Author Archive for the chaplain

…In Which I Defend Muslims

Yes, you read that title correctly. Today, I participated in a brief but bizarre conversation in which I defended Muslims. Here’s the story.

A co-worker (a conservative, evangelical Christian) was praising the mechanic who recently serviced his car. After reciting a fairly lengthy list of  services rendered and the incredibly low prices he was charged for those services, he paused for a second or two, looked astonished, and said in a voice full of wonder, “And he was a Muslim!”

I immediately said, “What does that have to do with anything?”

He responded, “Of all people, you think they’d be the least likely to be like that.”

I said, with astonishment, “There are something like a billion Muslims in the world and most of them are not terrorists. The vast majority of them are good, honest people.”

When he looked at me like I’d grown a second nose, I said, “Imagine a group of Muslims sitting together at lunch – like we are – talking about a business transaction similar to yours. Now imagine the speaker ending his story by saying, “And he was a Christian!”

The guy sitting next to the conservative Christian chuckled and said, “Touche.”

The conservative Christian grinned sheepishly and said, “Yeah, I see your point.”

Will the conservative Christian change his mind about Muslims? Probably not very much. He’ll continue believing they’re all going to hell because they don’t worship the right deity. But maybe the next time he does business with a Muslim he won’t be so astonished when his religious, cultural and ethnic prejudices are disconfirmed.

– the chaplain


Filed under: prejudice

The Great Debate: Football or Baseball?

With the Super Bowl fast approaching, it’s time to examine the critical question of which sport is superior – football or baseball. Since this is a significant matter, I’ve enlisted two experts to assist us in our deliberations.

First, Bill Maher will present his point of view.

Next, George Carlin will give us another perspective.

Now, it’s time for you to decide. Which do you prefer, football or baseball?

– the chaplain


Filed under: politics, society, sports

Religious Attitudes Poll

Vanity Fair/60 Minutes recently conducted a poll that yielded some interesting results:

If some religious believers think the world would be better off with no religion, shouldn’t they just quit and do their bit to make the world a better place?

– the chaplain


Filed under: religion

Roe v. Wade – 39 Years Later

Check out the headline of an item I read on Sparkpeople this morning:

The article goes on to state:

Since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, opponents have questioned the safety of medical procedures used to terminate pregnancy. Now, a new study contends that having a legal abortion is safer than carrying a baby to term.

The risk of death associated with a full-term pregnancy and delivery is 8.8 deaths per 100,000, while the risk of death linked to legal abortion is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 women, according to the study. That means a woman carrying a baby to term is 14 times more likely to die than a woman who chooses to have a legal abortion, the study finds.

- snip -

Grimes and his colleagues had several reasons for undertaking the study, published in the February issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. One is that medical abortion, in which a woman can take a pill early in pregnancy, instead of surgical abortion, “has changed the landscape of abortion, and the mortality information needed to be updated.”

Another reason is that in many states, women are given information before getting an abortion. “There’s been a proliferation of these women’s-right-to-know pamphlets, and some of them are misleading, if not downright incorrect or patently wrong,” Grimes said.

- snip -

Dr. Donna Harrison, director of research and public policy at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, disagreed with the authors’ conclusions.

- snip -

Dr. Mitchell Creinin, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said that pregnant women considering their options “are often scared by the rhetoric.”

“If a state is going to feel a responsibility to be involved in this private matter, we need to ensure that the material is factual,” said Creinin, who wrote an accompanying editorial in the same issue of the journal. “If it comes from the state or the government, people assume it’s true,” he added.

It’s no secret that I support women’s rights to choose what’s best for themselves reproductively, socially and economically. Neither you, nor I, nor any government officials or agencies have any business regulating and interfering in the intimate details of people’s lives. The decision to have – or not have – an abortion is one of the most serious decisions a woman may ever make. And I honestly don’t know if I could have made that choice myself. Fortunately for me, I never had to find out. But, many women are not as fortunate as I. They must make this decision and they need accurate information to do so. They also need emotional and practical support before, during and after the decision – either to abort or carry to term – has been made and carried through. What they don’t need is self-righteous busybodies calling them criminals or sinners or sluts or any other foul names. What they don’t need is people telling them they can’t decide for themselves because busybodies with their own agendas (religious or otherwise) have already made the decision for them. The age of paternalism passed a long time ago in most developed countries. It’s time for the USA to catch up with its peers and start showing equal respect for all of its citizens too.

– the chaplain


Filed under: abortion, ethics, politics, rationalism, science, society, women's rights

Un-Newsworthy News

I was momentarily taken aback when I saw this blurb on Talking Points Memo today:

In any other civilized country in the world, this policy wouldn’t be the least bit newsworthy. In the conservative-Christianity-soaked USA, it’s not only newsworthy, it’s controversial. What a pathetic commentary on the current state of American affairs.

– the chaplain


Filed under: legal, politics, rationalism, religion, women's rights

McCain Endorses Romney…

and looks mighty happy about it too!

H/Ts to Moe and Talking Points Memo.

– the chaplain


Filed under: humor, politics

Uh Oh! Time’s Running Out Faster Than We Realized

Some of you may be preparing for the End of the World, which the Mayans allegedly predicted will occur on December 21, 2012.

Okay – that gives us 343 more days to party on.

Except for one thing: the Mayans set the date too late. According to the Church of God – PKG, the world will actually end on May 27, 2012.

Uh oh. That only gives us 206 days to party. We’d better break out the hats and noisemakers now.

The bad news: if either of these predictions pans out, I won’t get to complete some of the items on my bucket list.

The goods news: if neither of these predictions pan out, I’ll get to enjoy two extra rockin’ parties this year.

I’ll bring the chips and salsa. Who’s bringing the beer?

– the chaplain


Filed under: atheism, rationalism, religion

Ken Starr Tries to Make a Decent Call

I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this article, written by Baylor University president Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), in the Washington Post today. When I read the article’s title, Can I Vote for a Mormon? I steeled myself to read some religious right wingnuttery about Jesus Candidates and the like. Instead I read things like this:

I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions….

In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office.

As I read on, I found this:

According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.

Did you catch that last bit? A candidate’s membership – or lack thereof – in a faith community is not nearly as important a qualification for public office as that candidate’s willingness to uphold the Constitution and respect citizens’ rights to freedom of conscience.

And then I read a bit further and found this:

In fact, a number of great presidents have come to the White House without membership in any faith community. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and was vigorously attacked for his religious views (or lack thereof). Abraham Lincoln, as a matter of conscience, refused to join any church….

More recently, the great cultural chasm between Catholics and Protestants was politically overcome with the election of John F. Kennedy. Similarly, then-Vice President Al Gore’s choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, as his running mate in 2000 signaled the welcoming openness of America’s democratic experience to individuals who did not share the Christian faith….

…the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend.

Shortly after this passage, Starr concluded his article with this advice:

Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012.

While there’s much I like about Starr’s article, I have a significant problem with it. Starr’s approach would work well in an open-minded marketplace of political ideas. Sad to say, it’s been a very long time since the USA provided such a marketplace (if it ever did).  The fact that Starr felt compelled to answer the question posed in his title is testament to that sad reality. The fact is, in today’s American political climate, many candidates explicitly connect their policies to their religious beliefs. When someone like Rick Santorum, to take just one example, promotes policy positions on such issues as contraception, abortion and gay rights, and supports those beliefs by citing his religious beliefs, I have little choice but to consider how incompatible his beliefs, as well as his policies, are with my policy positions and nonbelief. It is the candidates themselves who compel me to apply religious litmus tests to both their policies and their beliefs. As long as they keep wearing their religions on their sleeves and using their beliefs to try to score votes, I’ll have no choice but to take their religious professions, as well as their policy statements, into consideration when I cast my votes. And I assure you, religiously extreme candidates will have great difficulty gaining any support from me.

– the chaplain


Filed under: Constitution/First Amendment, humanism, philosophy, politics, rationalism, religion

Santorum Steps Up to the Plate

Now that Michelle Bachmann has taken a seat next to Herman Cain on the sidelines of the American presidential race, Rick Santorum is positioning himself to be the GOP’s next “Jesus candidate.”

Santorum is an extremely conservative candidate in what is largely an extremely conservative field of candidates. Since Rick Perry has proven overwhelmingly to be the Dumber than a Pile of Dog Shit candidate, Rick Santorum, with his surprisingly strong finish in the Iowa caucuses, may have an opportunity to gain some ground. Then again, the fact that his religious zealotry doesn’t appeal to New Hampshire voters as strongly as it did to Iowans could halt Santorum’s momentum quick and in a hurry. The odds are that the good old southern boy Rick Perry, despite his multitudinous intellectual shortcomings, will fare better than Rick the easterner in the grand old state of South Carolina. So, Santorum’s standing as a viable option to Mitt Romney, the GOP’s Rodney Dangerfield candidate, is by no means secure.

Make yourselves a big bowl of popcorn and grab a six-pack. The Republican primary season is now underway and the entertainment value promises to be priceless. At least, it would be if the stakes weren’t so damned high. The reality is, if any one of these jokers actually gets into the White House next year, we could soon be looking back fondly at the George W. Bush era.

That’s a thought that doesn’t bear thinking.

– the chaplain


Filed under: politics, rationalism, religion

You Can’t Make Up This Shit!

My New Year’s resolution is to get filthy rich this year by writing a book about a former evangelical preacher who got caught in a drug-and-gay-sex scandal, then was “cured” of his homosexual tendencies, then decided he’s actually bisexual, then decided to swap wives with one of the most bizarre characters in Hollywood.

What’s that you say? The storyline is too far-fetched? No one will buy it as remotely plausible? You may be right.

Besides, that’s story’s already been written by someone else:

The next step will be for Ted and Gary to hook up. Gayle and Steffanie will do likewise and then all of them will move to a state where they can be civilly united and live happily ever after.

– the chaplain


Filed under: sex

God Spoke to Pat Robertson (he thinks)

Slate.com has the lowdown on God’s most recent revelations to Pat Robertson:

No need to follow any more campaign news. The winner of the presidential campaign in 2012 has been decided.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson says he spent a week praying and God told him who the next president would be. But Robertson would only say this on his Christian Broadcasting Network:

“I’m not supposed to talk about that so I’ll leave you in the dark—probably just as well—I think I know who it’s gonna be.”

- – snip – -

WTF? Did you catch Pat’s inconsistency? He began by claiming that god “told him” who the next president will be. Then he downgraded his claim to a mere “I think I know who it’s gonna be.”

Which is it, Pat? Did god tell you? Or are you just guessing? Or hoping for a particular outcome? If god actually “told” you something, you shouldn’t have to “think” it may be so, you should “know” it to be the case. I mean, we’re talking about the supreme creator and governor of all that exists now, has ever existed, and ever will exist, right? This is the god who knew before “creation” that his son would have to die a brutal death to fix his father’s fuck up (and just how does a “perfect” god fuck up, anyway?). Supposedly, if god says something is so, that’s the final word. End of story. No alternate endings.

Well, that’s a pretty Calvinistic view of god (which is okay for my purpose in this post, because that’s the god Robertson believes in). Other believers say that people have the power, through exercise of their “free will,” to write alternate endings to the story god began several millenia ago. The story is still being developed and the end hasn’t been determined yet. It’s likely that few such believers would consider claiming that their god “told” them a particular outcome to a process that’s just getting underway and will continue for nearly another year. Only those who believe in a god like Robertson’s would have the balls to make such a claim. And even Pat can’t sustain the claim for very long before backpedaling.

So, since Pat Robertson won’t even stand by his claim, and more importantly, since his claim is total bullshit, I’ll keep following the campaigns. And when the campaigns are all over, I’ll do my part to write the ending to the American Election 2012 story. It’s a story that does not involve god; the outcome is entirely in the hands of the voters.

– the chaplain


Filed under: politics, rationalism, society

Rick Perry Loves the Sinner…You Know the Rest

Rick Perry made his pro-marriage anti-gay position clear, again, in a recent conversation with an Iowa voter.

Perry’s anti-gay marriage position is not new. Nor is the the fact that he goes beyond opposing gay marriage, specifically, and believes that homosexuality, generally, is a “sin” and that homosexuals are “sinners.” But the beneficent Governor Perry loves them anyway.

As long as they’ll shut up, stay in their closets, and continue being treated as second-class citizens.

Perry’s statement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman contradicts his stated position that gay marriage is a decision that should be left up to states. That’s no surprise; coherence is not Perry’s strong suit.

Also unsurprising is the old canard that the USA was founded on “Judeo-Christian” values. As a good religious-right-winger pandering to other good religious-right-wingers, Perry can’t possibly acknowledge that the founding fathers stressed Enlightenment principles at least as much as (and probably more than) Judeo-Christian ones. Oh, no. Such honesty doesn’t fit into wingnut Christian Nation ideology. Furthermore, does anyone other than me find it infuriating to hear wingnuts cite “Judeo-Christian” values when what they really want to say is “Christian” – or better yet, “conservative Christian” or “fundogelical Christian” – values? The only times fundogelicals give lip service to solidarity with Judaism are

a) when they’re spouting their Christian Nation nonsense, and

b) when they’re working to realize their sick eschatological visions.

If I were Jewish, I’d want to hit someone – preferably a fundy – every time I heard anyone utter the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”

Honestly, when I look at the field of Republican presidential candidates in this race, I want to scream, cry, or vomit. Or maybe do all three in no particular order, or even simultaneously. I sincerely hope that Iowa caucus voters will reject Perry soundly on January 3 and send him back to Texas with his good old right-wing Judeo-Christian tail tucked securely between his legs.

– the chaplain


Filed under: politics, prejudice, religion, sex, society

An Entertaining Proposition

Th lack of commentary and innuendo in this One News Now post is atypical for that publication. It seems the editors decided to leave those tasks to the comment writers, who are taking up the task with gusto.

I think it would be fun if some of us joined the “conversation” over there. Since it’s likely that many of our comments won’t see the light of day, cross-post your comments or screenshots here. I promise not to delete them. Of course, you can still play here even if you don’t play over there. All I ask is that you play with someone, somewhere and let us know how it turns out.

– the chaplain


Filed under: atheism, politics, rationalism, religion, secularism, sex, society

Only on Faux News

I got this graphic via Huffington Post today. Can you spot the error? I’ll understand if you miss it, because it’s a mistake nearly any brain-dead person could have made.

Too bad Fox didn’t wait a few months before showing this graphic; it would have made a great April Fool’s prank.

– the chaplain


Filed under: humor, politics

Onstage

Just want to share that I’ll be performing at one of Washington DC’s coolest jazz clubs tonight. If you’re in the DC area, come for dinner, drinks and good music.

If you want to get into the early show, you can still make reservations by phone or take your chances on getting a ticket at the door. You’ll probably be able to walk up to the door for the late show.

– the chaplain


Filed under: announcements/news

Fidelity Matters

You may recall a post I wrote a few weeks ago about what turned out to be the short-lived Republican love affair with Herman Cain. When it became impossible to overlook the inconvenient fact that Herman serviced forced himself on nearly as many women as the legendary King Solomon, Cain dropped out of the presidential race and Republicans began casting desperate looks toward another- umm- candidate.

Enter Newt Gingrich. Yes, Newt has his own baggage fidelity-wise, but his is old, familiar, faded baggage – a circumstance that has enabled Republicans to throw more than a few casual glances his way. Actually, their eye contact has progressed beyond casual, blown right by flirtatious, and is now flat out lustful. (My understanding is that the longing is mutual.) I suppose if enough time passes, it’s easy for members of the Family Values/Defense of Marriage Party to dismiss the tacky timing of Gingrich’s various divorces, affairs and marriages. Perhaps “for better or worse, in sickness and in health” means something different in Republican-speak than it means to the plainspoken. Or maybe Newt’s behavior just doesn’t look very callous to Republicans since much of it happened a long time ago…

Meanwhile, many Republicans steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the candidacy of a man who has only been married once and, as far as anyone can determine, remained faithful to his one and only wife. It seems that adultery isn’t a big deal politically if one belongs to a mainstream Christian sect. In Republicanistan, belonging to the right religion – or, at the very least, being able to give lip-service to the right religion – trumps remaining eternally faithful to one’s spouse. This leads me to question Mitt Romney’s newest campaign strategy:

Poor Mittens. He’s still getting it wrong. The pathway to the White House isn’t paved on the stones of marital infidelity. No, sir. Everyone knows that the road to the White House – as far as Republi-Jesustanis are concerned – is paved on the stones of religious fidelity. Specifically, fidelity to Christianity. Preferably, Protestantism, but Catholicism will do in a pinch. My advice to Mitt Romney is simple: if you really want to be a Republican president, all you have to do is trade your goofy religion for their goofy religion.

And keep the wife.

– the chaplain


Filed under: humor, politics, rationalism, religion