Skip to content

Author Archive for Billyist

It ain’t sympathy for the Taliban

Published

by

on January 12, 2012

.

Yesterday, footage of U.S. Marines pissing on the bloodied dead bodies of people we're told were Taliban forces leaked onto the internet. Naturally, the blogsophere took this as an opportunity to display their divisiveness with the gun-humping, strict-father-model red staters sweeping their Bibles under the carpet and cheering on what the rest of the country can see is at least super disturbing.

The right can use this as an opportunity to let their jingoism fly and verbally attack anyone saying this is wrong as blaming America first or being Taliban sympathizers, but there's a serious fallacy being made there, perhaps even by some who agree that pissing on dead bodies is appalling.

It's not about respecting a dead body. A dead human body is about as valuable as a destroyed furniture. I don't entertain any illusions of the body needing respect just because it was a person. Nor am I too concerned with members of the Taliban. This isn't an issue of 'every person deserves respect,' if they were indeed Taliban, which hasn't been shown, than I think they do deserve disrespect. What I have a real problem with is: What are we doing to our men and women who join the military?

What kind of sick training do you have to endure to want to urinate on a blood stained corpse? It's gruesome. It's horrifying. Look, here's a metaphor, if my dog needs to be put down, I'm going to take him to the vet and have him humanely euthanized. I'm not going to take him to a vet who likes to stomp dogs to death. Even if I don't particularly love my dog, even if it did something horrible, like attack and kill someone, I don't want to bring it to the dog stomper. That's not who I am, I'm above that. Is there some difference in the Taliban? They're rapid dogs and they ought to be put down, for sure, but I don't really want to pay a bunch of guys who're going to piss on their dead bodies after they do it. That tells me that they delight in what they've done. I don't want my vet to enjoy killing animals, I want a vet who loves animals. In the same way, I don't want a military who loves killing people, I want a military who love people enough to want to protect them, even by killing others and putting their own lives at risk.

Peeing on dead bodies is like comic-book-villain, horror-movie-psycho-killer mentality. Is it any wonder more military veterans who served in Iraq are killing themselves than are dying in the war? We're turning these people into monsters. How does a man go home and hug his child with the image of a dead, bloodied face being pissed on and laughed at in his head?

What's been gained?

Casey Anthony and the legend of the Ten Commandments

Published

by

on August 1, 2011

.

I want to make a brief point here using this well-known and over-exposed case of Casey Anthony. Lets say, for arguments sake, Casey Anthony did, as well all suspect she did, kill her child or, at the very least, participate in the murder of her child. The country's outrage is immense. We can make lots of complaint about how you rarely see a minority child's murder being treated like this (this one outraged me far more than the Anthony case)or about how the interest in this case was fueled by heartless, self-interested opportunists like Nancy Grace, but we really are outraged. There's nothing that screams injustice to us more than the slaughter of an innocent, defenseless child at the hands of the one person who was supposed to protect her. We as a society value the family quite highly.

Now, Ms. Anthony is being brought back to Orlando in relation to a check fraud case. To you and I, this is a minor legal slight, especially in contrast to the murder of a small child. However, there are many religious ideas out there stating that, to God, all sins are equal. Indeed, the people defending this idea, that all sins are equal, and it's not a majority of Christians or Muslims saying this, but those who do advocate that position have an easier time proving their case through scripture than those who say some sins are more heinous than others.

Just look at the Ten Commandments for an example. Anthony, assuming she is guilty of both crimes, is guilty of breaking two commandments: One being the sixth commandment (No Killing) and one being the eighth commandment (false witness). And I guess a case could be made for the idea that in bearing false witness, writing a bad check, she, in effect, stole, so that would be the seventh commandment broken as well.

In the second violation she broke two commandments. Why is society more upset with her for breaking one commandment in the first violation? Why are we not really concerned about a false check, at least not on a national level, the way we're concerned with a murder?

Could it be that there's an aspect of humanity that has a greater system of morality in place than the one handed up to us from unrefined ancient cultures?

Get in line

Published

by

on June 20, 2011

.

Keeping church and state separate should be easy. It's simply a matter of each institution knowing their place. For instance, public schools are a state matter. It's not in a state's interest to promote a religion, but in public schools across America, particularly in one part of America, we are seeing religious forces slip their way in. Here's an example:

GALLATIN, Tenn. (AP) — Three Sumner County families claim the local public schools illegally promote Christianity.

A complaint to the school board made by American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee on the families' behalf claims the schools have shown a pattern of endorsing Christianity since at least 2006. Examples include the distribution of Bibles, a teacher who displayed a cross on a classroom wall and Christian prayers over school loudspeakers.

School board attorney Wesley Southerland told The Tennessean the board has been advised to "take all precautions necessary to make sure they are operating in a constitutional way."

The complaint to the board asks for the religious activities to cease, but it is not a lawsuit.

The ACLU of Tennessee successfully sued the Wilson County school system over similar issues in 2008.

Clearly, there's been a breach. But that ain't all, there's not one, not two but three high profile lawsuits this graduation season over the refusal of certain parties to remove prayers from their public school graduation ceremonies. Two of the students involved spoke on the non-prophets podcast.

The most frustrating aspect of this, of course, is that while praising the Constitution and pretending to be originalists, people like Governor fuckstick...I mean, Rick Perry, of Texas (the same great thinker who asked governors from around the country to come to his house and do a rain dance or something) spit on the Constitution and appoint judges more interested in promoting their theocratic views than justice to rule over cases like this. Then, he praises their decision.

I can't wait, and I seriously want to encourage any Muslim, Atheist, or Orthodox Jew to take advantage of the platform that the government is passively allowing to become a state sponsored church. I want someone to lead their class in a prayer to a non-Christian god. Some valedictorian should perform a Flying Spaghetti Monster prayer, a Muslim should make the whole room bow to Allah, an Orthodox Jew should make everyone listen to him sing in Hebrew for a while. Let's see how easily that sits with Rick Perry.

By the way, how do you feel about Fox declaring the forced prayer as a "victory?"

Get in line

Published

by

on June 20, 2011

.

Keeping church and state separate should be easy. It's simply a matter of each institution knowing their place. For instance, public schools are a state matter. It's not in a state's interest to promote a religion, but in public schools across America, particularly in one part of America, we are seeing religious forces slip their way in. Here's an example:

GALLATIN, Tenn. (AP) — Three Sumner County families claim the local public schools illegally promote Christianity.

A complaint to the school board made by American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee on the families' behalf claims the schools have shown a pattern of endorsing Christianity since at least 2006. Examples include the distribution of Bibles, a teacher who displayed a cross on a classroom wall and Christian prayers over school loudspeakers.

School board attorney Wesley Southerland told The Tennessean the board has been advised to "take all precautions necessary to make sure they are operating in a constitutional way."

The complaint to the board asks for the religious activities to cease, but it is not a lawsuit.

The ACLU of Tennessee successfully sued the Wilson County school system over similar issues in 2008.

Clearly, there's been a breach. But that ain't all, there's not one, not two but three high profile lawsuits this graduation season over the refusal of certain parties to remove prayers from their public school graduation ceremonies. Two of the students involved spoke on the non-prophets podcast.

The most frustrating aspect of this, of course, is that while praising the Constitution and pretending to be originalists, people like Governor fuckstick...I mean, Rick Perry, of Texas (the same great thinker who asked governors from around the country to come to his house and do a rain dance or something) spit on the Constitution and appoint judges more interested in promoting their theocratic views than justice to rule over cases like this. Then, he praises their decision.

I can't wait, and I seriously want to encourage any Muslim, Atheist, or Orthodox Jew to take advantage of the platform that the government is passively allowing to become a state sponsored church. I want someone to lead their class in a prayer to a non-Christian god. Some valedictorian should perform a Flying Spaghetti Monster prayer, a Muslim should make the whole room bow to Allah, an Orthodox Jew should make everyone listen to him sing in Hebrew for a while. Let's see how easily that sits with Rick Perry.

By the way, how do you feel about Fox declaring the forced prayer as a "victory?"

Texas aborts reason in anti-abortion measure

Published

by

on March 2, 2011

.

The controversial abortion sonogram bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 21-10. Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, got the two-thirds vote needed to bring it to the floor, effectively ensuring it would pass.

Senators spent Wednesday in tense negotiations. The bill hinged on the two-thirds vote to suspend the rules and bring it up, because lawmakers aren't simply split along party lines: A couple of anti-abortion Democrats support it, and one Republican opposes it on civil liberties grounds. The vote in the Senate was key to this legislation, because the overwhelming Republican majority in the House makes it likely to breeze through that chamber.

For more click here

The right-wing is no longer concerned with making a solid logical argument against abortion or convincing anyone that a fetus is a person and the latest measure they're taking in Texas testifies to that. This legislation, which has now passed both the Texas House and Senate will require women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus prior to the procedure. Be sure to acknowledge the careful language used when they say 'require.' Notice they don't use the term 'force.' However, that's exactly what's going on here. Women seeking an abortion in Texas, should this bill be made law, will be forced to view the fetus in a thinly-veiled attempt to guilt women out of going through with an abortion.

Oklahoma tried to pull this same stunt a little less than a year ago, but the governor there vetoed the bill. I can't imagine Texas Gov. Rick Perry will do the same.

The goal here is multi-layered. On the surface, it serves to humiliate and shame anyone seeking an abortion, leaving them psychologically scarred in an already very emotional hour. But it's deeper than that. This sort of legislation against reproductive rights aims to shift the conversation away from the tricky territory of individual rights, a phrase conservatives love to use, but rarely live up to.

When this story was mentioned on Good Reason News' tumblr, a liberal reader fell directly into this trap. That reader says, with an obviously sarcastic tone:

Let’s all guilt females into overpopulating the state with unwanted children that will cause crime rates to rise within 20 years.

Suddenly the discussion is where conservatives want it to be, this is the trick. This is when they've got you where they want you. Presumed consequences is a load of nonsense that allows conservatives to control the conversation.

Focus on this: Does the pregnant person deserve the right to a medical procedure or not? Everything else is a distraction, a detour designed to lead you down a path that dodges the real issue. Are we or are we not the owners of our own bodies? Is it the government's job to determine what medical procedures are necessary or not. All this talk about 'cases of rape' or 'using abortion as birth control' is just more decoys too, it's how they fool us into talking about how to best limit someone's right to an abortion.

People are autonomous creatures who deserve the right to make their own decisions in this matter, without being judged or supplying anyone with justification. I don't need to make the case to someone to get laser eye surgery and I don't need permission to get a face lift. If I break my knee, I don't need to defend my desire for treatment and nor should anyone owe anyone else an explanation on why they need an abortion.

It is, however, in the public's best interest to provide people seeking an abortion with a clean, safe, and affordable environment, not because of how the unwanted births might turn out, but because of simple economics. If we as a society either ban or make it economically unreasonable to obtain abortions we effectively open up a black-market that is guaranteed to result in horrors like the one seen in the Philadelphia office of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell's clinic, by the way, was not a Planned Parenthood center. It was a privately run facility.

It's so easy to fall into the trap of discussing what is, essentially, a non-sequitur. It's especially easy to make this mistake when the opposition refuses to address the actual issue at hand. When discussing abortion rights, the only rational approach is to focus on the 'rights' and not on the 'abortion.' Anything else and we're appealing to pathos, how we feel, and abandoning reason.

Texas aborts reason in anti-abortion measure

Published

by

on March 2, 2011

.

The controversial abortion sonogram bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 21-10. Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, got the two-thirds vote needed to bring it to the floor, effectively ensuring it would pass.

Senators spent Wednesday in tense negotiations. The bill hinged on the two-thirds vote to suspend the rules and bring it up, because lawmakers aren't simply split along party lines: A couple of anti-abortion Democrats support it, and one Republican opposes it on civil liberties grounds. The vote in the Senate was key to this legislation, because the overwhelming Republican majority in the House makes it likely to breeze through that chamber.

For more click here

The right-wing is no longer concerned with making a solid logical argument against abortion or convincing anyone that a fetus is a person and the latest measure they're taking in Texas testifies to that. This legislation, which has now passed both the Texas House and Senate will require women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus prior to the procedure. Be sure to acknowledge the careful language used when they say 'require.' Notice they don't use the term 'force.' However, that's exactly what's going on here. Women seeking an abortion in Texas, should this bill be made law, will be forced to view the fetus in a thinly-veiled attempt to guilt women out of going through with an abortion.

Oklahoma tried to pull this same stunt a little less than a year ago, but the governor there vetoed the bill. I can't imagine Texas Gov. Rick Perry will do the same.

The goal here is multi-layered. On the surface, it serves to humiliate and shame anyone seeking an abortion, leaving them psychologically scarred in an already very emotional hour. But it's deeper than that. This sort of legislation against reproductive rights aims to shift the conversation away from the tricky territory of individual rights, a phrase conservatives love to use, but rarely live up to.

When this story was mentioned on Good Reason News' tumblr, a liberal reader fell directly into this trap. That reader says, with an obviously sarcastic tone:

Let’s all guilt females into overpopulating the state with unwanted children that will cause crime rates to rise within 20 years.

Suddenly the discussion is where conservatives want it to be, this is the trick. This is when they've got you where they want you. Presumed consequences is a load of nonsense that allows conservatives to control the conversation.

Focus on this: Does the pregnant person deserve the right to a medical procedure or not? Everything else is a distraction, a detour designed to lead you down a path that dodges the real issue. Are we or are we not the owners of our own bodies? Is it the government's job to determine what medical procedures are necessary or not. All this talk about 'cases of rape' or 'using abortion as birth control' is just more decoys too, it's how they fool us into talking about how to best limit someone's right to an abortion.

People are autonomous creatures who deserve the right to make their own decisions in this matter, without being judged or supplying anyone with justification. I don't need to make the case to someone to get laser eye surgery and I don't need permission to get a face lift. If I break my knee, I don't need to defend my desire for treatment and nor should anyone owe anyone else an explanation on why they need an abortion.

It is, however, in the public's best interest to provide people seeking an abortion with a clean, safe, and affordable environment, not because of how the unwanted births might turn out, but because of simple economics. If we as a society either ban or make it economically unreasonable to obtain abortions we effectively open up a black-market that is guaranteed to result in horrors like the one seen in the Philadelphia office of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell's clinic, by the way, was not a Planned Parenthood center. It was a privately run facility.

It's so easy to fall into the trap of discussing what is, essentially, a non-sequitur. It's especially easy to make this mistake when the opposition refuses to address the actual issue at hand. When discussing abortion rights, the only rational approach is to focus on the 'rights' and not on the 'abortion.' Anything else and we're appealing to pathos, how we feel, and abandoning reason.

Religion shames education and leaves us with NARTH crackpots

Published

by

on January 17, 2011

.

I don’t see the world in black & white, ‘with us or against us,’ ‘which side are you on?’ terms. There are few absolutes in life and most everything is better classified through a spectrum. But some issues have been forced and now stand before the public demanding to a decision and it’s time we made up our minds. Lets look at how we talk about homosexuality in schools. Along that issue's spectrum are the parents who think kids ought not be exposed to sexuality at such ‘young ages.’ You’d be surprised what people tell me is too young. I’ve been told 10 and 11-year-olds are babies, too immature, who will be scarred for life if they hear any whisper of how human sexuality functions and the diversity of sexualities. How sad that some parents consider kids who’re right on the brink of sexual development to be so fragile. The fact is kids are a lot smarter than you think and they talk to each other, gasp, freely. This generation, more than any other ever, are surrounded, inescapably, by outside media influences from every angle. But, you know, there’s a lot of misinformation out there, some of it deliberate. It’d be nice if parents would get on board with teaching their children early on with a trustworthy voice of authority about these issues rather than delude themselves into thinking they’re successfully shielding their children from talk of sexuality. If you think your kids aren’t mature enough to learn about sexual issues because you’ve never heard them bring it up, consider that they may feel the same way about you.

What’s appalling is that even at the high school level there continue to be debates about what is acceptable to teach and make no mistake, it’s as much about what is acceptable to the culture of the community as it is about the benefit of the actual students. While some would say it’s OK to teach children the simple message of tolerance there remains those who hold stubborn that homosexuals ought to be shunned, shamed and closeted.

Remember 6 years ago when “Doctor” James Dobson of Focus on the Family accused Spongebob Squarepants of being gay, of teaching children to be gay and of supporting homosexuality? Well that scene’s playing itself out again in Michigan:

Howell High School teacher Jay McDowell on
Thursday during a peaceful "Diversity Teach-In:
Addressing Bullying In Our Schools and Community"
symposium recognized Howell Public Schools is
taking steps to combat bullying of all types.

He said the district this week brought in Dr. Marcia
McEvoy, a licensed psychologist who specializes in
violence prevention, to work with Howell High
students. McEvoy, McDowell said, will work with
teachers to promote anti-bullying, as well.

"Since the incident, students have placed silhouettes
outside the high school discussing what groups
like Muslims, gays and the obese go through in an
effort to put forth the anti-bullying message,"
McDowell told the crowd at the symposium, which
took place at The Opera House in downtown Howell.

"The district is doing everything it can to become a
model district," he added. "But we've got to do
more."

The event comes in the aftermath of an Oct. 20
incident that resulted in McDowell getting
suspended one day without pay after an argument
with a student that involved a discussion about
homosexuality. That incident has garnered
international attention and has started dialogue on
ways to prevent bullying and homophobia.

A grievance hearing on McDowell's discipline,
which he has said was unwarranted, took place Dec. 21. A decision is expected sometime this month.

I bet you can guess the culprit here. According to one man, who wrote in to the local paper:
The real story is how [a] 16-year-old Howell High School junior...stood up to McDowell and told him that he didn't support the gay lifestyle because of his Catholic beliefs, which prompted McDowell to remove [the student] and another student from the class.

Religion, eh? No kidding.

Besides the obvious evidence that religion teaches that bigotry is not only sanctioned, but encouraged, by the all-knowing creator of all existence, there's another negative outcome of keeping your kids out of this discussion.

The idea that homosexuality or anything in the LGBTQIT range is the result of a psychological disorder has been around for a long time, but

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions have moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

However, since the subject of homosexuality remains, even to this day, a classroom taboo people have come up with bad information and bad information begets bad actions and hence we have organizations like NARTH.

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is an organization filled with fringe psychologists with little support who seek to keep alive old stereotypes about homosexuals and 'repair' gay and transgendered people. Some of their ideas include 'homosexuality is a psychological disorder,' 'gay men are gay because they had a bad relationship with their father' or 'the color of childhood toys can influence gender identity later in life.'

Hey, guess who worked as a 'scientific advisor' for NARTH before he got caught purchasing sexual favors from young men? Focus on the Family's own George Rekers. And if that's not enough to explain just who these people are, check out this short video:

The point is as long as we allow religion to silence people like Jay McDowell who try to teach acceptance and tolerance, we allow the blossoming of this sort of stubborn refusal to acknowledge diversity even in the face of demonstrated, peer reviewed and established science fact. This isn't about science, as much as these NARTH charlatans want to convince us that they're professionals. What's important to them is their mission to force their worldview. They're like terrorists. I'm sure at some point in their life they were shown that the world isn't theirs to understand and dictate easily digested social norms to, but instead of just living the best they can, they guard their illusions through these misadventures. Trying to teach people the proper way to live. I mean, maybe that's just my armchair psychology, but what they do seems so pointlessly defensive. Like anti-gay politicians or preachers just before admitting that they themselves are gay.

And those who say, the schools should just lay off the topic altogether, you're creating the atmosphere in which hate groups like Focus on the Family and NARTH can thrive. You're nurturing ignorance when you should be encouraging education. We are, after all, talking about schools. But I can see why the religious are afraid to allow public schools to address their kids on topics of homosexuality. If their background is in the church or religious education what they're used to is being told what to think and not, as is done in public school, shown how to think.

Religion shames education and leaves us with NARTH crackpots

Published

by

on January 17, 2011

.

I don’t see the world in black & white, ‘with us or against us,’ ‘which side are you on?’ terms. There are few absolutes in life and most everything is better classified through a spectrum. But some issues have been forced and now stand before the public demanding to a decision and it’s time we made up our minds. Lets look at how we talk about homosexuality in schools. Along that issue's spectrum are the parents who think kids ought not be exposed to sexuality at such ‘young ages.’ You’d be surprised what people tell me is too young. I’ve been told 10 and 11-year-olds are babies, too immature, who will be scarred for life if they hear any whisper of how human sexuality functions and the diversity of sexualities. How sad that some parents consider kids who’re right on the brink of sexual development to be so fragile. The fact is kids are a lot smarter than you think and they talk to each other, gasp, freely. This generation, more than any other ever, are surrounded, inescapably, by outside media influences from every angle. But, you know, there’s a lot of misinformation out there, some of it deliberate. It’d be nice if parents would get on board with teaching their children early on with a trustworthy voice of authority about these issues rather than delude themselves into thinking they’re successfully shielding their children from talk of sexuality. If you think your kids aren’t mature enough to learn about sexual issues because you’ve never heard them bring it up, consider that they may feel the same way about you.

What’s appalling is that even at the high school level there continue to be debates about what is acceptable to teach and make no mistake, it’s as much about what is acceptable to the culture of the community as it is about the benefit of the actual students. While some would say it’s OK to teach children the simple message of tolerance there remains those who hold stubborn that homosexuals ought to be shunned, shamed and closeted.

Remember 6 years ago when “Doctor” James Dobson of Focus on the Family accused Spongebob Squarepants of being gay, of teaching children to be gay and of supporting homosexuality? Well that scene’s playing itself out again in Michigan:

Howell High School teacher Jay McDowell on
Thursday during a peaceful "Diversity Teach-In:
Addressing Bullying In Our Schools and Community"
symposium recognized Howell Public Schools is
taking steps to combat bullying of all types.

He said the district this week brought in Dr. Marcia
McEvoy, a licensed psychologist who specializes in
violence prevention, to work with Howell High
students. McEvoy, McDowell said, will work with
teachers to promote anti-bullying, as well.

"Since the incident, students have placed silhouettes
outside the high school discussing what groups
like Muslims, gays and the obese go through in an
effort to put forth the anti-bullying message,"
McDowell told the crowd at the symposium, which
took place at The Opera House in downtown Howell.

"The district is doing everything it can to become a
model district," he added. "But we've got to do
more."

The event comes in the aftermath of an Oct. 20
incident that resulted in McDowell getting
suspended one day without pay after an argument
with a student that involved a discussion about
homosexuality. That incident has garnered
international attention and has started dialogue on
ways to prevent bullying and homophobia.

A grievance hearing on McDowell's discipline,
which he has said was unwarranted, took place Dec. 21. A decision is expected sometime this month.

I bet you can guess the culprit here. According to one man, who wrote in to the local paper:
The real story is how [a] 16-year-old Howell High School junior...stood up to McDowell and told him that he didn't support the gay lifestyle because of his Catholic beliefs, which prompted McDowell to remove [the student] and another student from the class.

Religion, eh? No kidding.

Besides the obvious evidence that religion teaches that bigotry is not only sanctioned, but encouraged, by the all-knowing creator of all existence, there's another negative outcome of keeping your kids out of this discussion.

The idea that homosexuality or anything in the LGBTQIT range is the result of a psychological disorder has been around for a long time, but

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions have moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

However, since the subject of homosexuality remains, even to this day, a classroom taboo people have come up with bad information and bad information begets bad actions and hence we have organizations like NARTH.

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is an organization filled with fringe psychologists with little support who seek to keep alive old stereotypes about homosexuals and 'repair' gay and transgendered people. Some of their ideas include 'homosexuality is a psychological disorder,' 'gay men are gay because they had a bad relationship with their father' or 'the color of childhood toys can influence gender identity later in life.'

Hey, guess who worked as a 'scientific advisor' for NARTH before he got caught purchasing sexual favors from young men? Focus on the Family's own George Rekers. And if that's not enough to explain just who these people are, check out this short video:

The point is as long as we allow religion to silence people like Jay McDowell who try to teach acceptance and tolerance, we allow the blossoming of this sort of stubborn refusal to acknowledge diversity even in the face of demonstrated, peer reviewed and established science fact. This isn't about science, as much as these NARTH charlatans want to convince us that they're professionals. What's important to them is their mission to force their worldview. They're like terrorists. I'm sure at some point in their life they were shown that the world isn't theirs to understand and dictate easily digested social norms to, but instead of just living the best they can, they guard their illusions through these misadventures. Trying to teach people the proper way to live. I mean, maybe that's just my armchair psychology, but what they do seems so pointlessly defensive. Like anti-gay politicians or preachers just before admitting that they themselves are gay.

And those who say, the schools should just lay off the topic altogether, you're creating the atmosphere in which hate groups like Focus on the Family and NARTH can thrive. You're nurturing ignorance when you should be encouraging education. We are, after all, talking about schools. But I can see why the religious are afraid to allow public schools to address their kids on topics of homosexuality. If their background is in the church or religious education what they're used to is being told what to think and not, as is done in public school, shown how to think.

Why no one should ever accept ‘never argue’ as an answer

Published

by

on January 3, 2011

.

Happy New Year, dear readers. I hope you've all enjoyed your time off, if you had any, and are positive for 2011.

As you may of may not be aware, we will be facing the rapture this year, so that's a good reason to start buying on credit.

I'll tell you one thing about this coming rapture: I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who accepts it. Never ever! I mean, what's the point, right? Why should anyone ever assert an opinion? Let's all just be accommodationists to any idea, right? For instance, people who worship a false god ought to be put to death, according to some. Who am I to tell them they're wrong?

At least, that's how I'd be talking if I listened to the advice of Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge. Chellew-Hodge is an openly homosexual UCC pastor who makes her money doling out reinterpretations of Christianity designed to make homosexuals feel welcomed in the church. More specifically, it instructs its readers how to argue in favor of staying in a church that condemns their existence. I haven't read her book, but I wouldn't be all that shocked to see an argument in favor of The United Church of Christ.

Reform churches like the UCC are but the morphine to a 'traditional' church's heroin. Its socially liberal views are designed to attract people like Rev. Chellew-Hodge, but are based in nothing but societal values. In other words, because American society today doesn't see homosexuals as lepers, these reformed churches have molded their teachings to fit what is acceptable. This of course begs the question: Do the parishioners of these churches get their morals from religion or do they organize their religion in a way that matches the values they obtained elsewhere? If it's the latter, why bother adding the religion at all? We atheist bloggers often condemn people who use their religion to justify terrible things, but the same logical flaws exist when they use their religion to justify positive things. What's being taught through these churches is that these moral decisions can't be arrived at on one's own. You need an institution to tell you that a divine power has approved the decision.

In traditional churches, the approval of decisions by a divine power is usually the conclusion of studying a religious text. But not for Rev. Chellew-Hodge. She prefers a 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' approach. Just look at her recent article in The Huffington Post.

It's called "Why gays and lesbians should never argue scripture." Oh, really, Reverend? Never EVER!?

The article title itself perfectly describes the harm caused these reformed, liberal churches, they seek to silence dissent through pacification.

Her article begins:

"When are you going to talk about scripture that condemns homosexuality?"

The question came from a young woman who attended a workshop based on my book Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. This particular workshop was held a couple of years ago on a college campus and attracted a cross-section of students who were both supporters and detractors of homosexuality.

This question is usually asked by a pro-gay person who wants to know how to answer challengers who quote scripture. This woman was different -- she had come for an argument and intended to challenge me with anti-gay interpretations of scripture.

"We're not going to talk about those passages specifically," I told her. "Instead, part of this workshop is on why we should never argue scripture with anyone ever again."

I'm going to jump in here: If you're not going to talk about passages specifically, what the hell are you basing your Christianity on? If you're just culling together a collection of moral opinions I'm not sure it's fair to call it "Christianity." Even if, according to her, accepting homosexuals is 'in the spirit of Christianity.' I mean, if Charles Manson said to love your parents It wouldn't really make sense for me to attribute loving your parents to 'Mansonism,' and it'd be even less fair for me to them jump ahead and assume that he also meant to love your siblings. As if I can just claim that in an effort to define morality 'in the spirit' of Charles Manson.

Here's another thing: I'm much more offended by the pastor who tells me not to argue than the one who will argue with me on twitter for an hour telling me I'm evil and going to hell. At least those who talk to me and disagree allow me the courtesy of my opinion. At least I'm allowed to express a view with someone who will tell me those views will lead me to eternal damnation. What Rev. Chellew-Hodge does is much worse. She denies me my view. She tells me before hand whatever I say doesn't matter. She seeks to marginalize anyone who thinks their moral system may, in fact, be their own. And she says so, explicitly:

There are several reasons that gays and lesbians should never argue scripture. First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.

Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.

You know what, Reverend? You're just plain wrong about this. Of course someone wins a 'they said, they said argument.' If you happen to surround yourself with people so intellectually dishonest that they can't acknowledge that what they're saying doesn't make sense or is inaccurate, that's a shame, but a persons refusal to acknowledge defeat doesn't make the argument a draw.

To suggest that people only believe what they already agree with is presumptuous and condescending. It suggests people don't grow or learn or change. Well, I changed, ma'am. I went to church and I believed in Christianity and everything that went alone with it. But as I grew I started to notice that the values of compassion, of equality, freedom and justice are inconsistent with what I'd learned in the church. Arguments about scripture are what brought me there and it wasn't even arguments against scripture. More often, arguments in favor of scripture drove me to reassess with whom I ally my morals. And I'm not alone. Many atheists went through this process, including Atheist Experience host and president of the Atheist Community of Austin in Texas Matt Dillahunty often talks about his time studying to become a pastor and learning the arguments in support of the religion only to discover that they held no water.

It's not about who argues the longest or the loudest: it's about who is the most logical. Logic needs not be loud or long, in fact, it's usually pretty simple.

Her argument goes on to make a lot of assumptions about people without any basis. She doesn't even give anecdotal reasons for her armchair psychology like the one she started out with, but that's a typical slight-of-hand practiced by pastors, preachers, priests and Imams. You can't ask for evidence that people don't change, or that their morals are as malleable as reform churches suggest or that there exists any evidence of their particular god.

You just have to take everything they say on faith or else face the terrifying prospect of thinking on your own.

Why no one should ever accept ‘never argue’ as an answer

Published

by

on January 3, 2011

.

Happy New Year, dear readers. I hope you've all enjoyed your time off, if you had any, and are positive for 2011.

As you may of may not be aware, we will be facing the rapture this year, so that's a good reason to start buying on credit.

I'll tell you one thing about this coming rapture: I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who accepts it. Never ever! I mean, what's the point, right? Why should anyone ever assert an opinion? Let's all just be accommodationists to any idea, right? For instance, people who worship a false god ought to be put to death, according to some. Who am I to tell them they're wrong?

At least, that's how I'd be talking if I listened to the advice of Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge. Chellew-Hodge is an openly homosexual UCC pastor who makes her money doling out reinterpretations of Christianity designed to make homosexuals feel welcomed in the church. More specifically, it instructs its readers how to argue in favor of staying in a church that condemns their existence. I haven't read her book, but I wouldn't be all that shocked to see an argument in favor of The United Church of Christ.

Reform churches like the UCC are but the morphine to a 'traditional' church's heroin. Its socially liberal views are designed to attract people like Rev. Chellew-Hodge, but are based in nothing but societal values. In other words, because American society today doesn't see homosexuals as lepers, these reformed churches have molded their teachings to fit what is acceptable. This of course begs the question: Do the parishioners of these churches get their morals from religion or do they organize their religion in a way that matches the values they obtained elsewhere? If it's the latter, why bother adding the religion at all? We atheist bloggers often condemn people who use their religion to justify terrible things, but the same logical flaws exist when they use their religion to justify positive things. What's being taught through these churches is that these moral decisions can't be arrived at on one's own. You need an institution to tell you that a divine power has approved the decision.

In traditional churches, the approval of decisions by a divine power is usually the conclusion of studying a religious text. But not for Rev. Chellew-Hodge. She prefers a 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' approach. Just look at her recent article in The Huffington Post.

It's called "Why gays and lesbians should never argue scripture." Oh, really, Reverend? Never EVER!?

The article title itself perfectly describes the harm caused these reformed, liberal churches, they seek to silence dissent through pacification.

Her article begins:

"When are you going to talk about scripture that condemns homosexuality?"

The question came from a young woman who attended a workshop based on my book Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. This particular workshop was held a couple of years ago on a college campus and attracted a cross-section of students who were both supporters and detractors of homosexuality.

This question is usually asked by a pro-gay person who wants to know how to answer challengers who quote scripture. This woman was different -- she had come for an argument and intended to challenge me with anti-gay interpretations of scripture.

"We're not going to talk about those passages specifically," I told her. "Instead, part of this workshop is on why we should never argue scripture with anyone ever again."

I'm going to jump in here: If you're not going to talk about passages specifically, what the hell are you basing your Christianity on? If you're just culling together a collection of moral opinions I'm not sure it's fair to call it "Christianity." Even if, according to her, accepting homosexuals is 'in the spirit of Christianity.' I mean, if Charles Manson said to love your parents It wouldn't really make sense for me to attribute loving your parents to 'Mansonism,' and it'd be even less fair for me to them jump ahead and assume that he also meant to love your siblings. As if I can just claim that in an effort to define morality 'in the spirit' of Charles Manson.

Here's another thing: I'm much more offended by the pastor who tells me not to argue than the one who will argue with me on twitter for an hour telling me I'm evil and going to hell. At least those who talk to me and disagree allow me the courtesy of my opinion. At least I'm allowed to express a view with someone who will tell me those views will lead me to eternal damnation. What Rev. Chellew-Hodge does is much worse. She denies me my view. She tells me before hand whatever I say doesn't matter. She seeks to marginalize anyone who thinks their moral system may, in fact, be their own. And she says so, explicitly:

There are several reasons that gays and lesbians should never argue scripture. First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.

Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.

You know what, Reverend? You're just plain wrong about this. Of course someone wins a 'they said, they said argument.' If you happen to surround yourself with people so intellectually dishonest that they can't acknowledge that what they're saying doesn't make sense or is inaccurate, that's a shame, but a persons refusal to acknowledge defeat doesn't make the argument a draw.

To suggest that people only believe what they already agree with is presumptuous and condescending. It suggests people don't grow or learn or change. Well, I changed, ma'am. I went to church and I believed in Christianity and everything that went alone with it. But as I grew I started to notice that the values of compassion, of equality, freedom and justice are inconsistent with what I'd learned in the church. Arguments about scripture are what brought me there and it wasn't even arguments against scripture. More often, arguments in favor of scripture drove me to reassess with whom I ally my morals. And I'm not alone. Many atheists went through this process, including Atheist Experience host and president of the Atheist Community of Austin in Texas Matt Dillahunty often talks about his time studying to become a pastor and learning the arguments in support of the religion only to discover that they held no water.

It's not about who argues the longest or the loudest: it's about who is the most logical. Logic needs not be loud or long, in fact, it's usually pretty simple.

Her argument goes on to make a lot of assumptions about people without any basis. She doesn't even give anecdotal reasons for her armchair psychology like the one she started out with, but that's a typical slight-of-hand practiced by pastors, preachers, priests and Imams. You can't ask for evidence that people don't change, or that their morals are as malleable as reform churches suggest or that there exists any evidence of their particular god.

You just have to take everything they say on faith or else face the terrifying prospect of thinking on your own.

Prayer Deadly To Sick Children part IV

Published

by

on December 7, 2010

.

Let them, the whiny ‘coexist-nicks’ and the Christian exceptionalists and the self-congratulating thought-terminators barging in like a first grader showing off his knowledge of the rules that declare upon any challenge to one’s religion that everybody has a right to their own opinion, come and ask why it is that we must be vocal about what we don’t believe. Let them invent their armchair pop-psychological diagnoses that claim that atheists have some beef with a god we secretly believe in, let them present us with that absurdity. Let them challenge our upbringings and prescribe us with their many superstitions and nonsensical ramblings, magic spells they call prayers. And when they ask why we are not silent or why we won’t lie down in the name of some flawed concept of tolerance or why we refuse to buy in to their lies and their fears, we will answer with the name of 2-year-old deceased Philadelphian Kent Schaible or 15-month-old Ava Worthington or 11-year-old Madeline 'Kara' Neumann, a diabetic whose parents refused her insulin and were subsequently sentenced to a mere six-month sentence in this murder simply by pleading religion, and the countless other children whose parents relied on a magic spell, whose authors were practically cavemen, and a ghost in the clouds. And we will ask them back how they accept that. How does one tolerate this?

I am an atheist. I don’t believe in god or Jesus or prophets or souls or afterlives. My morality has not suffered. I did not stand by and watch a child die needlessly, with real medical help only minutes away in favor of testing my magical spells. My heart is not cold. I don’t seek to steal anyone’s security blanket.

I’m an atheist and I’m proud to be one.

Prayer Deadly To Sick Children part IV

Published

by

on December 7, 2010

.

Let them, the whiny ‘coexist-nicks’ and the Christian exceptionalists and the self-congratulating thought-terminators barging in like a first grader showing off his knowledge of the rules that declare upon any challenge to one’s religion that everybody has a right to their own opinion, come and ask why it is that we must be vocal about what we don’t believe. Let them invent their armchair pop-psychological diagnoses that claim that atheists have some beef with a god we secretly believe in, let them present us with that absurdity. Let them challenge our upbringings and prescribe us with their many superstitions and nonsensical ramblings, magic spells they call prayers. And when they ask why we are not silent or why we won’t lie down in the name of some flawed concept of tolerance or why we refuse to buy in to their lies and their fears, we will answer with the name of 2-year-old deceased Philadelphian Kent Schaible or 15-month-old Ava Worthington or 11-year-old Madeline 'Kara' Neumann, a diabetic whose parents refused her insulin and were subsequently sentenced to a mere six-month sentence in this murder simply by pleading religion, and the countless other children whose parents relied on a magic spell, whose authors were practically cavemen, and a ghost in the clouds. And we will ask them back how they accept that. How does one tolerate this?

I am an atheist. I don’t believe in god or Jesus or prophets or souls or afterlives. My morality has not suffered. I did not stand by and watch a child die needlessly, with real medical help only minutes away in favor of testing my magical spells. My heart is not cold. I don’t seek to steal anyone’s security blanket.

I’m an atheist and I’m proud to be one.

Islam+Government=Cruelty

Published

by

on November 13, 2010

.

How much can we respect religion? I don't mean religious people, they're people and they deserve respect. But does a belief deserve respect? And what does it mean to respect a belief?

In Pakistan, a nuclear threat to the world frequently referred to as the most dangerous nation on Earth, is a violent Islamic theocracy. Like any nation controlled by dogma, the people, the actual living human beings, come second to the superstition. In America, we are free because our government doesn't (ideally) favor any religion. Of course, more than often it does favor a particular brand of Christianity, but at least the U.S. government has enough checks and balances to keep religion from directly running everything with a iron fist. It's not just that Islam is cruel or Christianity is cruel, they both are viciously cruel, but in America, the people come first. In Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia and other nations where religion rules, superstition comes first. Nonsense comes first. And when something other than the people come first, any cost is justifiable.

Add that misplaced priority to this: If you believe in one religion, you reject all others. So if a Christian lives in a society where Islam rules, that Christian is an insult to the god (what's it's ridiculous name? Oh, right, allahlalalalalalalala).

So we've got a dangerous nation who puts a silly ancient story above caring for people, plus an individual which threatens the society by having a different religion; it equals this:

Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.

Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.

Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.

Ashiq Masih, her husband, said he had not had the heart to break the news to two of their children.

"I haven't told two of my younger daughters about the court's decision," he said. "They asked me many times about their mother but I can't get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed." Mrs Bibi has been held in prison since June last year.

The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.

Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.

Not to mention, it's not just Christians that societies oppressed by Islam hate. They'd kill me too for blogging about atheism.

In the West Bank town of Qalqiliya, 26 year-old Walid Husayin was arrested for not believing in God. While the West Bank is predominantly Muslim, the Palestinian Authority which governs the region is known as being one of the most liberal in the Arab world and supports a more secular government and yet now Husayin faces life in prison and possibly the death penalty for being an atheist.

Walid Husayin is a blogger and has created a facebook account under a false name in which he wrote some critical things about Islam and Allah. He even created several facebook groups mocking the dominant religion in his town. In one group, he jokingly claimed to be God and instructed followers to smoke marijuana.

Keep this in mind the next time someone tries to suggest that government should be influenced by religion.

Islam+Government=Cruelty

Published

by

on November 13, 2010

.

How much can we respect religion? I don't mean religious people, they're people and they deserve respect. But does a belief deserve respect? And what does it mean to respect a belief?

In Pakistan, a nuclear threat to the world frequently referred to as the most dangerous nation on Earth, is a violent Islamic theocracy. Like any nation controlled by dogma, the people, the actual living human beings, come second to the superstition. In America, we are free because our government doesn't (ideally) favor any religion. Of course, more than often it does favor a particular brand of Christianity, but at least the U.S. government has enough checks and balances to keep religion from directly running everything with a iron fist. It's not just that Islam is cruel or Christianity is cruel, they both are viciously cruel, but in America, the people come first. In Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia and other nations where religion rules, superstition comes first. Nonsense comes first. And when something other than the people come first, any cost is justifiable.

Add that misplaced priority to this: If you believe in one religion, you reject all others. So if a Christian lives in a society where Islam rules, that Christian is an insult to the god (what's it's ridiculous name? Oh, right, allahlalalalalalalala).

So we've got a dangerous nation who puts a silly ancient story above caring for people, plus an individual which threatens the society by having a different religion; it equals this:

Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.

Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.

Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.

Ashiq Masih, her husband, said he had not had the heart to break the news to two of their children.

"I haven't told two of my younger daughters about the court's decision," he said. "They asked me many times about their mother but I can't get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed." Mrs Bibi has been held in prison since June last year.

The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.

Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.

Not to mention, it's not just Christians that societies oppressed by Islam hate. They'd kill me too for blogging about atheism.

In the West Bank town of Qalqiliya, 26 year-old Walid Husayin was arrested for not believing in God. While the West Bank is predominantly Muslim, the Palestinian Authority which governs the region is known as being one of the most liberal in the Arab world and supports a more secular government and yet now Husayin faces life in prison and possibly the death penalty for being an atheist.

Walid Husayin is a blogger and has created a facebook account under a false name in which he wrote some critical things about Islam and Allah. He even created several facebook groups mocking the dominant religion in his town. In one group, he jokingly claimed to be God and instructed followers to smoke marijuana.

Keep this in mind the next time someone tries to suggest that government should be influenced by religion.

How far back do they want this country?

Published

by

on November 10, 2010

.

It was without much surprise conservatives swept last week's midterm elections. The re-energized right, dressed in teabags and tri-corner hats, took back the house and several governorships. They even managed to pass a few wedge issues. In California, marijuana legalization was turned down. Arizona voted against health care. Arizona made affirmative action illegal. And, of course, there was Kansas who passed the right to bear arms. Ground-breaking stuff, Kansas, if only someone had thought of that 234 years ago and applied it on a federal level. For those not familiar with how a wedge issue works, I'll go over it briefly. You see, when a political party can't energize their voters about their candidate, or they feel they need a boost, they fight to get issues that traditionally rally their voters onto the ballot. It doesn't matter that the issue is often unprovoked, what matters is if you tell a conservative they have the chance to approve the 2nd Amendment, and on a state level, that's likely to get certain folks to squeeze their plus-sized pajama jeans into a voting booth and pull the lever and, while they're there, click an X next to the GOP candidate.

As discussed recently in this blog, Karl Rove did what he could in 2004 to get out the anti-gay vote and it worked. Conservative Christians pushed President Bush over the top and homophobia reigned
supreme. This election, four states ran a ballot measure on the right to hunt. To hunt! Who do you think they're appealing to there? Well, in Arizona 8 Republicans won house seats, Republican governor Jan Brewer won as did a Republican attorney general. Interestingly enough, the right to hunt did not pass there, but that doesn't mean it didn't help mobilize people, who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote, to pull the lever for Brewer. Arkansas has a new Republican senator and they passed the right to hunt. Of course Sen. Jim DeMint won in S. Carolina as did Tea Party-backed Nikki Haley. 89% of voters there voted for the right to hunt. Tennessee also has a new Republican governor and also passed an amendment protecting the right to hunt.

But while the right to hunt or bear arms seems kind of silly and pandering a more worrisome wedge issue passed and is causing a lot of legal trouble. In (sigh, say it with me now) Oklahoma a measure to ban Islamic or Sharia Law from being considered in a court of law. Now, I agree that Islamic Law should never be considered in a court of law in America or anywhere else. It's a ridiculous ancient, inhumane system practiced today largely by cruel, inhumane (in other words, Islamic) societies. Islamic Law has poisoned every nation it's touched and reversed progress 100% of the time. Never has a nation in the world been improved by a religion, in particular Islam, being introduced into government policy. Take a look at Sudan, where Islam perpetrates a genocide, or Iran where a burgeoning westernized nation was stamped out by Islamic Law, or Saudi Arabia, where religious police make sure people pray on time. It's sick and it's inhumane.

And so it's easy to see why people would come out and vote to block Sharia Law from being considered in America. But I have to suspect the motive, and so do you. It's not about a single court case in New Jersey that was almost instantly overturned, if it was, why would this issue be presented only in Oklahoma? No, this is another wedge issue. It must be the case that Islam polls particularly poorly in Oklahoma among likely Republican voters. Throwing this issue on the ballot is something designed to transform a likely Republican voter into a certain Republican voter. The best interest of the people of Oklahoma isn't at stake here. The illusion is that something was being voted on that needs to be voted on, just like the right to hunt. No one's threatening the right to hunt in Tennessee or bear arms in Kansas and no one's threatening to betray the First Amendment and consider Sharia Law in Oklahoma courts.

But, alas, the amendment passed and, although it's content is already covered in the 1st Amendment, it's passing, which targets a particular religion, also violates the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 16 words that have been interpreted, explained and clarified for two hundred years, from the original authors to ministers to recent conservative presidents.

Government, as President Reagan put it, must remain neutral on religion. To single out a single religion to "remain neutral on" is a betrayal of the 1st Amendment and I'm not the only one to recognize that. The Council on American-Islamic relations also noticed it and now they're filing a lawsuit, which Oklahoma, a conservative stronghold against wasteful government spending, is going to have to dig into tax dollars to defend.

There's a lot of talk in the Tea Party movement about reclaiming the country and getting back "Constitutional principals." The problem is that a lot of what they're talking about are revisionary interpretations of the Constitution. The Lee Atwater version. the Cleon Skousen version.

It seems to me like the assault on progressive ideas like affirmative action and civil rights and the superfluous reinstatement of 2nd Amendment, (and a biased rewriting of the 1st) are all evidence that the far right are living out their revisionary fantasies. History's not on their side so they're trying to change history, by starting over in some alternate universe where freedom of religion exists only for Christians, racism is just 'the breaks,' and everyone's bootstraps are just as accessible as the next guy's.

What's amazing is that we're talking about Oklahoma here. A state that came out so strongly in favor of inserting Christianity into government that they don't even need to be subtle about it. This is the state that last year fought to keep the Ten Commandments on public grounds. The same state that elected Sally Kern, the politician who blames homosexuals for the economic crises (via a curse from god!) in an official 'proclamation.' Oklahoma loves it's religion mixing with politics, so long as it's the right religion. I think there's a chance some in Oklahoma politics see they've exposed this loophole. If you bitch about state's rights enough, if you insist upon mixing your religion and your government enough, you can eventually make it happen. But now that they've noticed Muslims exist in America, they want to do what they can to deny Muslims from taking advantage of the system the way they have. They'll do anything, except of course, stop taking advantage of the system themselves. So they set up a wall of separation between Mosque and state.

If only someone had thought of that 234 years ago, and applied it across the board, at a federal level.

How far back do they want this country?

Published

by

on November 10, 2010

.

It was without much surprise conservatives swept last week's midterm elections. The re-energized right, dressed in teabags and tri-corner hats, took back the house and several governorships. They even managed to pass a few wedge issues. In California, marijuana legalization was turned down. Arizona voted against health care. Arizona made affirmative action illegal. And, of course, there was Kansas who passed the right to bear arms. Ground-breaking stuff, Kansas, if only someone had thought of that 234 years ago and applied it on a federal level. For those not familiar with how a wedge issue works, I'll go over it briefly. You see, when a political party can't energize their voters about their candidate, or they feel they need a boost, they fight to get issues that traditionally rally their voters onto the ballot. It doesn't matter that the issue is often unprovoked, what matters is if you tell a conservative they have the chance to approve the 2nd Amendment, and on a state level, that's likely to get certain folks to squeeze their plus-sized pajama jeans into a voting booth and pull the lever and, while they're there, click an X next to the GOP candidate.

As discussed recently in this blog, Karl Rove did what he could in 2004 to get out the anti-gay vote and it worked. Conservative Christians pushed President Bush over the top and homophobia reigned
supreme. This election, four states ran a ballot measure on the right to hunt. To hunt! Who do you think they're appealing to there? Well, in Arizona 8 Republicans won house seats, Republican governor Jan Brewer won as did a Republican attorney general. Interestingly enough, the right to hunt did not pass there, but that doesn't mean it didn't help mobilize people, who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote, to pull the lever for Brewer. Arkansas has a new Republican senator and they passed the right to hunt. Of course Sen. Jim DeMint won in S. Carolina as did Tea Party-backed Nikki Haley. 89% of voters there voted for the right to hunt. Tennessee also has a new Republican governor and also passed an amendment protecting the right to hunt.

But while the right to hunt or bear arms seems kind of silly and pandering a more worrisome wedge issue passed and is causing a lot of legal trouble. In (sigh, say it with me now) Oklahoma a measure to ban Islamic or Sharia Law from being considered in a court of law. Now, I agree that Islamic Law should never be considered in a court of law in America or anywhere else. It's a ridiculous ancient, inhumane system practiced today largely by cruel, inhumane (in other words, Islamic) societies. Islamic Law has poisoned every nation it's touched and reversed progress 100% of the time. Never has a nation in the world been improved by a religion, in particular Islam, being introduced into government policy. Take a look at Sudan, where Islam perpetrates a genocide, or Iran where a burgeoning westernized nation was stamped out by Islamic Law, or Saudi Arabia, where religious police make sure people pray on time. It's sick and it's inhumane.

And so it's easy to see why people would come out and vote to block Sharia Law from being considered in America. But I have to suspect the motive, and so do you. It's not about a single court case in New Jersey that was almost instantly overturned, if it was, why would this issue be presented only in Oklahoma? No, this is another wedge issue. It must be the case that Islam polls particularly poorly in Oklahoma among likely Republican voters. Throwing this issue on the ballot is something designed to transform a likely Republican voter into a certain Republican voter. The best interest of the people of Oklahoma isn't at stake here. The illusion is that something was being voted on that needs to be voted on, just like the right to hunt. No one's threatening the right to hunt in Tennessee or bear arms in Kansas and no one's threatening to betray the First Amendment and consider Sharia Law in Oklahoma courts.

But, alas, the amendment passed and, although it's content is already covered in the 1st Amendment, it's passing, which targets a particular religion, also violates the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 16 words that have been interpreted, explained and clarified for two hundred years, from the original authors to ministers to recent conservative presidents.

Government, as President Reagan put it, must remain neutral on religion. To single out a single religion to "remain neutral on" is a betrayal of the 1st Amendment and I'm not the only one to recognize that. The Council on American-Islamic relations also noticed it and now they're filing a lawsuit, which Oklahoma, a conservative stronghold against wasteful government spending, is going to have to dig into tax dollars to defend.

There's a lot of talk in the Tea Party movement about reclaiming the country and getting back "Constitutional principals." The problem is that a lot of what they're talking about are revisionary interpretations of the Constitution. The Lee Atwater version. the Cleon Skousen version.

It seems to me like the assault on progressive ideas like affirmative action and civil rights and the superfluous reinstatement of 2nd Amendment, (and a biased rewriting of the 1st) are all evidence that the far right are living out their revisionary fantasies. History's not on their side so they're trying to change history, by starting over in some alternate universe where freedom of religion exists only for Christians, racism is just 'the breaks,' and everyone's bootstraps are just as accessible as the next guy's.

What's amazing is that we're talking about Oklahoma here. A state that came out so strongly in favor of inserting Christianity into government that they don't even need to be subtle about it. This is the state that last year fought to keep the Ten Commandments on public grounds. The same state that elected Sally Kern, the politician who blames homosexuals for the economic crises (via a curse from god!) in an official 'proclamation.' Oklahoma loves it's religion mixing with politics, so long as it's the right religion. I think there's a chance some in Oklahoma politics see they've exposed this loophole. If you bitch about state's rights enough, if you insist upon mixing your religion and your government enough, you can eventually make it happen. But now that they've noticed Muslims exist in America, they want to do what they can to deny Muslims from taking advantage of the system the way they have. They'll do anything, except of course, stop taking advantage of the system themselves. So they set up a wall of separation between Mosque and state.

If only someone had thought of that 234 years ago, and applied it across the board, at a federal level.