Author Archive for Atheist in a mini van.

Happy Mother’s Day

To all of the mothers who read my blog: Happy Mother's Day. I hope your day was full of joy and love. A special "Happy Mother's Day" goes out to my friends Shawn and Calvin who adopted a baby girl three weeks ago. Another special greeting goes out to Amy and Mary who are having their first Mother's Day with their precious baby boy. Congrats to you guys and I'm so happy that, despite the negative crap you've been through, you all are enjoying parenthood.

I took a few pics today.
This is P4 with my mom. Grandma was pushing him on the swing (obviously).

















_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";



urchinTracker();




























P1 and P2 were at Disneyland yesterday for a music competition. They took first place for their division and then hung out at the park. The each bought souvenirs for their sibs. P1 bought P3 this really cute set of mouse ears. She wore them all day.

My Mother's Day presents consisted of some beautiful art from P3 and P4. I'll bet none of you have a frog made out of construction paper, paste, beads, stickers, and Crayolas! *wink* I also received some new pajamas and a game for my DS. My parents bought a couple of photo albums for me (I'm guessing you all have figured out that I love taking pics of the kids). :)

All four kids made bookmarks for the grandmas, along with some gift cards. One odd thing was that my parents gave me a card that talked about the kids being gifts from God. I almost hope that they just grabbed the first card they saw because I know they know I'm an atheist.
Cheers to all the mommies out there! I hope you had a wonderful day.


Posted by Picasa

Too precious.


On occasion, when I'm having a bad day, a moment will come along that makes my heart melt.
This is one of those moments...


P2 reading to P3 before her bedtime.
He's not doing it out of obligation or direction. He's doing it out of love.
These moments are precious.






_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Posted by Picasa

Duggar #18

I don't know what's funnier, the look on Jedidiah's face when OfJimBob says she's expecting number eighteen or the fact that at least seven of you wrote me or commented about it. :)

Here's the video.
A couple of observations,...and keep in mind that I'm punch drunk from being in-and-out of hospital this week.

Is anyone else sort of squicked out by the fact that there's some big Duggar-girl calendar where the girls keep track of momma's menstrual cycle? I'll give credit where it's due...at least they used the word "period" loud-and-proud on the Today show (instead of calling it Momma's Dirty Little Monthly Secret), but damn. I have this horrible mental image of these girls poking OfJimBob in the side and saying, "You know, mom...daddy's looking pretty hot and you're ovulating." *shudder*

I loved, loved, loved Jedidiah's face when they made the announcement. He shot the camera a look that was anything but joy. He's probably figured out that this means even less Tater-Tot Casserole for him. By contrast, the eldest boy (Joshua) looked like he'd impregnated Michelle himself. Watch the video and tell me you didn't get the same vibe. He's probably planning his own little Quiverfull.

If you watch the clip, then you'll see that they were giving Michelle Mother's Day Gifts and the older girls bought her an "outfit"...which had some sort of animal print (Grrrr, baby. Very grrrr!). Jessa or Jill (they're all blending together right now) said, "All Mom has is maternity clothes but not much for the in-between times, so we picked out this outfit." D'OH!! They also presented her with a fourteen cup coffee maker. Again, "D'OH!" And, a...wait for it...a pearl necklace (that Michelle has always wanted). D'oh....errr...I think she's had her share of pearl...never mind.

But, I'd have to say that the highlight, for me, was the confirmation that they're going to do a television series. I've long said that the things that look harmless and cute in an hour long special become less endearing when viewed week after week. Maybe we'll get to see the blanket training, the schedule for "time with mommy", and the ironic sexual repression of daughters in the light it should be viewed in?


_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Platypus Momma?


_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

I'd have to say that, right behind possums, I love platypus. One of my avatars for a local community blog is a picture of a platypus. I love platypus because they're so bizarre. Well, it looks like someone decoded the genome of the platypus.

Arguably the oddest beast in Nature's menagerie, the platypus looks as if were
assembled from spare parts left over after the animal kingdom was otherwise
complete.


What does Robin Williams say? Something about a creator smoking dope when making the platypus? I once asked an evangelical creationist about the platypus and they said that the animal was "a prime example" that god must exist because nothing that "random" would evolve.

Now scientists know why. According to a study released Wednesday, the egg-laying
critter is a genetic potpourri -- part bird, part reptile and part lactating
mammal.

Wow. I didn't see that one coming. How cool is that?

"The platypus genome is extremely important, because it is the missing link in
our understanding of how we and other mammals first evolved," explained Oxford
University's Chris Ponting, one of the study's architects.


I can't wait to see Kent Hovind's jailhouse discussion with God about the platypus. I'm not sure if I like that they used the term "missing link". Who wants to lay odds on how fast Kirk and Ray will have a Way of the Master episode saying, "Evolutionists want you to believe that you came from a platypus..." *rolls eyes*

Anyway...it's a really cool article. And, how many other blog entries, that you know of, used the word platypus nine times? ;)

Some recent pics for the fam


I haven't done a picture post in a while.
This is P1 and P2 after winning first place in their drumline competition.


This is a pic of P4 playing with sticks on the drive-way. He was pretending to be a pirate and "x" marked the spot where the treasure was buried.
P3 looking adorable as always.

_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();
Posted by Picasa

Expelled.

I am sooooo freakin' tired of listening to creationists (and fundamentalists) who claim that Expelled proves that believing in Darwin leads to genocide. Inevitably, they grasp onto the scenes in Expelled wherein the Holocaust is said to have been the result of Darwinism. Excuse my French, but that's some deep bullshit. I'm going to strap on my mud boots and try to wade through it.

1. Darwin's theory of evolution dealt with natural selection. "Natural" being the key word. What Hitler did was genocide. Genocide is artificial selection. These are very, very different schools of thought. Hitler was trying to exterminate an entire culture of people and, in a bizarre twist which bucks any application of Darwinian theory, he actually spent a great deal of money and effort to keep those with severe deformities or handicaps alive so he could have his doctors run tests on them. Hitler was fascinated by the deformities found in gypsy populations. He was also obsessed with twins. It's really the antithesis of what Darwin was talking about because Darwin would've argued that the disabilities might lead to the removal of the defects from the gene pool due to their ability to adapt. Hitler sent perfectly healthy people to do while keeping the oddities to study. That anyone could know that and still claim Hitler's atrocities are attributable to Darwin betrays an enormous amount of stupidity on the claimant.
2. I've read a few apologist websites who try to manipulate the above thought by saying, "Well... Hitler knew the Jews had inferior DNA and proved that putting Jews in confined space would lead to disease and death." Newsflash! If I stuck thousands of people into unheated, poorly ventilated, unhygienic cattle cars on a train, and then denied them proper nutrition and food, then I could kill ANY group of humans. People with Jewish roots are no more susceptible than any other religion. This argument is crap!
3. Charles Darwin was born in 1809. He published his findings regarding evolution in 1842. Supporters of Expelled (and ID/Creationism) point to genocide by people like Hitler, Polpot, and the Soviet Union as "results" of Darwin's theory put into practice. Not only is that wrong, but it's incredibly short-sighted. Genocide has been a blemish on history since the beginnings of humanity and civilization. How could Darwin's theory be responsible for: the Spanish Inquisition, the extermination of Australian Aborigines by British colonist, the Peloponessian War in fifth century BCE, and/or the Biblical genocide, described in the Bible, of Amalekites and Midianites? There are many, many more examples of pre-evolution theory genocide. If evolution promotes genocide, then how does the ID-er, or Creationist, explain how evolution is responsible. It's sort of like blaming Newton for all the people who died because gravity pulled them towards the earth (from, for the purposes of this example, high places)? It doesn't make any sense.
4. There are examples of (almost) entire populations being obliterated because of incidents that, with hindsight, can be explained by evolutionary principles. One prime example being the manner in which native Americans were unable to adapt to the artificially introduced plagues brought from Europe by explorers and settlers. Or, how about the fact that entire cities in antiquity died due to environmental causes? Pompeii, anyone? Humans aren't able to adapt to breathing poisonous gasses and red hot ash and magma being rained upon them. Or, how about the evidence suggesting that there were other populations of hominids who couldn't adapt fast enough to survive the brutal environments they encountered? Had any of these been mentioned in the film, it might be worthy of listening to. The attribution of these atrocities to Darwin would still be like blaming Newton for deaths because he defined gravity, but it may show that they (the people who made Expelled) understand/understood the difference between natural selection and artificial selection.
5. For the religious to be pointing fingers at Darwin for genocide is an example of selective amnesia. The Christian god and believe system has led to more genocidal acts than you can calculate. Focusing time and energy on fixing poverty, disease, and politics would've been a far more effective strategy. But, the truth is that they really don't care about the scores of people who've been killed and the cultures that are no longer around. They care about pushing a religious agenda. When Dave Berlinski (the movie's "expert" on the Holocaust), Ben Stein, and Mathis pony up the money they made off this movie to improve the lives of people in Darfur, Croatia/Serbia/Albania, or any other land where genocide is the name of the game, then I'll consider that they may be concerned about humanity. Until then, they're profiting off devaluing the lives of those killed by misrepresenting the true causes of the atrocity. For that, they deserved to be "expelled" from Integrity101.

No laws being broken?

This is an interesting document. It's in Adobe Reader form, so I apologize if it's not accessible to everyone. But, essentially, it's a list that was confiscated during the raid on the YFZ Ranch. The file contains the Bishop's List. The BL is a list of all the men and their wives and children. Doing the math makes it painfully obvious that they're in the habit of marrying off young girls and impregnating them as soon as they menstruate. What's a bit freaky, though, is that you can tell some people tried erasing the youngest girls' ages and hurriedly wrote in "18" or "21" as their ages. No joke.

Their "spiritual marriages" are looking more and more like child molestation every day. Also, note that some of the "wives" have more than two surnames. This reflects the FLDS tradition of the prophet giving a woman and her children to another man. A "more righteous" man (who hasn't run afoul of the current, sitting "prophet"). *rolls eyes*

Link List

I'm humbled by the number of people who have enjoyed (or currently enjoy) the blog. Here's the list, thus far, of my "neighbors". Just so it's clear, I want to say that I've not checked the content of every blog listed here. I know most of the people who are listed, but there's always the chance that something NSFW (Not Safe For Work) or inappropriate for children would slip in. So...use caution. :)

Quicksilver Dreams
Kristen Wenzel
Mumbo Chick
Half-Rabbit
Aldacron
Ticktock
Maggie - Ren and the Art of Motorcycles
Alice
Leslie
Poodles
Inkblot Icon - Katie
Corsair the Rational Pirate
Country Wife
Tonette
Arana-Suteshi
Agnostic Rationalist
Flux
Stargazer1323
Betsy
Calladus
Zug
Carla
Graylor
Natasha Yar-Ruth
April
The Chaplain
Joe
Julia
Ami
Janet
Seven Crows
Musings of an Addict
Nicholas
Oz Atheist
Sha recommends 15 Minute Lunch, in lieu of her blog.

I think that's current to 3am Pacific. You can still leave comments on the 400th post or you can just add yourself to the comments section here.



_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

400th Post - Interview

Greetings P-bloggers! Some of you may already know me. I'm David, better known as camerond44, around here. This is the 400th post in the p-blog. At the end of this blog we'd like you to leave a comment with a link to your blog. Pmomma will then compile a complete list of blog readers and make post number 401 a readers list.
I know Pmom has some fans out here in the blogosphere and I decided to take questions from the last four hundred posts and present her with an interview. Who is this woman we all love? What's it like to hang with the possumfamily? I don't doubt that a question or two may have been answered before. There may be new readers though.
Possummomma, did you grow up an atheist?
Nooooooooo! My parents were Catholic. I went through catechism and communion and confirmation...all of which required CCD classes over the years. I'm not sure that I knew atheism was an option growing up.
When did you realize you were an atheist?
It was gradual, but not...and before you ask what I mean, I'll lay it out there. I was never known to accept any concept without question. While I was a really good kid, by all accounts, I had a problem, even at a young age, with people claiming authority that didn't ring true. As such, I remember being that kid who the nuns and priests would try to ignore as I waived my hand feverishly. But, in 2004, I was hospitalized, in a Catholic hospital, for three months. I was pregnant with P4 and out of total boredom, I picked up the Bible and started reading cover-to-cover. The more I read, the more problems I found.d. But, still...I think that only made me agnostic. It wasn't until the following year that I came to the conclusion that there was no god.
I'm a Christian. Can you explain to me how that felt?
I won't hold that against you. LOL In a way, accepting my atheism was a bit like going through the stages of grief. I had some thought of denial - "oh...this is just a phase. I'll get over it." I think I treated it, briefly, as if it were a test of faith. But, then I got real. Next came anger. Very intense anger! I was so perturbed by, what I saw as, a hoax perpetrated on children. Then, I was angry about the lies I'd been fed and the time I'd devoted to my faith. And, around that time I learned that a priest I knew growing up was a pedophile. I don't think I did any bargaining. But, I did go through a depressed period where I just couldn't look back on my theist life with positive thoughts. That and all my friends were theists and I was a bit depressed about being around them - it's perfectly acceptable for "friends" to talk about church/devotion/their assurance of faith/impact of faith on their lives...but, I suspected that venting about, what I saw as, the problems of belief would leave me friendless. Finally, I accepted that I was an atheist and found some comfort in discovering that there were others like me. Ginny helped me feel comfortable about being a public atheist. I'm glad I met her when I did, because she opened up the door to some great friendships and fellow atheists (such as the Atheist Community of Austin and their members).
What was so important about meeting other atheists?
Well...I guess it's similar to the need to find groups of people we can relate to. I would say that, as a Christian you might compare it to finding a good church community or great Bible study.
Your blog and podcast reflect a love of books. Are you a reader and, if so, what books would you recommend for someone looking into atheism?
I have a voracious appetite for books. I always have. The works of Richard Dawkins had a huge impact on my understanding of the world, evolution, and atheism in general. I was already immersed in the sciences, but The Ancestor's Tale, by Dawkins, clarified the points on which I was fuzzy. But, it's intense reading. You really have to *want* to read it. And, you need some understanding of the scientific method and biology to get the most out of it. Losing Faith in Faith, by Dan Barker, was the first "atheist book" I read and I think it's a great starter book. Although, now, I would recommend the following three books...
1. The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
2. Letters to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
3. God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
All of these are written in a way that's inviting to the theist reader.
I know your husband is an agnostic-Catholic. How is that working in your home? Was he unhappy about your change in beliefs? If my girl friend came home and said she'd stopped believing in God, I don't know if I would be happy with it.
Pdaddy took it well. We'd both voiced criticisms and doubts...I was just the first of the two of us to put time into researching those doubts. And, it didn't change the basis for our relationship. I know some theist couples base their relationship on serving god or putting God first, but we were never like that. And, our children and friendship (between p-daddy and I) have always been the foundation of our marriage so atheism wasn't a deal breaker.
You blog about raising children. What makes you an authority and how do you handle the people who question your parenting?
Well, first, I definitely wouldn't define myself as "an authority". I've been a parent for over thirteen years and there are days when I'm not sure I'm doing it right or well. And, I never ask my readers or friends to parent as I do. Families are dynamic. They're constantly changing and evolving, if you will, into something new and different. I find that to be one of the coolest things about parenting - it's never dull. I don't think theists make bad parents. If you can raise a thoughtful, caring, happy child, then I wouldn't dare suggest you change your methodology. As for the "haters" who comment - it's bothering me less and less everyday. In the beginning, I was so conscious of every opinion left on my blog. I also struggled with the thought that there were people out there who thought I was a horrible parent because my children are so important to me. Luckily, I had that support that we talked about above to help me put the blogosphere trolls in perspective. For that, I have to thank Russell Glasser and Matt Dillahunty. There was a point where I was ready to delete the blog and if it weren't for them, I probably would've.

What is it that you think makes the believer-trolls in a tizzy?
I really don't know.

What will you carry with you for life as a result of this blog?
I imagine I'll take many of the friends I've made here along with me throughout life. And, certainly, I'll take the fellowship of those who are like-minded. I've also given a voice to many people who previously didn't feel like they could talk and that is something I'll always feel good about.

What would you classify as the entry that shows atheism in the best light?
There's no question in my mind that the fund raising effort, initiated by Berlzebub, was an unprecedented and bold portrayal of secular humanism. There was a poster who, essentially, dared people to "do something" and boy-howdy did the readers of this blog, and the larger atheist community, *do something*!! It was over-whelming! It still is. Above-and-beyond what it did for my family, it was an enormous, positive signal to the world that atheists are every bit as generous as their theist neighbors. I was humbled. And, what made it even better was that you had atheists and theists working together for this common goal. It was just really cool to watch.

Why did you start the blog? Did you think it would last 400 entries?
I started the blog as a place where I could talk openly about my atheism and how it would impact my family. I never dreamed it would be as popular as it seems to be. I think I really owe it to P1 for generating a buzz. And, I never anticipated that people would want to read about our family or our life.

Have you ever wished the buzz would go away?
At one point, I was, as I said, over-whelmed by certain posters and I felt like the blog was bring more negative into the home than I wanted. But, the majority has been so positive that it erases the naysayers.

If one thing came out of this blog, at the end of it all, what would you want it to be? I just really hope that people read the comments on my posts. My blog is nothing without the comments of everyone who reads it. In fact, there are many, many entries where the comments are better than the original post. I would like for it to be a place where theists, especially those who think atheists are scum, would stop by and read the comments. And, maybe, just maybe...they'll see that we are, for the most part, really decent and genuine people who simply believe in one less god than they do. I hope it is an example of how wonderful life without a belief in a deity can be. So, I guess I would like for it to be something that encouraged tolerance and understanding.

You say the people in the comments are better than your posts. Does that ever bother you?
Never! I would love for every post to become a community discussion. I'm so glad that this blog has become more than words on a screen - it's become a neighborhood. And, that's because of the awesome readers I have (both atheist and theist).

Is there anything else you want to say?
Just "thank you", to the community, for sticking with me for 400 posts. I hope we go on for another 400 posts. And, I would love for people to leave links to their blogs in the comments on this post so I can make a list of "neighbors".







_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";



urchinTracker();



FLDS Thoughts

I'm still working on something for the next post - #400. Zoinks!

I'm still intrigued by the FLDS issues. I'm not normally a news junky, but...I can't help but follow the twists and turns. Maybe it's because I have a personal connection? Maybe it's because I have children of my own and can see all sides of this issue? I don't know.

One thing that is interesting (and that may be too nice a word), is the way the LDS newspaper, The Salt Lake Tribune is covering the story. In the beginning, the were quick to disavow this sect. "Oh no. That's not us. They're nothing like us." Well...yeah. They are, actually. In fact, if you go strictly by who's following the religion you believe in, in the most orthodox ways, then the FLDS have more right to claim the name Latter Day Saint than do the people in "mainstream" LDS. How can you "disavow" something that's so intricately woven into your own history? And, thus...I believe, the reason we're seeing a curious new approach evolve in the Tribune. The tone of the articles have changed. No longer are we seeing the knee-jerk, "run away, run away", "these people are "doing it wrong"" mentality in the reporting. Most, if not all, of the articles seem downright sympathetic towards the FLDS. There isn't as much distancing going on - drawing a line between "us" and "them", if you will. So, why the change? Children are still being abused in Hilldale, Utah. So, is this sudden, sympathetic switch a way to try and shake responsibility for what has been happening, by the very same people, who aren't all that far from Salt Lake? Is it a subconscious attempt to make what's going on in your own backyard seem less horrible than what was going on in the YFZ Ranch? Too close for comfort?

I'll be honest. I don't feel exactly the same as I did two weeks ago. I'm not backing down on my opinion that this is an, overall, good thing to do. Teenagers are still considered minors for a reason. I have a teenager. She's mature. She's bright. She's everything one might ask for in a young lady. Still...there's no way she could consent to marriage. And, I can't think of a circumstance where I would allow her to consent to sex or childbearing at this age. What was occurring on the YFZ Ranch, with regard to raping, molesting, and entrapping teen aged girls (and that's what it is: Entrapment) is bullshit. Those fathers and mothers that perpetuated that abuse and dressed it up in jewel-toned, strangling collar religious rhetoric are criminal. On that, I have not waivered.

But, there's also this part of me that says, "mistakes have been made." And, when you're dealing with something of this magnitude, maybe mistakes are inevitable. That doesn't make the mistakes acceptable. A two year old ending up in a hospital, being treated for shock secondary to dehydration, is one of those mistakes. Let's look at the odds. Odds are, this toddler's mother is a child herself. The dehydration seems to be a result of the abrupt cessation of breast milk and food the toddler is used to. Say what you will about the FLDS, they're hardcore about breastfeeding and eating healthy foods. Even at two, breastfeeding is common in most parts of the world and it really pisses me off when the media acts like two years is perverted or wrong. Why could they not have allowed this toddler to stay in a home close to her mother? Pump the breast milk...if you need to separate them for whatever reason. Have the FLDS moms bring the foods the toddlers are used to into a drop off station. This kid has just had everything she ever knew ripped out from under her...it's not a shocker that she would refuse to eat or drink or even get so stressed out that she makes herself physically ill. Blah, blah, blah... I'm rambling. I just think this could've been done better, but that's Monday morning quarterbacking.

I feel for the state of Texas. As sure as I am that there have been mistakes, I'm also sure that none of the state's services anticipated the gravity or magnitude of this situation. And, the truth is: this should've never, ever been allowed to become this big. These abuses have been catalogued for YEARS! Hell...right before the SLC Olympic games, they rounded up some polygamous and tossed the book at them (Tom Greene, anyone?). That's like putting a bandaid on a gaping head wound. Utah did a "hey...look over there. Don't look at that mess to the south." But, the truth is that the FLDS were largely ignored, despite the knowledge that children were being abused and molestation, incest, and violence were common. And, I doubt you could've found one person in Utah who didn't know about it. Texas would be entirely justified, in my opinion, in asking the state of Utah to pony up. And, Utah needs to own some of this.





_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Musings and concerns

My 400th blog post is coming up in two posts. I want to do something fun. One of the things that has been suggested is to do a photo journal (slideshow with captions, most likely) with "A Day in the Life" of the P-fam. Another idea was to ask readers to share their favorite blog post. Both of those ideas sound fun, but I really find myself wondering about the people who read this journal - so...maybe I'll do a reader survey. I also might use that to expand my link list. *thinks* I may do all of those.

I have some reader mail...
Carleen says...What happened with P3 and the girl who was making her upset about God?
I don't know that we ever got a good resolution to that one. Essentially, the problem is that you have a five year old child (the Christian child) who is dealing with a rough home life and her insecurity is manifesting through an insistence that God exists and will take care of her. It's sad, really. I can't even find myself getting annoyed with her anymore because I just can't imagine how out-of-control her life must feel to her. I'm a sucker for little kids. Still...she continues to stress P3 out about us not going to church. What's difficult is deciding how much is too much to say to P3. I've told her that I don't believe God exists...and some people do and that it's their right to believe...and that God is similar to the other myths and legends she knows about. I'm not sure that I'm succeeding in making P3 feel 100% confident that I'm "right". I mean, think about it...here you have a little girl telling everyone that if they don't believe they are going to hell (or going to die). Of course P3 is scared! How do you explain to a five year old that there's no God even if someone is insisting their is and threatening said five year old with such horrible scare tactics? How do you get the other five year old to stop doing it when her life is so terrible and unstable? The teachers all agree that it's becoming a problem...but, what can they do? They've talked to the girl. They've talked to her parents. Her parents did the whole "well... our daughter can say what she wants to say and you can't block her from practicing her religion." I guess my thought is that, in theory, she has a right to believe and practice what she wants, but I don't think that includes recess evangelism and terrorism.

Amanda says...What happened to the podcast?
Jack and I had some scheduling conflicts and health issues that made finding time for the podcast impossible. However, your question is timely since Mark of the Central Valley atheist group has offered to do all the production on our cast if we want to restart it. That would take an enormous load of Jack's shoulders. So, hopefully we'll be pod casting again soon!



_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Is that a god in your pocket…?

Disclosure: The following link and materials may not be safe for work or appropriate for children. If you're easily offended, then please skip this entry. If there were a way to put the text behind a cut, I would.

I ran across a website called Sex In Christ. Note that the subtitle is: "Anal sex in accordance with God's will." At first, I thought this was a joke, but I can't find anything which suggests it's anything but legitimate (except for the subject matter). I mean, I thought the Christian Domestic Discipline sight was farked up, but it's a real ministry. Whether it's a farse or not, there are several blog entries, BY CHRISTIANS, talking about the "wisdom" in the sight. Very few seem to be insulted or in contradiction.

Mmmmmkay. Let's just take a look at what constitutes a holy booty call, shall we?

Are you saving yourself for your wedding night? The Devil wants you to
fail, that’s why he puts stumbling blocks in your way.

Pre-marital sex is a stumbling block? I know there's, often, some fumbling occuring, but if you're stumbling over sex, then you should really pay attention to what you're doing.

But God wants you to succeed, and that’s why he has given us an alternative to intercourse before marriage: anal sex. Through anal sex, you can satisfy your body’s needs, while you avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancy and still keep yourself pure for marriage.


So...does this undo the whole problem of male homosexuality? And, seriously... I think the words "anal sex" and "pure" are hysterical in the same sentence. God "wants you to succeed" in getting a little back door action, apparently.

On the topic of the Bible saying anal sex is a sin: "This is a common
misconception. Anal sex is confusing to many Christians because of the attention paid to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts. However, it’s important to realize that these often quoted scriptures refer only to sexual acts between two men. Nowhere does the Bible forbid anal sex between a male and female. "

God's far more open-minded than I originally gave him credit for. *wink* Next thing you know, they'll start selling anal beads in your local Christian supply store.

In fact, many Biblical passages allude to the act of anal sex between
men and women.


Oh! This I have to see.
Lamentations 2:10 describes how “The virgins of Jerusalem have bowed their heads to the ground,” indicating how a virginal maidens should position themselves to receive anal sex.


Sooooo, that's why there's a lot of kneeling and bowing in most religions. It's not about reverence. It's about sizing up the pious badonkadonk in front of you. Sir Mix-a-lot was ahead of his time!

Another suggestive scripture tells of a woman’s pride in her “valley”
(referring to her buttocks and the cleft between them) and entices her lover to ejaculate against her backside: "How boastful you are about the valleys! O backsliding daughter who trusts in her treasures, {saying,} ' Who will come against me?' (Jeremiah 49:4) And in the Song of Songs, the lover urges his mate to allow him to enter her from behind: “Draw me after you, let us make haste.”
(Song of Solomon, 1:4)


I never knew the Bible was so dirty.
Isn’t anal sex dirty?”
The Bible says, “To the pure, all things are pure.” (Titus 1:15) The Lord
created your body, and no part of it is imperfect or unclean. God also created
our bodies for pleasure, and anal sex is just one of the many ways, including
standard sexual intercourse, that we can enjoy this pleasure and share it with a
partner. Although the anus is used for elimination, in reality it is not as
dirty as you think, especially after a shower or bath. Elimination is also a
natural process of our God-given bodies, so our conception of the anal area as
dirty has more to do with our own psychological hang-ups. If the idea of direct
contact with this area is still distasteful to you, the male can wear a condom
as a barrier

How does bathing or showering clean out your poop-shoot? Unless you've giving yourself an enema, there's going to be some feces involved.

“If you’re going to have anal sex, why not just have regular
sex?”
This is a good question: If you’re going to have sexual contact
before marriage, why not just go the whole nine yards and have regular sex? There are many good reasons for having anal sex instead. The first reason is practical: having conventional vaginal intercourse can lead to unwanted pregnancies.


So much for every sperm being sacred.

While it’s true that the Lord bade us to “be fruitful and multiply,”
(Gen 1:22) the Bible also counsels that “For everything there is a season, and a
time for every matter under heaven.” (Ecl. 3:1)


Wow. Well,...that's a new spin on Gen 1:22. Is there also a time for bondage, bungy-love-swings, and a little oral?

Pregnancy outside of wedlock can have dire and life-altering
consequences for all those involved. Having anal sex allows you to greatly reduce this risk. Second, for a young woman who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, having anal sex allows her to preserve her virginity (i.e., maintain an intact hymen) until marriage.


That's stretching the definition of viriginity a bit (no pun intended).

There is no greater gift that a bride can give than to offer her pure,
unsullied maidenhead to her husband on their wedding night.


What's with the obsession with hymens? Often, they tear without a girl having known a man's touch.
Finally, anal sex allows both partners to save the most intimate
and powerful sexual act, that of face-to-face vaginal intercourse, for their mates in marriage. This type of sexual relationship represents the most powerful union between a man and a woman, and so it rightfully should be reserved for
one’s life partner. Fortunately, you can engage in anal sex prior to marriage
and still be able to share the deeper, more meaningful act of consecrated love
through vaginal intercourse with your wedded spouse.


You heard it here, folks!
The site also has discussions on some other sexual acts. It's worth a chuckle to go read.



_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Gary’s comment

A commenter who goes by the name of mercurial ohearn belatedly shares his feelings about the previously blogged science project. You know, the one where the child judged morality through a survey.

Here is his comment with my responses. My intro...
Hello Gary,
Since you took time to leave such an in depth comment on my blog, I feel you're owed an in depth response from me. Since there is a limit on the length of responses on blogger, I thought it best to e-mail you. Firstly, I'd like to say "thank you" for your feedback. While we clearly don't agree, I don't mind criticism. Your position implies that you gave, if anything, a careless read over the subject matter which was discussed in multiple posts, blogs, and comments. I shall bold your statements/questions. My responses will be in blue.


"apparently, you were expecting him to internalize the minimalization of
variables, but then you switched this to "following directions", which is
altogether different. perhaps you should've said "following directions", if that
is what you originally meant."


To start, I don't think it's fair to suggest I had any "expectations" for this child's project. Until his teacher brought it to me and asked for help, I played no part. As you can see if you go to the webpage listed in the commentary, the "directions" for science projects within this county are viewable to all. Having four children, I know that these directions are handed to every child at the beginning of the science fair season. This child neither followed directions as laid out by the county's science fair committee, nor did he come close to grasping the concepts necessary for applying the scientific method.


providing us with the directions he was meant to follow might also have
made this post a bit more informative.As I said above, they are provided.
I'm sorry if you missed them of if, in the time that has elapsed, the link has
gone down.


after all, an 11-year-old can probably reason well enough to follow
directions like "brush your teeth before you go to bed" or "mix two eggs
together in a bowl with 1/2 cup of flour and 1 cup of sugar" or "write a report
on something you see in your life, and say what you think is good or bad about
it, and then tell your audience why you hold these opinions" or even "3x + 6 =
15, find x".
Certainly. I happen to believe that eleven year olds can do this and more.

but the likelihood is far less (though not impossible) that this same
child can fully grasp a set of instructions like "form a hypothesis (a specific
concept that requires understanding and adherence to stringent criteria), based
on your observations and/or intuition about some phenomenon in the world, and
then test this hypothesis, using the scientific method (itself another,
different list of sophisticated directions). be sure to check your experiment
for weaknesses, such as failure of the double-blind test (another important
concept that requires significant forethought), etc., etc., then analyze the
data, and using the data, form a logical conclusion that either supports or
refutes the conclusion you drew in your hypothesis," which seems to be what you
are suggesting, though i see in your addendum to this post you "clarified" that
remark.


And, here I believe you under-estimate what children are capable of. Where you live, there may not be a large emphasis placed on educating children using the scientific method. Here, the method is posted in every Kindergarten class and children as young as my five year old can tell you what a hypothesis is. By sixth grade, it part of the state's standards that children not only understand the terminology of the scientific method, but that they also begin to apply that knowledge.

I don't expect a child to come out of the gate with an amazing project by sixth grade. However, by sixth grade, they're generally on their third or fourth year of science fairs. It's not as if the student in question had zero exposure to the scientific method and, in fact, this was not his first time at the rodeo.

The problem with his conclusion, in my opinion, wasn't that he'd chosen to take this sort of subject matter on as a project. My problem was that his "survey" was completely and totally subjective. And, though you are free to disagree, there was little science involved in the entire project.


yes, his "experiment" was hardly an experiment, as you so rightly point
out.


Agreed.

it exhibits, however, exactly the level of intelligence and
attention to detail that one would expect from your average 11-year-old, who is
just starting to internalize an abstract process like critical
thinking.


I suspect that we will agree to disagree, then. I'm actually a bit confused because, as I see it, his project carried quite a bit of detail. He clearly knew, or was being told, enough details of the Bible and the Christian fundamentalist ideology to come up with the "survey" that he did. I won't pretend to be an authority on what the "average" eleven year old is capable of in terms of critical thinking. I don't know if that's something that could be quantified.

i still remember the science projects that most of my peers created when
i was in junior high. some could hardly be considered science, even if they
weren't, strictly speaking, religious in nature. this boy's doesn't seem all
that different, in terms of rigorous attention to methodology.



I think you're missing the point. Or, perhaps you're seeing the point, but ignoring it because you think people are picking on him? A science project, even if everything else is set aside, should still be a SCIENCE project. If an eleven year old puts math problems on a spelling worksheet, you don't give him/her credit because they failed to stick to the subject at hand. Furthermore, I think basing your opinion on what you and your peers did in elementary school is just as illogical as what you will accuse me of later. These kids live in a different age and have access to more scientific knowledge than, I am going to speculate here, you or I even dreamed of. What differs between this project and any other sucky science project is that there's absolutely NO hint of science in it. I've seen kids suck eggs into glass bottles or paint solar systems without understanding air pressure or astronomy. Had that been the case here, I would've said nothing. And, if you'll show me any hint of a scientific theory in here, then I would appreciate it if you would point it out.


but even if he is below average, what difference does it make?

That's just it, though. I don't think he's all that "below average". I occasionally tutor children with Aspergers and various other instructional disabilities. The child who did this project is, I would say, according to his teacher's opinion, fairly intelligent. So, this begs the question - why is it that a child with reasonable academic talent would do a SCIENCE project that had NO SCIENCE content? The "difference" is that there are a good number of people, yourself included, who seem to be saying, "Look. It doesn't matter that it wasn't science. Don't pick on him." My counter question is: what about the other children? What does it say to them if a child who doesn't follow protocol is given the same grade as one of the children who did?


you aren't attacking him because he's a poor science student, you're attacking
him because he's christian, and because he tried (however inappropriately) to
incorporate his religion into his research.


Honestly, and I mean this with all due respect for someone I don't know (you), I didn't think I was attacking the child. I, in truth, feel like he's getting short changed from the adults in his life who allowed this project to go beyond the first day. If an atheist child had done this same project, only with a bias to show how moral atheists are or how horrible theists are, then you could bet I'd have made the same post.

Additionally, I would've had no problem with his doing a topic that reflected his beliefs. I believe I said that in the comments section. Perhaps you missed it? Two years ago, I helped my friend, who home schools her daughter with a Goddard curriculum (ATI), think of topics her daughter could do for science fair. She settled on testing the buoyancy of water with different salt levels because she wanted to know if a man could walk on water. For the record, her conclusion was, in my opinion, pushing the limits of science, but she decided that a normal, average weight man could not possibly walk on water of any salt content and, therefore, "Jesus must have been more than just man." Again, I don't agree with her conclusion, but I thought her hypothesis was clever and her methodology well done.


are all psychological or sociological experiments no longer considered to be
science?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I'll assume this is a rhetorical question. Obviously, the scientific method can be, and is often, applied to psychological and social experiments. To be valid, they follow the same standards as other scientific experiments. Another criteria in engineering valid sociological experiments is that the person conducting the experience go into it with a question and not a bias. This kid started out with the fallacy that non-Christians (and he's including Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Native American spirituality, and other Eastern religions) are immoral. He built his survey with questions that are, for the most part, irrelevant to morality.


rhetoric, though not absolutely scientific, has at its heart the study
of logic, which precepts and principles form the foundation of the scientific
method.
I agree. I never argued to the contrary.

I hardly think i am. i'm merely acknowledging a fact: some kids are
brighter than others, and some are much, much brighter than all the
rest.



Again, I wouldn't argue that you are wrong with this observation.
What disappoints me is that there are some, this would
include you, who would say, "well...he's a little slower than most, so we'll not
even attempt to correct his mistakes or make him feel bad." How does
dismissing the problems with the projects make this child a better scientist and
thinker?

fortunately, we have a society that can accommodate people of varying
levels and types of ability. so this kid sucks at science. maybe he'll make a
great plumber, which is good, because we still need those, and i hear they make
good money.



*bangs head on keyboard* You say you're not selling this kid short academically, but you keep saying things like this! I don't know that he sucks at science. I do know that he bombed this project. Those are two different things. How is your assumption that he's slow not "selling him short"? Why not assume that he's relatively bright with parents who would rather he push an ideology than engage in a scientific investigation of the world around him?

I'm all for people finding their niche'. And, I happen to think everyone has something to offer the world. Contrary to what you're implying, I'm not some elitist academic. . My father and grandfather, whom I love dearly, provided for their families by working multiple, blue collar jobs. I know where I came from and realize that there is immense value in putting in putting in an honest days work. I wouldn't dare look down upon someone (except for, possibly, Fred Phelps and televangelists) who did a service to humanity, no matter what that service is. But, why assume this kid can only be a blue collar worker? Again, I think it's selling a child short to say, "You know,...you suck at science. Keep doing it wrong because I expect you'll make a great plumber and we need plumbers." YOU DID NOT SAY THAT, I realize. I'm just making the point.

And, frankly, I think you're final sentence in the post was uncalled for and reflective of a bias held on your part. But, I'll address that in a moment. Just keep in mind that I've not made any judgements about you or criticized you in any way.


the only thing of significance here is whether the teacher gave him a
bad grade for his science project, which she should have. whether or not some
unexceptional boy is capable of mastering the fundamentals of modern scientific
thought when he is only first learning them in school is irrelevant to the
context of your post, which ostensibly criticizes the impression upon children,
and the imposition in their schools, of christian values, beliefs, and
mores
.
So, wait...you agree she should've given him a bad grade. But, above you're defending his project? I'm confused. Again, I don't care if this kid is christian, atheist, Buddhist, or Islamic. His science project wasn't a science project.

As I explained above, this is NOT the first time he's heard about the scientific method. Nor is it his first experiment. I don't even think this was about a person, or group, criticizing his project because he is a Christian. It's actually ironic that you're accusing those of us who found his project lacking of pigeon-holing him when his project AIMED at stereotyping people. His parents have every right to impose their Christian values upon their child. His teacher, my friend, has every right to be a fundamentalist Christian. But, neither party has the right to post a science project that suggests non-Christians are immoral. The imposition of values is from the family and child who are claiming that anyone outside THEIR values is immoral.


you have offered up an example of how christianity is corrupting science
education,

Actually, I presented a bad science project where Christianity was USED to stereotype people and a child acted as cop, judge, and jury about the "sins" of others. Christianity has been attempting to squelch scientific discovery since the Catholic Church argued that the world was flat and had, literally, four corners. This continued with the religious intolerance showered on Galileo. He directly contradicted the Bible (Ecclesiastes 1:5, if you care) and was arrested, placed under censure for the rest of his life, and banned from the church. There have been few scientific discoveries that various religions/churches/belief systems have accepted willingly and on its merits.

And, I don't believe I used this child's project as an example of "how Christianity is corrupting science education."

but you are placing the blame on parents, who have a right to raise
their children in whatever manner they feel best.

I blame his parents because they engaged in and promoted a disingenuous project that did nothing more than promote their beliefs at the expense of others. What is laudable about a child being encouraged to judge his fellow sixth graders on morality based on a very limited scope of behavior? If I encouraged my child to go into a classroom and tell theists that they're wrong, would you support that activity? Does my right to parent extend to instructing my child to judge their classmates or suggest that they're better than everyone else? Of COURSE NOT! Furthermore, while you're correct in that they can choose to teach their child whatever they wish, I think it's sad that any parent would instruct a child to disregard scientific discoveries because it may be in contradiction to their religious beliefs. Plumbers use physics and chemistry.


the blame really belongs with those educators, administrators, board
members who allow it to happen, like your friend, the boy's teacher, for
instance.


This I don't understand. As a parent, I'm my child's first teacher. And, ultimately, I am responsible for their education - not the state, not the teacher, and not the system. ME!

My friend, the teacher, has one hundred students. By sixth grade, it's unreasonable to expect her to micro-manage each project. I'm guessing you missed the part where, in the first two assignments (which were a list of hypothesis and possible projects and a plan of attack), the child presented a different methodology? His teacher thought his question was interesting and valid (as do I)... though difficult and subjective, there were ways he could've done this in line with protocol and within the boundaries of a real experiment. His parents, at some point unknown, decided that they didn't want him doing the original project as described. Every teacher in this county teaches the scientific method every year. Situations like this rarely happen. What exactly do you propose she should've done? Move in with his family? As for board members,... how are they responsible for this? I'm genuinely intrigued by this suggestion and hope you'll elaborate. I seem to sense that you're working with a dichotomy: the school/teacher/board are responsible for instructing this child in the scientific method, but they're not allowed to hold him to the standard because it might challenge the religious beliefs in his home.


it's the responsibility of your friend, in her role as educator, to
instruct this boy on what is, and isn't science, and to fail him, if that is
what is required.

Short of doing his project for him, what more would you suggest she should've done? It can't be said enough - he was, is, and will be, educated in the scientific method. It's part of the core curriculum in our county. Being that other children in the class had projects that reflected a base understanding, I can't see how we should fault her. But, you are free to disagree.

and yet, you don't criticize her role in this travesty at all; in fact, you make apologies for her and instead focus all of your energy and vitriol on the boy and his project.Whoa, whoa, whoa...back the truck up. What was within her power to change? And, where is this anger, on my part, of which you speak? I have assumed you to be a stable, rational person who can engage in a discussion. It's unfortunate that you're incapable of doing the same. Instead, you bluster in well after the fact to insult me, my readers, and my friend (the teacher), when you didn't have enough information about any of the three to do so.


it's obvious that you're using the excuse of tearing apart his science
project to tear apart his beliefs. and if you define yourself by what you
believe, which we are all instructed to do by the media, and by both our
religious and our secular "leaders" and role models, then it stands to reason
that someone who tears apart your beliefs is essentially attacking you.

Not even close. I didn't tear apart his beliefs. Indeed, I believe I have stated repeatedly that his beliefs aren't the problem. I've also explained to you that the teacher is a pentacostal/fundamentalist christian and I've helped other kids regardless of their religious leanings. If a theist physician prays before surgery for guidance and then cuts off the wrong leg during surgery... am I attacking his religion by calling attention to his mistake? Of course not. If you say, "Wow. That Christopher Hitchens is a real jerk.", am I justified in believing that you're "attacking" all atheists or secular, free thinkers? Of course not!

ONCE AGAIN - I AM NOT attacking a BELIEF SYSTEM. I am discussing a BAD SCIENCE PROJECT. If you are seeing it as a full-fledge attack on Christianity, then I'm afraid that says more about you than me.


you mean lessons like how to have compassion for others who are less
fortunate or gifted than yourself? right.

That's pretty big talk for someone who hasn't availed themselves to learning about who I am. Again, your assumptions and projection are saying more about you than me. I don't, and never have, considered the child "less gifted". Yet, you keep hammering away at that nail. You then suggest that wanting a child to have valid information, that he will carry for the rest of his life, to be uncompassionate. That's messed up.


so why expend your righteous indignation and your passion to write on
ridiculing this vulnerable child, whose naivete in a different context we might
have smiled at and dismissed, affectionately, as innocence?
Once again, your assumptions are making you look like an ass. Why expend your righteous indignation and your passion to write on ridiculing a woman with lupus who has four children and still finds time to tutor children and gives back to her community, with no regard for religion, and keeps a blog that just happens to discuss a science project that's not a science project?

why attack this child's "science project" as a means to
passive-aggressively snipe at the people you're really aiming for, which are his
parents, his teachers, his community, and his culture?


Are you even listening to yourself? His teacher is one of my dearest friends. And, I've made no judgement about his community, because, as part of that community, that would be stupid.

:::rolls eyes::: oh, well there you go. (in re: pmomma's child taking a
prize in science fair)

Very mature.



_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

PopeDevo

Phrases you never expect to hear in news coverage of the Pope's visit to America: "Oh yea. That's the money shot right there." - Headline News Vatican Priest Reporter on Headline News.

I swear, I shot water out my nose.

So...I've avoided posting about the Pope. Mostly, I've avoided it because I've been focused on the FLDS thing and work, but I find that I can't get these images of Pope devotion (which I'm going to affectionately begin referring to as "PopeDevo") out of my head. I'm watching these huge, screaming and crying crowds who gather to see him and it reminds me of a few other "rallies" I've had the distinct displeasure of seeing. It's like a holy football game and the Pope Mobile is the pigskin. All eyes on the pig skin.

Other thoughts of a PopeDevo nature:
1. Five people. He met with FIVE "survivors" of pedophile priests. Call me crazy, but I'm just not sure that's enough to absolve him of his responsibility for the situation. Ratzinger was charged with "dealing with" these priests. That was his job for the majority of the 80's and 90's. And, rather than pull these priests out of churches, he shuffled them around like peas in the shell game. He hid them. And, above all, he lived by the oath of protecting the Vatican and the Catholic Church....even if that meant losing these children and families who devoted their lives and income to the Church. Frankly, I don't know that any Catholic priest will understand what it's like to have a child who's molested by someone you (as a parent) vested with trust and God's power. This is partially why I think priests should be allowed to marry and have children. How can they possibly understand how much you suffer when your children suffer? Five people out of tens of thousands... I know some are applauding him for this, but I say it's too little, too late.

2. Fifty disabled children line up to be blessed by the Pope at St. Joseph's Seminary. Funny. I didn't see any wheelchairs and crutches outside the back door. But, that's not the part that really bothers me. What really bothers me, having known people with truly disabled children, is the knowledge that they funded those trips on their own. I suppose it's possible there were "love offerings" collected for them in parish churches, but...could that money have been spent better? Believe in God or don't believe in God - what good is a blessing from the Pope going to do for these kids? Will they walk? Will they talk? Will there be any measurable improvement to justify taking them out of their environment and spending money on the trip? $2000 can buy a lot of physical and occupational therapy.

3. He still looks like Emperor Palpatine to me.

4. I will give credit where it's due. Going to offer greetings to the Jewish community for Passover was classy. But, then some snotty witch said, in the commentary, "It's us against them. This is about joining hands with those who believe in our God to fight the culture of death." Buzz kill! So, basically, Palpatine is forming an empire to overthrow the republic? Does this make Richard Dawkins the Yoda of atheism? Is Christopher Hitchens Han Solo? No. Wait. Hitchens is definitely the wookie. I'll just say up front: I'm not sleeping in a dead Taun Taun.

5. I'll give bonus points (which mean nothing in real life) to whoever can photoshop a picture of the Pope with a Devo hat.

Decency?

I received the following e-mail just minutes ago. I am not sure who this woman is, but I thought I'd address her points here, publicly, for reasons I'll explain in a moment.

Are you happy now? Texas is keeping our children. Satan has grabbed
control of the government and rights no longer exist. Atheists like you have ruined what is decent about our lives. No one was forced into marriage that I know of. How can you defend children being removed since you have children yourself. As a mother I beeseech you to answer this question.


Taking this line for line...
Are you happy now?


Honestly? It doesn't matter whether the public, myself included, is happy or sad. It's irrelevant to the fact that little girls were being raped. That that was occurring under the guise of religious freedom made me concerned and sad for those girls. But, to see four hundred children ripped from the lives they knew, even if that life was poisonous and damaging, does not inspire anything resembling happiness. It's sad. Those children, undoubtedly, miss their mothers. They're probably scared and confused. But, that's as much YOUR fault, for raising them in a criminal environment, as it is the fault of the court system that is attempting to help them.

Texas is keeping our children.

If they are YOUR children, then why won't you claim them? Why haven't you participated 100%, as a group, to identify and clarify the parental lineage of each child? Texas is attempting to do what you, as a parent, failed to do: break a cycle of abuse. In my opinion, and you're lucky I'm not the judge in this case, any mother who is okay with their thirteen year old marrying a fifty year old fails to meet the standard for protecting their daughter. And, any mother who would sooner see her son kicked out of the community than stand up to her husband is a sad excuse for a mother. Why is it that your husband is more important to you than your child(ren)? You've somehow managed to elude accountability for your bullshit, child abusing ways. Maybe it was due to the unjustifiable, mystic respect for the religion of others? Maybe it was because it was easier to focus on the abuse of women and children in other countries? After all, no one wants to see this in their own backyard!! But, it's time for you, and your beliefs, to stand in the eye of justice.


Satan has grabbed control of the government and rights no longer
exist.

Whose rights are we talking about here? Yours? Lady, you have a right to sleep with any man you desire to sleep with. I'm not even concerned that that man may have other wives. If you're cool with sharing your husband with other women and see it as a sacred practice, then more power to you. I fully support your right to place yourself in that situation. You do not, however, have the right to force CHILDREN to live polygamy. You have no right to sell your daughters into sexual slavery. Your children have a right to grow up in a non-abusive, loving, nurturing, safe environment and, the way I see it, you've violated two, possibly three, of those rights. What I want to know is how you were successful in turning off your maternal instincts? I feel sorry for you. What hell must you know that you genuinely think you're providing your daughters with a glorious life? You are a member of a cult whose leaders would just as soon dump your sons on the side of the road than deal with them and rape your daughters. How, as a mother, can you be okay with that?

Atheists like you have ruined what is decent about our
lives.

Cry me a river, lady! I have a thirteen year old daughter! Let's look at her life against the life of a thirteen year old in your compound. Let's behold the "decency" of your life.
My daughter is a whole person. Your daughter has been trained like a dog to "Keep Sweet" and serve the men in her family.
My daughter is in school. She's getting an education that will prepare her to follow any dreams she has for her future. Your daughter is given ONE option - get married and have babies. Case closed. You want to talk about rights? Explain to me how what you're doing isn't a violation of your daughter's rights?
My daughter has never known a a man's touch. She has never been forced to perform sexual acts with men old enough to be her grandfather. Can you say the same thing about your daughter?
While my daughter is currently chaste, she has been given information about her body. When she decides to have sex, she will be knowledgeable enough to know what's going on. Your daughter has never been told what happens during sex. From all accounts I've heard, that first encounter with their husband is often terrifying and physically painful.
My daughter has never been locked in a closet, held under a running tap, or beaten. Can you say the same?
My daughter, likely, won't have children until she's physically and mentally ready to do so. Your daughter will be encouraged to breed as soon as she bleeds. Which of those is more "decent"?
My husband and I take full responsibility for the financial, physical, emotional, and mental needs of our daughter. We're not "bleeding the beast". What is it about welfare fraud that you consider to be "decent"?
Forgive me for saying so, but I don't think Satan (if he existed) could think up the twisted, manipulative, abusive situation that has been teased out of life by the people of your faith.

No one was forced into marriage that I know
of.


"That you know of..." being the key phrase. And, frankly, I don't believe you. There are too many who were once in your exact position that claim otherwise. If I close my eyes to a neighbor who beats their child, that doesn't mean the abuse stops because I refuse to see it. Similarly, just because you're not present at every "spiritual marriage" does not mean there's no force involved.

How can you defend children being removed since you have children yourself. As a mother I beeseech you to answer this question.

It's because I have children that I fully support the state of Texas and the rights of your children. When I imagine my own daughters being raised as chattel or "jewels in the crown of a man", I get a sick feeling in my stomach. When I think of a "leader" who would tell me to drop my boys off at the side of the road, I get angry. When I see young boys being groomed to disrespect women (including their mothers), I shake my head and wonder how anyone could defend that. Mother to mother, I'm asking you to explain, to me, how you sleep at night? Mother to mother, I want to know what you thought when they placed your child in your arms - did you immediately imagine a "spiritual marriage" or a life of excommunication? Did you automatically consider who you'd marry that sweet baby girl off to? When I had my children, each and every birth was extraordinary and daunting (at the same time). I knew those wonderful little people were completely dependent on my husband and I for protection. When did that instinct escape you? Mother to mother, I can't comprehend any justification for what you are doing and, so, I will defend the state of Texas for removing your children from potential harm.

I'm making this public because I think your lifestyle has been cloacked in secrecy for far too long. It's not sacred - it's child abuse. You can dress it up in holy underwear and hang religion on it...it's still child abuse.

Song help and elevator WTF?!




_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();


Where was god when this guy was trapped in an elevator for forty-one hours? I have to say that, if that had been me, you'd have had to scrape me off the walls with a puddy knife because I would've exploded with anxiety. Elevators don't bother me when they're moving, but when they stop moving and there's that millisecond before the doors open...I bet my pulse goes up twenty beats or so. Anyway... interesting video (caught by security cameras).


Does anyone know what song is backing up the video? I love it! I've googled around to see if the guy gave credit, but I'm not having any luck. Anyone?

A Request from PZ

The great and powerful PZ Meyers, who runs the website Pharyngula, has posted a request. Since I can't think of any way to improve on his words, I'll just quote him.

We need to get the NCSE's counter-site to the hideous little propaganda
film, Expelled, to rank higher in the
search engines. The way to do this is for lots and lots of you to link to the
Expelled Exposed site with the word Expelled. It's not hard: just copy this
code into a blog post.
$a
href="http://expelledexposed.com/">Expelled</a$
(replace the dollar signs with the appropriate arrows "<" and
">")
Whenever you write about the movie, use that link. Do it a bunch of
times, if you want. It's more effective if many people use the same link every
time, though, than for one person to be repetitive.


Despite the request coming from PZ, I initially didn't know if I was going to post it. But, then in the middle of watching something on The Science Channel (go figure!), I saw a commercial for<a href="http://www.blogger.com/Expelled'> Expelled (done!) wherein Ben Stein interrupts an elderly teacher at the blackboard, who's teaching the best and most accepted theory of species adaptation, with a smug and snide remark like, "What started the life?" That pissed me off. It's ceased to be funny when you see a man who's, allegedly, bright totally and completely misunderstanding the claims of evolution. I can't imagine any scenario wherein he hasn't been told that evolution is not meant to address the origins of life. So, that leaves me believing that he's being intentionally deceptive. Not cool.



Smell that distinct smell?


_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Check out this video. Watch until the end. It's not long.

Apparently, after some of the mothers were returned to the YFZ Ranch, without their children, they called a press conference. For the first time since YFZ was built, reporters were allowed in. None of the men presented themselves for interviews...only the women.

I would love to say that I believe the last woman ("Marie") on the clip. But, her mannerisms and intonations seem exceedingly insincere. Her body language suggests that she's lying. What do you think? What clenched it, for me, was the fake crying (note that she's squenching her eyes and giving the appearance of chest heaving sobs, wiping at her eyes, but...there are no tears, no red eyes, no ACTUAL sobs, no runny nose, etc.,.).

"Ohhhhhh...forgive all man kind. And, I'm grateful for the many kind
people who truly cared. There were many who truly cared. There was one CPS
worker who said...*dramatic pause*..."We messed up."" - Marie


Rrrrrrrrrright. I didn't know that the FLDS gave out Oscars.
I can empathize with a mother who loses her child. I, honestly, can't imagine how horrible that would be. In a perfect world, children would never have to be removed from their families. And, as I've said before, I have no doubt that some of these FLDS mothers are brainwashed every bit as much as the children are. They're victims, too. However, these are the same mothers who've lied to state officials about the ages and relationships of the women and children collected in the raid. These are mothers who have proven, time-and-time again, that they will protect their husbands and the principle before they will protect their children. Marie - you really want your children back? Leave the religion wherein your six year old is pre-promised to a fifty year old. Simple as that. You can practice polygamy. You can practice fundamental mormonism. I think it's all crap, but just doing those things isn't breaking any laws or hurting a child. However, what has been done on that ranch and in that temple is flat-out wrong! Find a fundamental polygamous sect where women have to be 18 to be married and do so willingly and no one will give you a second glance.

It’s like Mardi Gras…only without the beads and boobs.

Apparently, "Atheism Is Masquerading As Science." Or, so says Dinesh D'Souza.

"The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is
routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. "


Evolution isn't scientific? WTF? Says who? But, I love the not-so-subtle attempt at poisoning the well. His arguments against teaching evolution in the classroom are so weak that he has to set about creating bias towards the concept as a whole. And, how many times do we, as atheists, have to point out to this idiot that evolution is not atheism. Believing in evolution is not a requirement for being an atheist! The two subjects are completely separate issues and any intelligent human being would understand that fact.

Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical
claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. Here are
some examples that are drawn from my recent bestseller What’s So Great About
Christianity.

I realize that it's unlikely, but I really hope Mr. D'Souza reads this blog: because, I would love for him to put his money where his mouth is. I have never seen a public school, science textbook wherein the theory of evolution is posited as a claim against a creator. I have a fifth, sixth, and eighth grade science text in front of me as I type this and all explanations of evolution are carefully worded to avoid any claims of the "metaphysical". They simply lay out; what we know about evolution as a people, how Darwin came up with the theory, how the theory has been re-tested and confirmed time and time again, and how it's one of the best explanations for how species seem to be suited to their environments. In fact, as someone who believes evolution is THE explanation, and not "one of", I think the textbook is very politically correct. How anyone could see that as a diatribe against a deity is beyond me and suggests serious projection issues...not to mention shitty reading comprehension skills.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On Human
Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and
environmental necessity, not God, made the species."

Is this accurate? I was under the impression that evolution didn't address the origins of life. So, has D'Souza misquoted the Harvard biologist or do we need to ask Professor Wilson to clarify his position? Is there any way we can find out if this quotation is accurate? Given D'Souza's track record, I wouldn't be surprised if he was quote mining.

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's Legacy: "No
intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...whatever we
think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."

What's the problem here? Gould is expressing his opinion. And, what is the context for this quote of Gould's? Did D'Souza not notice that Gould doesn't deny that a God may exist? Again, his inability to employ his reading comprehensions skills is mind-boggling. Gould says, "WHATEVER we think of God..."! That seems to suggest that Gould realizes some will believe in God even if they accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. Furthermore, D'Souza needs to put up or shut up. Quit whining and show us the evidence of God in nature. Show us something that can't be explained by scientific theory and has iron clad evidence of a creator God.

Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling
undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural
selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life
processes superfluous."


So? Again, Futuyma doesn't out-and-out say "there's no god". He only says that he sees no need for a spiritual explanation for life processes. How is this an atheist position? At best, it's a statement against creationism, but not against theism.

Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there
are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we
die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the
"greatest engine of atheism."

Again...I ask, "And?" Science DOESN'T provide moral and ethical laws. If it did, it wouldn't be science. It would be ethics! What the fark' is so difficult to understand about this?

In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, Francisco
Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is "the result of a natural
process...without any need to resort to a Creator."

Good Christ on Toast... I hate to sound like a broken record, but is D'Souza being intentionally obtuse? Once again, atheism is the position that God does not exist. Atheism says NOT ONE DAMN THING about evolution, abiogensis, science, or ethics. I happen to agree with Ayala, but not because I'm an atheist. I agree with Ayala, and the others noted above, because I find their positions and thoughts to be valid and interesting. I believe evolution is the best explanation for the adaptations and speciation we see on planet earth. To continuously misrepresent atheism (by claiming that atheism is directly tied to evolution) is disingenuous as hell and uninformed.

Some Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in
the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation
science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however,
have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed
whenever they have been tried in the courts.


Heck. I'd like to see a Christian point out "a" flaw, let alone many "flaws". Generally, when I've talked to Christians about what they perceive as "flaws" in evolution, I find that they've a poor understanding of evolution or have been misled by asshats like D'Souza. The reason ID and Creation Science haven't made much headway is because they're not scientifically sound! It has nothing to do with court hearings or "eeebil atheists". It has everything to do with rational people opposing the instruction pseudo science in public schools. Personally, asking me to allow ID to be taught in the classroom is a bit like asking me to let Sylvia Brown teach a course in forensic science. Or, like tossing Big Foot into the unit on animals of the Pacific Northwest. It's a waste of time and a disservice to the kids who deserve an education based on facts.

Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or
whether Darwin's theories can account for macroevolution or only microevolution.


For a group of people who don't care, they sure spend a lot of time and effort creating websites full of dishonest conjecture to refute what science tells us on these subjects.

What they care about is that evolution is being used to deny God as the
creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as
science, there is a better way.


*head meets desk*
Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a
better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out.


Again,...show me the "atheist propoganda" in the classroom. I suspect that it would be difficult since I've never seen it. I have, however, seen money wasted on signs that boldly claim "In God We Trust". Talk about your propoganda...

The rest of D'Souza's article rambles on about the Constitution and his misinterpretation of the separation clause and his continuous, false belief that atheism is "just another religion". He also suggests that teaching evolution is unconstitutional because it supports "the atheist religion". Bullshit. It's one thing to make statements and write articles from emotional positions without fact checking once. It's, possibly, even understandable to not comprehend what evolution is and isn't until you've sat down with an evolutionary scientist to discuss the matter. And, it's possible to misunderstand atheism. But, when you've discussed these issues with prominent scientists and atheists time-and-time again...and they try to explain to you how you're making very simple and childish mistakes, and you continue to stubbornly stick to a mantra that you know is crap...then you're lying. When you continue to misrepresent a scientific theory and a philosophy, despite multiple corrections and evidence, then you're a close-minded bigot.



_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";
urchinTracker();

Reader Mail - Atheist parenting questions





_uacct = "UA-2944228-1";



urchinTracker();




I'm finally getting caught up on all the e-mail that came in while I had the flu. For some reason, there were quite a few questions about secular parenting. I was pleasantly surprised by the tone of all the queries. Since these were asked out of, what I feel, was a genuine interest, I'm posting them here so others can weigh in (and foster a discussion). Like the last post, I've pulled out the questions and left the irrelevant bits out.

Cableskater asks... How do you discipline your possums? Do atheists believe in spanking?
I am not aware of any specific atheist pronouncements on disciplining children. Atheism doesn't address parenting or discipline - it ONLY addresses your position on the existence of a deity. That said, however, I don't think I've ever ran into an atheist parent who believes in physical or corporal punishment. This may be due to the fact that most atheists don't feel that they have dominion over their children (as the Bible would suggest). Or, it could be that, in my experience, atheist parents are generally non-violent. Personally, I don't believe in spanking because I think violence begets violence. If I strike my child in anger, or for punishment, then I'm sending a message that it's okay to take out your anger on someone smaller than you. It also makes no logical sense, to me, to spank a child. I believe that the punishment should fit the "crime". There should be logical consequences and spanking isn't logical. Additionally, I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by encouraging my children to fear me (or Pdaddy).

This doesn't mean that my children have free reign to misbehave. They don't. When they make a bad choice, there are repercussions. I see discipline as a way of preparing children for life. If they slack off on their chores, then they may not be included in an ice cream run or an activity...just as, if they were employed and didn't finish a task, they would have to miss out on fun activities until they caught up. If they don't get their chores done, or start using disrespectful language, then it wouldn't be uncommon for them to lose the distractions like the television or games or iPods. I've also taken a stand on certain shows that display a disrepectful attitude or rude language. I don't consider it censorship so much as I feel that a young child may possibly be oblivious to the fact that those behaviors or words aren't very nice. Until they reach an age where they understand the words/behaviors are rude, and can therefore abstain from using them in our family, the influences aren't welcome in the home.

One thing I didn't expect, when I started parenting by the above strategy, was how well it would work when it came time for the older kids to exercise restraint and recognize appropriate behavior. I've had phone calls from other parents saying that my kids expressed hesitancy to watch something (or play a game) that they knew Pdaddy and I would not approve of. This gives me great confidence in their ability to be honest to themselves and exercise self-control. And, as these things happen, I express to them how I am proud of their maturity. Pre-teens and teens want to be considered mature, so this is a better reward than any material reward.

StarsahoyKathy asks... Do you worry about your children finding spouses who are compatible or accepting of atheism?
Not often, but I can't say it's a question that hasn't entered my mind once or twice. I realize that the odds suggest they are more likely to meet a theist than an atheist. But, I've put that concern aside fo