let say you had a job skill i wanted to pay for, should you not have the right to decline employment based on the employers beliefs or lack of belief?

TPO:

Well I think an employee should have a legal basis to sue you and or any employer who fired them on that basis. It's basically a legal form of discrimination. You can't fire a black employee because of his race, and rightfully so. Also, no amount of customer complaints or dissatisfaction with the fact that you employee a black person can justify you firing them.

The same laws should protect citizens in the workplace that protect them under the constitution. A human being should not be able to be legally discriminated against based on their personal beliefs or lack thereof, their personal sexual preference, or their political ideology; providing they do not infringe on the same rights of the employer.

Jeff:

OK let’s say you hire a guy to do your landscaping, you are well pleased with the job he does and he is polite and a likable guy, then at some point you find out he is member of the Klan....do you have the right to fire him based on your not agreeing with his racist views...even though he do not display this views openly and they in no way have .affected the manner in which he has done his job? I would want the right to fire him, but you cannot have it both ways. I think the landscaper has a right to be a racist....and I have the right not do business with him.

Jeff:

I am no legal expert but there are some laws concerning a "hostile work environment" that may give some grounds to litigate in the event of a perceived wrongful termination.

TPO:

No, I don't think I should have the right to fire the landscaper if he is in the middle of a job I have hire him for as long as he is not guilty of any crimes towards other human beings.

Bob:

Great conversation, guys. I've been on both sides of this, and I don't think there is a clear answer. At some point, legislation could be said to infringe upon a person's right to employ who he/she wishes. If I am hiring for a position that requires an ability to discern fact from non-fact, should I be forced to give equal consideration to a person who believes in astrology or fairies? While that is personal to some extent, it would certainly impact the ability of my business to serve the community and achieve its goals.

One dividing line for me is the difference between a person-employer and a corporation-employer (this is where I have a problem with the recent Supreme Court ruling). Corporations are not people, and should be held to stricter standards than real people, who should have more freedom and rights.

TPO:

There may be grounds to litigate in the event of a perceived wrongful termination but I'm no lawyer so I don't know. As I said in the blog, I thought I was fairly educated when it comes to my rights as an American but now I am aware of my vast ignorance on this subject.

TPO:

Bob, if you are hiring for a position that requires an ability to discern fact from non-fact you have no obligation to hire someone who openly tells you they believe in astrology or fairies because they would obviously not fit the job description. The real question is, should you as an employer have the right to require a prospective employee to tell you whether they believe in astrology and fairies before hiring them. I personally don't think an employer should legally be able to ask prospective employees questions about their sex life, religious beliefs or their bathroom habits.

Bob:

It's complicated stuff, that's for sure. I have always been a believer that you can teach skills, but not ethics, but how do you hire for ethics without getting into personal beliefs? Balancing freedoms and rights is tricky.

Jeff:

Tim I think I have every right to terminate the landscaper...as the employer I own the job, and unless I have some binding contract with the landscaper i have no obligation to him. Not firing the landscaper would reflect negatively on me....think of it if i did not fire the landscaper and i decided one day to run for public office, I’d be the candidate with ties to the Klan....right or wrong that’s the reality and Bob is right it’s a very tricky balance.

TPO

Good point! Let me rephrase my earlier comment: I don't think I should have the right to fire the landscaper if I have a binding contract with said contractor but even if I do have a contract, I should not be forced to consider said contractor for future jobs.

Janie:

I enjoyed all that you guys had to say on this issue. I would not fire someone because their beliefs offended me but I would expect employees to behave in a professional manner, which includes being somewhat bland and non-controversial around customers (unless my business is maybe an S & M shop). Save your off-color humor and offensive views for FB like I do!

Jeff:

I remember a guy we did not keep on after finding out he was a convicted sex offender, of course I guess that’s like comparing apples to oranges in some ways but some would argue that sex offenders have a right to work and they should work but obviously not with the public or where they would make cliets,customers or fellow employees uncomfortable. The grounds for letting him go was based his dishonesty in filling his job app, as we would have never hired him.

Janie:

Interesting example. Some would say that if the time has been served the punishment has been fulfilled. I think it would depend on the particulars.

People are odd

I I laughed so hard when I saw this. But it’s harmless fun, so who cares? I mean, it is a Schindler Hydraulic Elevator at the Bedford County Courthouse and all. It must be a bad ass ride. It’s worth the effort, right? People do all sorts of odd things. I go out of my way to photograph graffiti. I have friend who likes to talk to complete strangers about religion and another friend who obsesses about his Bejewel Blitz score.

I’ll take the stairs. No wait, there is a guy filming the risers…

Hat tip: Photography is not a crime.

Technorati Tags: ,

Colbert’s version of Matthew 25:35

Sometimes he hits the nail on the head perfectly.

Brother Richard


Pastor Mark List arrested

Pastor Mark List is the associate pastor at Danville Christian Academy. Pastor List is alleged to have engaged in a lengthy sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male student.

The Vermilion County State’s Attorney Office filed charges Thursday of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, criminal sexual assault — position of trust and indecent solicitation of a child against List with bond set by the courts at $20,000.

Something sounds unbiblical here… I wonder what the real story is?

Technorati Tags:

Objective Reality Rules on cell-phones and H1N1!

Last October 31st I wrote a blog titled Arbitrariness, confusion, fear and panic about Ontario's new hand-held cell-phone ban and the H1N1 scare; and since both have been in the news lately I'd like to revisit them.


The cell-phone ban has been in effect for about three months, but police have been issuing warnings until now. Starting tomorrow (Feb.1, 2010) the grace period is over and each offence will cost $125 to anyone caught using a handheld cell-phone or texting in Ontario. My own very unscientific observation has been that people are still using these devices while driving but are being very discrete about it; which may be aggravating the problem. Of course the ban was put in place because our political leaders want to protect us, and based on “scientific data” that shows distractions like cell-phones impair driving ability, and banning them was politically opportune. Do the outcomes support this action?

A report last week from the American Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggests that such laws are ineffective. The report titled: Laws banning cell-phone use while driving fail to reduce crashes, new insurance data indicate compares insurance claims in four US states before and after a cell-phone ban and compares these states to nearby jurisdictions where there is no ban. One would expect more insurance claims prior to a ban than after, that did not happen. One would expect more insurance claims where there are no bans compared to where the bans are enforced, that did not happen. All of this data was analyzed and controlled for a multitude of variables that insurance company bean-counters are famous for. The up-shot is that such bans have little or no effect in making driving safer. So will the laws be repealed? Democracy mob-rule dictates no.

As for H1N1, talk about a tempest in a teapot, even I was caught up in the hype about this thing. The last time Swine Flu caused such a caused such angst was 1976 and it looks like we were fooled again. Someday these recurrent “cry wolf” refrains will come back and bite us in the ass.

Last time virtually the entire Swine Flu kerfuffle took place in the US after a young soldier at Fort Dix New Jersey died and four of his comrades were hospitalized of what was reported as an H1N1 strain similar to the one that caused the 1918 Flu Pandemic. The resulting mass-vaccination program caused a paralyzing neuromuscular syndrome in at least 500 individuals with possibly 25 fatalities.

This time the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Pandemic Alert and predicted 2 billion cases of H1N1 and hundreds of thousands of deaths. So far around 15 000 have died world wide, far less than any normal flu season.

The Council of Europe is investigating whether WHO officials faked the pandemic to boost drug revenues for CSL Limited, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Conspiracy anyone?

Secular Nation Podcast Episode 70

I few days back I posted the link to the PDF of my article from the January – March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine. The most recent episode of the Secular Nation Podcast features me reading the article.

Download MP3 (28:23min, 13MB)

Thanks to David Driscoll for editing the show together. And thanks to Tom Melchiorre for giving me the opportunity to write the article.

Let me know what you think.

Brother Richard


Help Women for Women

Today is Taisha McFall’s birthday! (She’s the inventor of this little doohickey.)

In lieu of gifts, she’s asking for donations for Women for Women:

Women for Women is a non-profit organization that provides women is war-torn lands the opportunity to NOT be raped everyday by soldiers and family members, NOT starve to death because they have no means to support themselves, and NOT have to send their children off to die in war or in slave camps because they don’t have the education to do anything else.

If one of these women was your daughter, or sister, or mother, would you even hesitate?

It’s a good cause and a generous gesture. Help her out if you can.

(Thanks to Jason for the link!)

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

The New World Order Conspiracy: An American Tradition

From time to time, you may hear certain far right elected officials (Michelle Bachmann, for instance) warn about the coming "New World Order". It's been a common conspiracy theory amongst conservative Christians since the 1990s, and it's become an essential component of the popular end times theology that many Christians draw from a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations. In short, NWO conspiracy theorists fear that the UN is working with a secret society of elites to bring about a single, global government that will subjugate every human on Earth. Within fundamentalist circles, they believe the Antichrist will lead this "New World Order", and he will rule over the planet for the "seven years of tribulation" mentioned in Revelations. Of course, this includes fears that this "One World Government" will execute all Christians and "American Patriots" (I assume those would be the "real" Americans Sarah Palin usually refers to) while forcing everyone to follow a single religion and become completely subservient to the state.

Anyway, I stumbled across a blog filled to the brim with NWO conspiracy theories and unending paranoia about the coming days of martial law called AMERICAN HOLOCAUST AND THE COMING NEW WORLD ORDER. Yeah, in all caps. The author, Pamela Schuffert, claims to be "performing in-depth investigative journalism". However, her idea of journalism is to provide unsourced information from people she meets who are just as paranoid as she is. When Schuffert does provide links, they're always to equally unhinged sites that rely on hearsay and rumor for their information. Here's a small sample of the crazy:

Staff Sergeant/ARMY RANGER/Spec Ops man from Fort Lewis Washington that I just met WHILE TRAVELING FROM MONTANA TO NORTH CAROLINA REVEALS: "THE GUILLOTINES ARE REAL AND I WAS GOING TO TRAIN MY MEN IN MY PLATOON TO USE THEM NEXT WEEK IN HIGHLY CLASSIFIED OPERATIONS AT FORT LEWIS...UNTIL YOU TOLD ME "THEY WILL BE USED ON YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS UNDER COMING MARTIAL LAW!''

I have previously reported MUCH information about the covert military BLACK OPS in place in YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNP), and reported about military admissions (which I have gathered from reliable sources, including 911 truthteller retired USAF FIELD MCCONNELL, and at least one Pentagon source) of huge amounts of powerful military explosives being covertly planted around the YELLOWSTONE SUPERCALDERA, for what many of us researchers believe will prove to be part of the CREATED CHAOS leading to MARTIAL LAW declaration in the USA for the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda.

For many years , I along with many Americans had been hearing reports about the AMTRAK REPAIR FACILITY of BEECH GROVE, IN, being refurbished/renovated in some areas to be used someday as a FUTURE TERMINATION FACILITY for America under martial law. While it remains true that part of this facility is actively being used to repair AMTRAK trains, it is also true that various parts of this facility have also been renovated to include newly installed gas lines, airtight windows (etc) with huge exhaust fans installed on top of certain buildings, prisoner turnstile entrances installed, etc.

You get the idea. These are the people forming "militia" groups in rural areas, building well stocked survival shelters, and causing ammunition sales to go through the roof. The obvious question is, what would be the point of the whole thing? Why would a One World Government interested in power and order want to create so much chaos? How does that suit their ends? For instance, why would they want to make the Yellowstone caldera erupt? Doing so would render most of the US uninhabitable. What's the point in ruling a wasteland?

I think the answer comes from the fact the the NWO conspiracy is completely intertwined with the Right's "Christian Nation" myth. The central theme of the NWO theory revolves around communistic or non-Christian, foreign armies invading the US and killing its Christian inhabitants with the help of the US government. It contains all the fears of far-right Americans in one convenient package: fears of the religious diversification of America, fear of communism left over from the Cold War, and the toxic distrust of our own government, which the conservative movement has pushed relentlessly for the past 30 years. All of this is fueled by the fact that America is a nation undergoing huge demographic and cultural change. To many white, fundamental Christians, this seems like an all out assault on the America that they believe is the Zion promised in the Bible. However, change has been a constant throughout American history. It was never the Christian paradise so many fundamentalists imagine. In fact, fundamental Christians have been lamenting the moral decay of America and predicting its collapse since before the Revolution, and this idea has been a constant staple of American religious belief. It even extends into secular culture with the popularity of post-apocalyptic fiction. It's certainly one of my favorite genres. More than anything, the NWO conspiracy theory is simply a modern manifestation of an American tradition.

H/T to Ed Brayton

The Last Supper


Inspired by the second video clip in Mark’s recent post, I decided to share some Last Supper parodies with you. There dozens of these on the Internet. Dan Savage has a page of these that he’s updated several times. I don’t intend to do that (with one exception noted at the end of the post); just google “last supper parodies” if you want to see more of these.

We’ll begin with the one that I captured from Mark’s blog, Mel Brooks Last Supper:


Next up is the Fast Food Mascots Last Supper:


The next one should warm the hearts (or pierce the feet) of all parents whose children love(d) Lego blocks:


This one should bring back memories for readers of The Spanish Inquisitor’s blog:


Next, we have the armchair philosopher’s favorite TV cartoon philosopher:


I’ll close with two science fiction parodies. The first is the science fiction series that sparked my initial interest in the genre:


Finally, my favorite recent science fiction series, Battlestar Galactica:


I was surprised that I couldn’t find a Star Trek Last Supper parody. That’s a project one of you graphic gurus can undertake. This assignment, should you decide to accept it, will be the only update of this post.

– the chaplain

Filed under: humor

Canadian Forces Ad on Youtube

canadian forces Canadian Forces Ad on Youtube

This is the ad currently displayed to people who go on youtube in Canada. Apparently, this is part of some recruitment campaign. On their youtube channel it says they are looking for ‘undiscovered talent’.

And this is in their profile information:

“The Canadian Forces offer unique, challenging and rewarding careers, competitive pay, job security and benefits. We provide personnel with training. There is also the opportunity for free college or university education in specific fields. For more information on over 100 exciting careers with the Canadian Forces visit FORCES.CA”

They also have some information on the Canadian forces:

“The Canadian Forces are a modern and effective military capable of performing a number of important roles at home and abroad. For all our equipment and technology, it is our people who truly allow us to perform these roles. These men and women have unique skills, knowledge and experience that make the Canadian Forces modern, effective and professional.

Approximately 67,000 Regular Force members and 23,000 Reserve Force members belong to air, land, sea and special operations components of the Canadian Forces. Expansion is essential for us to be able to continue to protect Canada and to assume a leadership role in the world.”

I like the angle they’re coming from. They are emphasizing the technical side of the military which I guess is what they have always done. I might be biased, but I like these kinds of ads more than those overly macho ‘Army of One’ American ones. The diversity part could use a little more work though. It is an ad for Canada no less, the land of multiculturalism.

Share this:

Related posts:

  1. Russia Plans to Ban “Damaging Cults”
  2. Intelligence Squared Debates

Barmy Baptists arrested in Haiti

A BUNCH of American Baptists are in custody in Haiti after trying to smuggle 33 children across the border into the Dominican Republic, allegedly without proper documents.

The Baptist church members from Idaho called it a “Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission”, meant to save abandoned children from the chaos following Haiti’s earthquake. Their plan was to scoop up 100 kids and take them by bus to a rented hotel at a beach resort in the Dominican Republic, where they intended to establish an orphanage.

Distraught young Haitians in the aftermath of the earthquake

According to this report, whether they realised it or not, the Baptists – the first known people to be taken into custody since the January 12 earthquake – put themselves in the middle of a firestorm in Haiti, where government leaders have suspended adoptions amid fears that parentless or lost children are more vulnerable than ever to child trafficking.

The group’s leader, Laura Silsby explained:

In this chaos the government is in right now we were just trying to do the right thing.

The religious busybodies are being held pending a court hearing tomorrow.

Silsby said they only had the best of intentions and paid no money for the children. She said her group obtained them through a well-known Haitian pastor named Jean Sanbil of the Sharing Jesus Ministries.

Silsby, 40, of Boise, Idaho, was asked if she didn’t consider it naive to cross the border without adoption papers at a time when Haitians are so concerned about child trafficking.

She replied:

By no means are we any part of that. That’s exactly what we are trying to combat.

Social Affairs Minister Yves Cristallin told reporters the Americans were suspected of taking part in an illegal adoption scheme.

Cristallin said the 33 children were lodged late last night at an SOS Children’s Village outside of Port-au-Prince. SOS Children’s Villages is a global non-profit organisation based in Austria.

Funny Picture: Choir Boy Candle Holders

Insert your own Catholic priest joke here.

Brother Richard


Atheist Free Speech = Atheist “Hate”?

Every time atheism gets attacked, it makes me wonder just how insecure some folks must be with their beliefs. Atheists, as a stigmatized group, are an easy target for that insecurity, and William J. Kelly, Republican candidate for Illinois comptroller, is very insecure.

Because I haven’t covered this issue before, here’s some background.

The Illinois State Capitol allows religious displays during holidays. In response to the presence of a nativity scene, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has put up a sign for the past two years that says:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

This was in addition to a Christmas tree, a Soldiers’ Angels wreath, an ACLU tabletop display defending religious freedom, a Hanukkah menorah, and even a Festivus pole.

And back in December, William J. Kelly was not happy with the sign, calling it “hate speech,” and wanted to remove it. When he attempted to turn it over, he was escorted out by Capitol police.

Now it seems that Mr. Kelly has officially filed a lawsuit against Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White for approving the sign.  Here again, CBS2 News:

Kelly’s attorney filed a lawsuit for declatory relief and permanent injunction Thursday morning, stating the Freedom from Religion’s sign violates the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Yes. You read that right. Kelly thinks that the one display that actually disavows all religion is the one in violation of the Establishment Clause. It’s not clear exactly how, aside from that it “mocks” religion. There’s a lot more detail in the WorldNetDaily version of the story, but it’s also much fishier. Take a look at this description and the very awkward way the quote “ends.”

“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, in conjunction with the 14th Amendment, forbids state action that has the effect of disapproving, inhibiting or evincing hostility toward religion,” the lawsuit, filed in the Northern District in Illinois, said, “The United States Supreme Court has specifically held, for instance, that the Constitution affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any …”

Towards any WHAT? I bet it says “person,” but just sounds so much juicier as an ellipsis. And wait a second! Accommodation?? I’d love to see that substantiated. Maybe he thinks the Establishment Clause is supposed to establish something?

Kelly’s hostility toward atheists is remarkable. Here are some more comments, courtesy the WND story:

“We need to stop the hate speech against Christians and all religious people,” Kelly said in a statement released along with the announcement about the lawsuit. “It is this attitude of hate that has enabled the stripping of religion, tradition, and history from our holidays, our history books, and our culture in general. Perhaps the atheists need some sensitivity training.”

Dude, we’re just stating facts. There’s no hate. There’s no threatening. Heck, if anything, the sign implies fear of religion. I’m afraid of cutting my hand or fingers off, but that doesn’t mean I hate electric saws; it just means I don’t use them.

Now, back when Kelly was saying that the sign “mocked” religion; that was a fair claim, and the co-president of FFRF agreed:

As to Kelly’s claims that the sign mocks religion, foundation co-President Dan Barker said: “He’s kind of right, because the last couple of sentences do criticize religion, and of course, the beginning is a celebration of the winter solstice. But that kind of speech is protected as well – speech that is critical and speech that is supportive.”

The foundation does not approve of the nativity scene, Barker said.

“We atheists believe that the nativity scene is mocking humanity,” by suggesting that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell, Barker said. “But notice that we are not defacing or stealing nativity scenes because we disagree with their speech.”

(The second half of that quote was omitted on the WND article.) But no, Kelly does not just see this as a disagreement (nor does he concede there might be anything out of place by the other symbols on display):

“The totality of the language of the sign is hostile and inflammatory to all religions, including but not limited to Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and others that worship God and/or believe in the concepts heaven and hell,” the case claims.

Really? We’re not just expressing hate, but hostility too?

This is what I mean by insecurity. Kelly believes something. The sign calls his beliefs bunk. Kelly FLIPS OUT.

This is religious privilege at its most obvious. Whenever I’m told that I should “respect beliefs” the same way I expect my own point of view to be respected, I remember that too often my point of view is not respected. There is no room for a healthy debate. I have facts and understanding to substantiate what I don’t believe, and when I state them, believers either disregard them or retaliate against them. That’s not mutual respect.

And you know what? I don’t respect beliefs. They are myth and superstition. But that doesn’t make me a hater. That makes me an atheist. But believers are so insecure, they can’t see the difference. Any minute challenge to what they believe is considered an attack, and our society has to learn to stop humoring that attitude. That’s where the hostility is coming from.


You have an angry soul

I played disc golf just after sunrise this morning. El Dorado Park in Long Beach was misty and cold with calf-deep uncut wet grass. I walked the course alone with my mini boombox thumping out a reggae playlist. It’s the way I like to start a Sunday morning.

I was not playing well, but I did not care. It was all about music, solitude and throwing my disc. I played 11 holes without speaking to another human. On twelve I threw wide right. On my recovery shot I had to wait while two old ladies walked through my approach. They were walking 6 dogs in knit sweaters. They were so cute.

I passed near them a few minutes later. Damien Marley was playing Road to Zion, I was singing along as best I could. The old ladies were singing something too. Their dogs started to bark as I approached. Both ladies started talking excitedly. I had scared them. Amid the cacophony, the oldest woman, perhaps 85 or so, said to me, “Dave, you have an angry soul.” I replied, “Yes ma’am” and continued walking.

She shook a finger at me and said, “You need to stop smoking the marijuana.” It must have been the reggae, I wasn't smoking anything. Plus, I figured her for senile because my name is not Dave. I continued walking  and said, “Yes ma’ma.”

As I walked up a hill away from them, she called to me again. “Do you know where our car is?” Her companion said, “Mom, you know we haven't driven in ten years.”

I have such and angry soul. Ah.. good times.

Technorati Tags: ,

Jesus Beer!

This is my body, this is my blood, and this is my beer.

Are We Seriously Still Saying the Pledge?

I’ve come to be used to the daily morning announcements at my school that say “if you would like to stand for the pledge, please do so now…” and most mornings I don’t notice as I’m in the hallway walking to the piano rooms while they’re doing it, but yesterday it was brought to my attention yet again as they said it at a Diversity Conference I attended.

“If you so choose to we will now say the pledge” they went and I immediately thought “seriously?”

First of all, nationalism doesn’t really have much to do with diversity. Sure, I can buy the argument that it shows that there’s diversity within the nation, but since they never really state that was the intention you can’t expect that to be the message that comes across from saying it.

As we all know, the controversial bit of the pledge comes with the “One nation under God” part which indicates worship of a monotheistic deity. This would seemingly exclude all those who don’t worship a monotheisitic deity. Well, OMG, excluding diverse religions or irreligion would seem to actually hurt the whole diversity idea!

Admittedly, done more out of anger than reason, at the end of that sentence I was compelled to let out a blasphemous “boo” which prompted a circle of heads to turn in my direction with glares, an also-seated Wiccan kid to grab my mouth and prevent me from speaking, and a Hispanic girl in front of me to turn ’round and say “I respect your rights, but that was highly disrespectful, you’re at a diversity conference, you need to respect other people’s religion” to which I said “as an under-represented minority due to unbelief I find the Pledge highly disrespectful”.

So it came across more as an insult to Christianity than anything else and it wasn’t effective communication, etc. I admit all this but submit to you that if I were to express my discontent with their choice to exclude me it was going to be limited to sound-byte form.

Whatever. I’m making the point of my three-letter protest clear now since I didn’t have the luxury of a non-sound-byte response then. It’s the height of hypocrisy to say the pledge and claim diversity, even if you don’t make other people say it, because that line still affirms that it is one nation under a monotheistic deity. In fact, I think it’s worse to preface it with “if you wish to say the pledge” because you have acknowledged there are people that clause excludes and have chosen to say it anyway.

And for my own sake and credit, couldn’t they have paused to think for a second what I really meant by my protest rather than to have jumped to the conclusion I was intentionally trying to offend worshippers of the Abrahamic religions? I suppose stirring thought with a heat-of-the-moment sound-byte is just the best you can hope for.