Chilean-born artist Sebastian Errazuriz, who uses his work to speak out on various social and political issues, has taken aim at fundamentalism with Jesus-on-a-Stick popsicles.

Last weekend, he handed out:

. . . 100 "Christian Popsicles" made of "frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ" and featuring a crucifix instead the tongue depressor that typically hosts the frozen treats, he said.An image of Jesus Christ positioned traditionally on the cross is visible once the ice pop is consumed.

As for the frozen wine, Errazuriz said, he concealed it in a cooler and took it into a church, where it was "inadvertently blessed by the priest while turning wine into the blood of Christ during the Eucharist."

Sacrilicious! Image: Sebastian Errazuriz

Oddly, the bulk of the Religious Right has ignored this sacrilicious (or maybe more Catholicious?) taste treat. Then again, maybe it’s not so odd; Catholics are the only Christian sect who believe in “transubstantiation”, whereby the blessing of a priest magically turns wine and crackers into blood and flesh, but only in your tummy, and they change back to wine and crackers if you throw them up.

The lone exception to the silence? The lonesome Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who’s got a whine to pair with every cheesy artistic or political statement.

Purporting to represent Catholics throughout the United States and defend them against the trampling of their religious liberties (like the right to campaign for or against candidates from the pulpit, and to email pornography to strangers, and to prevent employees of Catholic-affiliated institutions from getting health insurance which covers contraception, and of course the right to threaten the owner of the Empire State Building if he won’t light it up to celebrate international monster Mother Teresa), the Catholic League’s last reported membership numbers were estimated at 350,000 in 1999.

Whines Donohue this time:

I never heard of this guy until about 10 minutes ago, but I already know he is a bigot, a hypocrite and a rip-off artist.

He is a bigot for making “Christian Popsicles”—the wooden stick is inscribed with the image of Jesus on the Cross. The flavors are made from what CNN is reporting as “frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ”; the wine was “inadvertently blessed by the priest while turning wine into the blood of Christ during the Eucharist.”

…

He is a hypocrite because he says that although Americans should be “rightly worried” about the threat that radical Muslims pose, he decided to stick it to Christians instead. Why? Because religious extremism can be dangerous, he explains. So can sticking it to radical Muslims.

He is a rip-off artist because he recently ripped off the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators: while expressing solidarity with the anti-capitalists, he capitalized on their campaign by selling folding chairs with some of their signs painted on the back. My favorite was the stunningly brilliant, “I’m So Angry I Made a Sign.” The asking price was $2,500. Not a bad profit, especially for a socialist.

Errazuriz is a hypocrite for saying that radical Muslims pose a threat, because he decided to “stick it” (get it? Popsicle stick? Clever!) to Christians “instead”? I suppose Donohue missed Errazuriz’ “Twin Towers“.

Maybe Donohue could use a refresher on who has political influence in the United States, where Errazuriz lives and works. Radical Muslims? Or Christians?

Could the fact that Christians and Catholics are working overtime to give more and more of their religious regulations the force of law in the US be a reason that nonbelievers and secular-minded believers alike–people who want to make their own decisions on moral issues such as contraception, abortion, or same-sex marriage–are fighting back? Could that fighting back be why Donohue feels the need to shriek like an unchanged infant at every perceived slight?

That’s my guess. What’s yours?

Donohue has asked his followers to contact Sebastian at info@meetsebastian.com. I wonder how much positive feedback he’s getting?

Related articles:

1. Donohue: Catholic Reporters Are Anti-Catholic
2. Catholic League’s Bill Donohue Cries out for Attention

What’s wrong with the United States? Simple . . . women voters, that’s what!

At least, according to Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a frequent guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. Hannity also sits on the board of directors of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, which aims to promote a conservative agenda to black Americans.

A frequent Fox News guest has drawn wide condemnation for saying women should have never been given the right to vote.

In a sermon that was posted on YouTube in March, Rev Jesse Lee Peterson said women are leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power.

Fox News host Sean Hannity has invited Rev Peterson on his show several times, including after the video was posted, and sits on the board of the conservative activist’s organization.

The remark seemed to draw disagreement, if not condemnation, from Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, who tweeted: ‘When? Women voting is best thing in a hundred years.’

Rev Peterson’s fiery statement had drawn immense criticism.

‘I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,’ Peterson said in the sermon.

‘We should’ve never turned this over to women. It was a big mistake… And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees (sic) with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.

Peterson went on to say that men should be legally permitted to hit their wives, and that women are too emotional to make decisions.

‘You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love,’ he said.

And the right wing wants to go after Jeremiah Wright?

Sean Hannity has not commented on Peterson’s recommendation to legalize domestic violence (man-on-woman only, of course) or eliminate certain citizenship rights of women.

Related articles:

1. Jesse Lee Peterson Claims Obama is Not a Christian, Aided by Satan
2. Fox News: US Cable News Leader

After months of whining and an utterly ignored boycott attempt over JC Penney’s choice of Ellen DeGeneres as spokesperson, we’d all thought One Million Moms would get the message. But no!

The May catalog includes a lesbian couple and their daughters. Or, more likely, four models who’ve never met before who were hired for a photo shoot. Whatever.

Cue the hysterics:

JC Penney has laid low in the month of April by airing two different commercials that portrayed them as remaining neutral in the cultural war. Even though JCP seemed to have changed their approach, their May catalog shows they are making a strong effort otherwise. On pages ten and eleven, under the title "Freedom of Expression," you’ll find "Wendi and her partner Maggie and daughters" and again "Wendi, daughters Raven and Clover, and partner Maggie" in text. In the picture both women are wearing wedding bands.

Oh noes! Lesbians! (Click to embiggen.)

Families who once supported JCP and hold open store credit cards or are on their mailing list received the May catalog yesterday. Today, customers are able to view the May catalog online on the JC Penney website under May books.

OMM has so many issues to cover we had no choice but to move on earlier in the year but have decided to revisit this issue and speak out again. It is obvious that JCP would rather take sides than remain neutral. JCP will hear from the other side so they need to hear from us as well.

Last time OMM contacted JC Penney store managers, we were brushed off. Some even experienced in person the store manager saying "Thank you" and walking off while their customer and our concerned members were in mid-sentence. OMM has been told that JCP corporate office told store managers to say "Thank you" and then walk away. If they want our business, then we will not be ignored!

OMM goes on to provide JC Penney’s contact information and explain that, while they’d usually have a letter from their website available, JC Penney has blocked their email server.

I think there is a hint in there somewhere, OMM. Maybe, just maybe, JC Penney has determined that your members’ business is not really all that desirable after all.

Maybe they did their homework and learned that “One Million Moms” has probably fewer than 50,000 members; only 46,500 have “liked” their Facebook page. If we understand that not every member is on Facebook, but also that many more will “Like” an organization’s page than will join and send money, we’re looking at a fairly small number.

By way of comparison, at this writing, over 3 million people have “Liked” Ellen DeGeneris’ Facebook page; over 1,063,000 people have “Liked” the Human Rights Campaign’s Facebook page; 64,200 have “Liked” Americans United’s Facebook; and 725 have “Liked” Secular News Daily’s page. (You can help FIX THAT last one, please.)

JC Penney may also have figured out that One Million Moms is a project of the American Family Association, designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group. Quite possibly not the demographic they’re after.

Search “Bryan Fischer” on this site to see all sorts of things the AFA puts forth–birtherism, paranoid conspiracy rants, claims that gays are all pedophiles, and all sorts of anti-atheist and anti-secular ranting–and you’ll probably agree that JC Penney is right to turn its back on these nut cases.

So here’s your opportunity to show JC Penney how much you support their choice to tell OMM (and, by extension, the AFA) to take a long walk off a short pier.

You can find the phone number of your local store here, or in your local phone directory.

You may also send an email to: jcpcorpcomm@jcpenney.com.

Those are good things to do, but there’s something better: Go to the store and buy something, and then thank the manager for standing up against the Religious Right.

Related articles:

1. American Family Association Redoubles Efforts to Get JC Penney to Fire Ellen DeGeneres
2. AFA Tries to Link JC Penney Credit Rating Drop to Ellen DeGeneres

While Christian conservatives continue to declare HIV their god’s punishment for homosexuals–as though that promised eternity being burned alive in their god’s lake of fire weren’t enough–medical science continues to work to expand treatment and prevention options.

Here’s the latest:

For the first time in the 30-year battle against the HIV epidemic, a panel of experts has recommended that the Food and Drug Administration approve a drug to give to healthy people to protect against the infection.

The panel recommended Thursday that the agency approve the drug Truvada for preventing HIV in men who have sex with men, HIV-negative partners of HIV-positive people and “other individuals at risk for acquiring HIV through sexual activity.”

…

Studies presented to the FDA’s Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee show that Truvada reduced the risk of acquiring HIV by 42 to 73 percent among men who have sex with men and among HIV-negative partners of people carrying the virus.

Note that this is risk reduction, not risk elimination. It’s not as good as, say, a vaccine. It also likely won’t do a thing against resistant strains. But it may help keep new infections down for a time, and time is the average non-researcher’s greatest weapon.

Will the research continue under a Religious Right regime?

What do you think?

Related articles:

1. Harvey: HIV/AIDS Infections Prove Schools Shouldn't Teach Sex Education
2. Prayer cannot cure HIV: churches’ deadly “miracle cures” must be stopped

The people of Middle Eastern countries have the right of self-determination. On principle, Western governments which speak about supporting democracy should not then support dictatorships.

But what happens when the dictatorship is more secular than what follows?

Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project has yesterday released the latest data on Egyptian attitudes. Seems Egyptians are less optimistic now than they were a year ago, but they also want the Quran to shape the country’s laws.

Amid rancorous debates over the presidential election and the shape of a new constitution, most Egyptians continue to want democracy, with two-in-three saying it is the best form of government.

Egyptians also want Islam to play a major role in society, and most believe the Quran should shape the country’s laws, although a growing minority expresses reservations about the increasing influence of Islam in politics. When asked which country is the better model for the role of religion in government, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, 61% say the latter. However, most also endorse specific democratic rights and institutions that do not exist in Saudi Arabia, such as free speech, a free press, and equal rights for women.

Seven-in-ten Egyptians express a favorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood, down just slightly from 75% a year ago. Most (56%) also have a positive opinion of the Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the largest party in the newly elected parliament. The more conservative al-Nour fares less well: 44% have a favorable and 44% an unfavorable view of the Salafist party. Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a Salafist leader who was recently disqualified as a presidential candidate, gets somewhat better ratings (52% positive, 42% negative).

Presidential contender Amr Moussa receives overwhelmingly positive marks, with 81% expressing a positive opinion of the former Foreign Minister and Arab League chief. Meanwhile, 58% have a favorable view of moderate Islamist presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh.

The April 6th Movement, a loose organization of mostly young and secular activists that played a key role in the demonstrations that forced Hosni Mubarak from office, is rated favorably by 68% of Egyptians. However, the Egyptian Bloc, a mostly secular coalition of political parties, is not popular – just 38% assign it a positive rating.

That last part is possibly the most disturbing. The Egyptian Arab Spring was led largely by secular-minded activists, who have now been pushed to the back of the bus by an Islamist majority.

That’s the same majority seeking to legalize necrophilia and strip the rights of women to have jobs and an education.

If you ever wanted to see the pyramids . . . well, I hope you already went.

There is some reason for hope for Egypt’s future–rather, hope for the future of women and secular-minded people in Egypt:

A growing number of Egyptians sees Islam as playing a major role in the political life of the country – 66% currently compared with 47% in 2010. For the most part, those who believe Islam is playing a large role see this as good for the country, but more disagree with that view this year than last. Conflicting views about the role of religion in politics are also seen in the significant numbers who say Saudi Arabia is the best model for Egypt, yet endorse key features of democracy. Among those who choose Saudi Arabia over Turkey as the best model for Egypt, two-thirds also say democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. More than six-in-ten say it is very important to live in a country with a free press (64%), honest multiparty elections (63%), and freedom of speech (61%).

While democracy is often interpreted as “majority rule”, and hence consistent with the desires of a nation with a single majority religion, the majority also wants a free press and free speech.

Will these freedoms include freedom of religious expression, including criticism? Time will tell what Egyptians mean.

Related articles:

1. Egypt: Frying pan into the fire? Muslim Brotherhood takes leadership role
2. CFI Heralds Reason Rally as Dawning of “Secular Spring”

In a shocking turn of events, Mitt Romney has won all three GOP primaries! Oh, wait. That’s not much of a shock, is it? Oh, and Lugar lost his race, and Barrett won his.

Romney took Indiana with 65% to Paul’s 16% and Santorum’s invalid 13%; North Carolina with 66% to Paul’s 11%, Santorum’s invalid 10%, and Gingrich’s invalid 8%; and West Virginia with 70% to Santorum’s invalid 12%, Paul’s 11%, Gingrich’s invalid 6%.

In Indiana, six-term Senator Richard Lugar lost to state treasurer, former coal executive, and Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock.

Lugar was ousted by state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, whose campaign against the veteran lawmaker was backed by conservative groups including the Tea Party Express, the anti-tax Club for Growth, the National Rifle Association, the Tea Party-aligned Freedom Works, and former Republican Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks election spending, outside groups invested $4.5 million in the race.

“Serving the people of Indiana in the United States Senate has been the greatest honor of my public life,” Lugar said in his concession speech. But in a written statement he admonished Mourdock’s “unrelenting partisan mind-set” and warned that “he will achieve little as a legislator” unless he changes his strict conservatism on governing.

Some Democrats in Indiana had hoped for this outcome, as Mourdock’s nomination could open doors for a Democratic challenger. However, in a heavily Republican state, this could easily backfire.

On the other side of the coin, a somewhat pessimistic Ezra Klein predicted last week that Mourdock’s success could spell serious trouble for the Democratic Party and for America in 2013, particularly if Obama should win in November. Such a win, if followed by an election win, would tell moderate Republican Senators and Representatives alike that serious primary challenges from the radical right are still likely if they are seen as “compromising”:

Consider three possible outcomes in Indiana:

Lugar wins: In this world, it’s not clear that any high-profile incumbents would have lost to a Tea Party challenge in this cycle. Sen. Orrin Hatch is widely expected to withstand his challengers in Utah. To many lawmakers, this will suggest that the threat of primary challenges has begun to recede. That gives them more space to actually legislate, with all the compromising and taking of tough positions that that implies.

Lugar loses and Mourdock wins the general election: This would be a signal that primary challenges remain a threat, and no Republican lawmaker can feel safe cutting deals or taking tough votes. This is a world where Republicans, having run and lost with a “Massachusetts moderate,” swear never to compromise on their principles again, and incumbent lawmakers realize that there will be a raft of primary challenges coming and so they had better spend the next two years shoring up their right flank. This is not a world in which you can imagine a ‘grand bargain’ getting done.

Lugar loses and Mourdock loses the general election. This, too, is a possibility. “If Mr. Lugar loses, it should increase Democrats’ odds of picking up the Senate seat in November,” writes Nate Silver. In that case, Lugar’s loss could keep the Senate in Democratic hands, much as Tea Party candidates lost in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado and kept the Senate in Democratic hands after the 2010 election. And remember, in this hypothetical, Obama would also have won the presidential election. This might be a world where Republican Party has a moderating moment, as both elites and rank-and-file blame their parties continued losses on its extreme reputation and take a more cooperative tack in order to repair their reputation in advance of the 2014 and 2016 elections.

How will it fall out? We’ll know in November.

Democratic candidate Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee, who lost to Governor Scott Walker in 2010, won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin tonight. He goes up against Walker in a recall election in a month. Polls currently show them neck and neck, even though Walker has spent over $20M to date and Barrett less than $1M.

Finally, tied in to North Carolina’s primary election was a vote on same-sex marriage. As of this writing, with 35% of precincts reporting, AP is projecting that the ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions will pass, currently taking 58% of the vote. Rev. Billy Graham took out full-page ads in 14 newspapers to promote the ban, which expands NC’s existing ban on same-sex marriage to include any form of civil union.

Related articles:

1. Four primaries tonight
2. American Humanist Association Announces 2011 Board Election Results

Judge Michael Urbanski has ordered Giles County Schools and plaintiffs ACLU and FFRF to take the case of the Ten Commandments at Narrows High School to mediation.

Urbanski suggests finding a compromise, such as deleting the first four Commandments but leaving the remaining six. That sounds like a solution that will please exactly nobody.

Some background:

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Roanoake on behalf of a student at Narrows High School, Narrows, Va., and the student’s parent. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for them to remain anonymous due to the potential for retaliation and for a protective order barring defense counsel and court personnel from disclosing their identities.

FFRF first objected to the display in December 2010 when the Commandments were posted in all six county schools. The district responded by taking the displays down, then put them back up after the public pressured the board. On advice of legal counsel, they were again later removed.

Then in June, after FFRF and ACLU of Virginia sent a joint letter of objection to the district, the board voted 3-2 to put the Commandments up along with other documents in the misguided belief that the documents would put the display on stronger legal footing. The other elements included a depiction of Lady Justice, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Mayflower Compact and the Magna Carta.

The display at Narrows High School is in a main hallway where the student plaintiff by necessity encounters it daily. The display “promotes a particular faith to which Doe 1 does not subscribe,” the suit charges. “Doe 1 understands the current display to be merely a continuation of the board’s longstanding policy, practice, and custom of promoting the Ten Commandments in the school.”

Given the public outcry when the Commandments were removed and the clamor for their reinstallation, “any alleged secular purpose for the current displays is, and will be perceived as, a sham,” the plaintiffs contend.

Last March, some 200 students walked out of school in protest over the removal of the religious text, and went on record with anti-American and bigoted sentiments:

“This is Giles County and Christ is a big, big, big part of Giles County. For those who don’t like it, go somewhere else,” shouted one student. She was greeted by a round of cheers from the crowd.

The students prayed and then one by one students spoke out on the reasons they wanted the Ten Commandments placed back in their school.

“This is America and we can have our Ten Commandments and if they don’t like it, they can get out,” said one boy.

“It’s just freedom of religion and speech,” said one boy.

“It’s our choice to have the Ten Commandments. It’s not the law’s choice or anything, it’s not the state’s choice or anything. It’s Giles County’s choice. It’s the kid’s choice,” said another student.

Do these sound like the voices of people who’d be satisfied with 6 of 10? Not to me.

What are those Ten, anyway? Can you list them all? Jean Poole did, and explained them, back in 2009. They haven’t changed since.

Urbanski’s suggestion is to eliminate these:

• Thou shalt have no gods before me.
• Thou shalt make to thee no graven image . . .
• Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . .
• Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy . . .

He recommends leaving the others in place:

• Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

  Golly, that sure seems to mention God. Guess we’re down to five, not six.

• Thou shalt not kill.
• Thou shalt not commit adultery.

  Unless thy name is Newt Gingrich, apparently.

• Thou shalt not steal.
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

By removing the religious references, Urbanski’s proposal will leave the protesting Protestants with nothing. It will not be acceptable.

Even the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, who argues for church-state separation from a Baptist perspective (that separation is the best way to have religious liberty for all), thinks Urbanski’s proposal is a non-starter:

Proponents of Ten Commandments posting argue the historical legal significance of the document, claiming that keeps the government’s display from being a purely religious one. Now we see one of the potential outcomes of their argument: a court’s suggestion that we take an editing knife to them. And they say those of us who oppose government-sponsored Ten Commandment displays are the ones secularizing America?

The Ten Commandments are sacred text of great religious significance. We should keep it that way. The best way to do that isn’t to post them in government buildings; it’s to resist the temptation to do so.

And what of the plaintiff? Will Five of Ten make the plaintiff happy? Of course not.

The Five of Ten will reinforce the bizarre assertion that basic morality comes from the Bible, not from the need of individuals to cooperate in society. Never mind that not killing or stealing or lying, etc. are basic rules in every civilization known to human history.

Were I the plaintiffs, I might propose the text from the Georgia Guidestones instead! See, they have Ten Recommendations:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Don’t get me wrong, these Recommendations aren’t perfect either. And they’re not always so popular:

But if you want a list of ten things to stick up on the wall, they’re more useful to modern humanity than the Ten Commandments.

This set might also be generally more useful:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm young children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Now granted, I’d drop #7. That, of course, brings us down to ten!

Which set do you think is best? Or would a combination be useful? How about something completely different?

Related articles:

1. Ten Commandments proposal for Giles County schools is unconstitutional
2. Arguments for Giles County, VA Ten Commandments display test limits of reason