Showing posts with label Spreading Holy Crap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spreading Holy Crap. Show all posts

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Sarah Palin Haiku

Sarah’s running against the Democrat’s highfalutin eloquence by speakin’ in homespun haikus.
Maureen Dowd, "Sarah's Pompom Palaver"
The New York Times, October 5, 2008

So nice ta meetcha.
I heard a lot aboutcha.
Can I call ya “Joe”?

Are things bad or good?
I went to a soccer game
to find out from moms.

You know what I heard?
Fear about their investments.
“Goshdarnit,” I said.

Did I mention yet:
John McCain is a mav’rick.
I’m a mav’rick, too.

I’m from Wasilla,
in middle America!
It's right near Russia.

Some of my best friends
Are homos or Democrats.
Don’t let ‘em marry.

Global warming’s bad,
but don’t blame Americans.
It's Roe v. Wade's fault.

Corruption, darn it.
I saw that in the paper.
Don’t ask me which one.

Our third-grade students
are the strongest in the world.
Too bad they can’t vote.

Two years ago, there,
John McCain sounded a bell.
What a mav’rick, hey?

He carries that bell,
ringin’ it real loud for change
wherever he goes.

May I say something
more about bells and taxes?
Is that all right, Gwen?

If I had a bell,
I would never ring it for
Ahmadinejad!

And we must make sure
Eye-ran doesn't get a bell,
'cause they're not mav'ricks.

As for Israel?
I won’t second-guess my friends.
Jesus will do that.

Gen'ral Petraeus.
Have you ever heard of him?
Well, I have also.

I’ll say it again:
We are a team of mav’ricks.
I’m from Wasilla!

Just remember that.
Youbetcha, America.
Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Sometimes my eye hurts
from all this winkin’ I do.
Mav’rickin’ is hard.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Atheist Nexus Sexus Plexus

Well, I decided to join that bastion of rationality, Atheist Nexus. Maybe because I’m happily married and an old fart to boot, I blithely assumed that AN was going to be a place for a lively exchange of freethinking ideas. Turns out I was wrong. It’s mostly a site for people who want to write comments without bothering to read the previous ones on the same thread. It also gives folks a rare and wonderful opportunity to share their favorite songs, if anyone cares (which they don't). It provides each member with an excellent excuse to pimp his or her blog or podcast, except that hardly anyone clicks on the links because they're all too busy pimping their own blogs or podcasts. In the sidebar, it features informative blurbs, courtesy of Google Ads, about religious Web sites; this doesn’t bother anyone, of course, because we all understand that AN has to make a buck to keep providing us with such a fantastic service.

The bottom line is, though: Atheist Nexus is primarily a fantasy dating site. About half the members are looking to hook up. Perhaps one or two couples actually will.

Anyway, I did an informal poll among the oh-so-rational community at Atheist Nexus to determine what qualities they were looking for in potential skeptical partners. Here’s what I discovered:

Responses by Men/Boys

  • Big boobs
  • Likes loud rock bands that no one has ever heard of
  • Avidly reads sci-fi, but only if it's written by guys
  • Finds geeks attractive
  • Eager to listen to pointless rants
  • Did I mention big boobs?
  • Thinks it’s hilarious to spell “the” as TEH
  • Will sleep with anyone who accepts evolution
  • Ummm... I included big boobs already, right?
  • Not too religious
Responses by Women/Girls
  • Loves kittens
  • Respects woman for there brians
  • Well hung, but not outrageously so
  • Is able to shut up once in a while during quiet walks on the beach
  • Loves children (but not that way)
  • Is willing to watch depressing documentaries and/or chick flicks
  • Well, a little outrageously would be OK
  • Won’t mind that my BBF is a gay male Baptist
  • Enjoys cuddling before and after sex, and sometimes instead of
  • Not too religious
For the record, both my wife and I are not too religious.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Thirteen Worst Reasons for Believing in a God

I've heard every one of these arguments, and so have you. I think these versions may be slightly exaggerated. But only slightly.

  1. If there were no god, there would be no bible. And if there were no bible, there would be no god. There’s definitely a bible, because I saw one at WalMart. So there must be a god at WalMart, too.

  2. If I pray hard enough, my French-cut canned stringbeans will turn into Jesus’s body. Then, if I eat them, I’ll go to heaven, as long as I don’t chew.

  3. Somebody must love me, because I feel loved. But everybody who knows me thinks I’m a creep. So there must be a god.

  4. My Islamic terrorist neighbor says I should.

  5. Everybody throughout history believed in a god. Except Hitler. Doesn’t that tell you something?

  6. Since there's no logic unless there's a god, you can't prove to me logically that there's no god. Ergo, there is a god. Q.E.D. & R.O.F.L.M.A.O.

  7. If there’s no god, how do you explain this voice in my head, huh? Did you ever think of that, you wacko atheists?

  8. I can imagine a god. Therefore, he must exist. But I wish he didn’t look exactly like my Uncle Sid.

  9. How else can you explain the fact that there are exactly 60 seconds in a minute, and exactly sixty minutes in an hour, and exactly 6o hours in two and a half days, and exactly 60 days in two months (except for the weird ones like January, February, March, May, July, August, October, and December)? That didn't happen just by accident.

  10. Where would human morals come from if there was no god eager to torture us eternally for not believing in him?

  11. Without a god, what a poor, pathetic, pointless place Sheboygan would be.

  12. According to your stupid theories, I would still be a monkey if there was no god. Obviously, I’m not a monkey. Right? Right?

  13. Since Nature is perfect, it must be god’s creation. I thought of that today while I was fertilizing my begonias and spraying for aphids.

Friday, August 08, 2008

Christian Misadventures

I live in Florida, where 99% of the people are old farts waiting to die, and the other 1% of the people are members of some old fart’s family, also waiting for him or her to die. So it’s no surprise that at least once a week I get a solicitation phone call from one of the area funeral homes.

Last night at around 8:30, my phone rang and the Caller ID flashed the information: “Christian Adventures.” Naturally, I took the call. The woman on the other end was pukily perky in that TV weathergirl kind of way.

TV Weathergirl: Hello. Is this [the formal version of my name, a version I haven’t used since I was in the 5th grade, and which appears on no official records except my Federal Income Tax returns and my driver’s license, and which, for purposes of this dialogue, will henceforth be written as “Eximundo”]?

Me: Who’s calling?

TV Weathergirl: Is this Eximundo?

Me: Who’s calling?

TV Weathergirl: Eximundo?

Me: I’ve asked you twice to identify yourself.

TV Weathergirl: This is [I forget, but let’s call her Mindy, because she sounded exactly like a Mindy].

Me: What do you want, Mindy?

Mindy: I’m calling on behalf of Death-Wish Funeral Homes.

Me: Oh, my god! Who died?

Mindy: Well, nobody died, Eximundo.

Me: Things must be slow over there.

Mindy: Well, of course people died. But not anybody you know.

Me: Do you have a list of everyone I know? How’d you get that?

Mindy: I’m not calling you about anyone who died.

Me: So, what are you doing? Trying to drum up some business? Why are you calling me? I don’t know anybody who died recently.

Mindy: No, I was calling about you. You are Eximundo, right?

Me: I didn’t die.

Mindy: Well, sometimes the unexpected ...

Me: It says on my Caller ID that your name is Christian Adventures. But you told me Mindy. Is Christian Adventures your last name?

Mindy: No, that’s just my business.

Me: I thought you said you were working for Death-Wish Funeral Homes.

Mindy: Yes, uh-huh, Eximundo, I am. But this is my home phone.

Me: So somebody in your home is named Christian Adventures?

Mindy: No, that’s my business.

Me: Let me get this straight, Mindy, because I’m a little confused. You’re calling for one business, using a phone belonging to another business, but you’re really home?

Mindy: Yes.

Me: Well, I’m not interested in getting calls advertising Christianity.

Mindy: Oh, I’m not advertising ...

Me: See, here’s the thing, Mindy. When I notice “Christian Adventures” on my Caller ID, I get the feeling – don’t ask me why – that either your name is Christian Adventures or you work for some group called Christian Adventures. Isn’t that a reasonable assumption on my part?

Mindy: No, I’m just ...

Me: But that’s your home phone, right?

Mindy: Yes. I’m not calling for ...

Me: Well, here’s my problem. Whether it’s your home phone or your business phone or somebody else’s business phone or maybe even Jesus’s iPhone, I see “Christian Adventures” and right away I think you’re shilling for god.

Mindy: No, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m just ...

Me: So could you please tell Death-Wish Funeral Homes that I’m not interested in getting any more calls from them if they’re a front for a Christian organization?

Mindy: No, they’re not a front ...

Me: Because they must be, since my caller ID says it in plain English. “Christian Adventures.” That’s not a Muslim group, is it?

Mindy: No, you don’t understand. You’re just seeing my ...

Me: Shall I spell “Christian Adventures” for you, Mindy? Maybe I’m reading it wrong.

Mindy: Wait. You don’t understand.

Me: Yeah, I think I do. Goodbye, Mindy.

Today, I called my local branch of Death-Wish Funeral Homes. I began, without saying who I was, by blurting out a question: “Do you folks cater specifically to Christians? I mean, would you call yourselves a Christian funeral home?”

The woman who answered the phone sounded horrified – even though she didn’t know whether I was an overzealous fundy, a Jew, or a heathen. She probably knew I wasn’t a Muslim, because if I were, why would I call a business that I didn’t want to threaten?

Anyway, she immediately volunteered the information that DWFH was non-denominational. She said it twice. I found that oddly endearing, because there was no way she could know whether she was gaining a sale or losing one.

So I identified myself, although not as Eximundo, and told her about the gaggingly cheerful evangelist who was calling on DWFH’s behalf. The woman at the funeral home, sounding sincerely concerned, apologized profusely, and said that they’d track down the caller and take immediate action. Because of her tone of voice, I believed her.

So perhaps Mindy will actually have a Christian Adventure, herself.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The "God" Deletions


That’s a purposely ambiguous title up there. Is this post about deletions of the word “God”? Or is it about deletions by “God” or — given the quotation marks — people who claim to represent some supernatural character whom they call “God”?

Well, it’s about both.

Deletions OF “God”

If I had my way, which is not really my way but, rather, the way of the framers of the Constitution, the word “God” would be removed from all enterprises sponsored, directly or indirectly, by the American government. Article VI and The First Amendment are quite clear on that point: “God” has no official business here. Let’s take that silly, but loaded, word off our money and out of our pledge. Let’s banish it from our courts, from our legislative chambers, and from the mouths of our elected representatives. And, since, according to the third clause of Article VI, religion can’t be used as a test for official office or “public trust,” let’s keep those fucking spiritual advisers away from the president. The views of religious leaders who counsel our elected officials are selected, weighed, vetted for conformity to America’s alleged Christianity. That’s a religious test, folks.

There’s nothing more unAmerican, more anti-patriotic, than elected and appointed governmental office-holders intoning the word “God.” Why? Because the wise men who drew up our Constitution and its Bill of Rights consciously and purposefully chose to leave that word out of their formula, and to take steps to make sure it would never be included in any future activities done specifically under the auspices of the government they created.

Perhaps the writers of the Constitution didn’t foresee the loopholes. They mistakenly thought that all our laws would be passed by the legislature, instead of many “laws” being enacted by the executive branch and by governmental agencies. With that erroneous thought in mind, they voted to include the First Amendment, which specifically banned our legislature from pandering to the superstitious: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Notice that they didn’t write “an establishment of a religion,” which would argue against elevating a specific belief system over others. No, what they said was “an establishment of religion,” with no article, no qualifier. Religion, itself, cannot be established by the legislature. The spirit, if not the letter, of their ideas should be extended to the Oval Office and the Supreme Court, and, therefore, to every executive office and courtroom under the titular jurisdiction of either.

Stop forcing “God” on me, you tyrants.

Deletions BY “God”

OK, let’s start by admitting the obvious: There are many reasons for blogging. Not everyone is interested in sharing ideas, discussing their own and opposing views, or debating with passion and at least some degree of coherence.

In this neck of the Atheosphere, though, we all seem to enjoy doing those things. If you check out my list of frequent commenters, you’ll see the names of lots of people with whom I’ve engaged in intellectual smack-downs, people who have eagerly and effectively jabbed me back. Almost everyone on that list has argued with others in that “honor” roll, although many of us consider one another to be friends. We may get nasty, satirical, or just plain silly. Sometimes, we even piss each other off. A lot. Yet, when we cool down, we can acknowledge that the attacks aren’t personal, they’re back-and-forth thrusts about ideas. To me, taking part in a vehement verbal dispute is a way of showing that I respect another person, although not necessarily his or her opinions about a particular subject. You’ll never see me (and most of us, I think) whining — as one commenter did here: “Obviously you don’t like me.” How stupid and irrelevant is that?

One thing most of us don’t do is delete comments. We may refuse to engage in debate with some people who do write ridiculous remarks, even urge our readers to avoid feeding the “trolls.” But we don’t ban anybody’s ideas from our premises. Most faithfreeists champion Freedom of Speech. In our opinion, it may well be the most valuable right we possess.

But go take a look at some religious blogs. I’m not giving you any links; just pick a few sites at random. What you’ll find, for the most part, are “moderated” threads. If the blog-owner doesn’t care for what someone says, if it offends “God,” then, bam!, it’s gone. Back to the ether. Deleted. The attitude seems to be:

Hey, I have an idea. Let’s have a debate. Only I’ll remove most of the things you say because they’re offensive and they’re aimed at me personally.

I win!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!

Whether you agree or disagree with anything I've written here, feel free to leave a comment. I promise: I will not delete it.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

If It's Adultery, Of Course It's Not Marriage

Ah, the Ten Commandments. Christians and Jews would have us believe that they're universal, so I decided to test that hypothesis.

I had a little difficulty at the very beginning, because actually there are Twelve Commandments. Different religious traditions organize them in various ways. But in the simple English version of Wik-sodus, these Twelve Commandments are:

  1. I am the Lord your God.
  2. You shall have no other gods before me.
  3. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
  4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
  5. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
  6. Honor your father and mother.
  7. You shall not murder.
  8. You shall not commit adultery.
  9. You shall not steal.
  10. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  11. You shall not covet your neighbor's house.
  12. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
OK, I'd gotten my Commandments in a format easy enough for a child to understand, and I wanted to see how they'd make their way around the world. How could I do that?

Only one way: Google Translate.

So I carefully entered the Twelve Commandments in Wikinglish, and then I sent that text flying all over the linguistic globe. Here's the route: English to Arabic to Bulgarian to traditional Chinese to Croatian to Czech to Danish to Dutch to Finnish to French to German to Greek to Hindi to Italian to Japanese to Korean to Norwegian to Polish to Portuguese to Romanian to Russian to Spanish to Swedish. Those are the 23 languages that Google has made available. From Swedish, I made the final translation back to English, since — as any American fundamentalist can tell you that's the actual language of Jesus.

The final result is the True and Authentic Universal Version of the Twelve Commandments, just as God meant them to be:
  1. I am your God weeks.
  2. Also from all other sins.
  3. "The presence of the image.
  4. In order to combat violence in the name of God.
  5. Do not forget, Saturday, in order to protect a sacred animal.
  6. His father and mother.
  7. Sueopseup dead.
  8. This is not marriage.
  9. If the state.
  10. It is perjury and neighbors.
  11. This should be away from home sueopseup people.
  12. In May a woman was approaching.
Forgive me for not knowing exactly how to pronounce the character " in the Third Commandment; I think it may be a variant of the click sound found in Xhosa, although I have no idea how it made its way into the translation. My guess is: the Bulgarians snuck it in.

I should also point out that we learn, from the final translated version of the Fifth Commandment, the name of the person to whom God was speaking. It was not Moses, as commonly believed; it was Saturday.

I'm sorry that I can't identify exactly who the Sueopseup people are, but I suspect that they may be the Hittites. In any case, they're either dead or away from home, so don't expect them to protect your sacred animal.

Even though I have no evidence, I'd like to believe that the approaching woman was beautiful. But I do wish she had chosen to wear something other than traditional Sueopseup garb.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Barefootin'

People whose ancestors were Jews don’t usually feel fully comfortable complaining to governmental officials. There’s a famous picture of a Jew being forced to walk barefoot through the streets during the early years of Nazi Germany. He’s surrounded by mocking polizei. A sign has been hung from his neck, and it says something to the effect of: “I complained to the authorities, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.”

But this is America, right? And yesterday I wrote that I would take some action about the genuine Jesus Christ paper prayer rug scam. Remember that the thick envelope containing that sacred relic arrived in my mailbox under the no-stamp-required guise of a message from a nonprofit organization.

I neglected to mention in my previous post that I was supposed to return the prayer rug — along with my “seed” money — to Saint Matthew’s Churches. “It is a must that you get this unusual blessing Church Prayer Rug out of this house and back to us, here at the church’s chapel prayer room, in faith.” Why? So that the very same scrap of paper can be rushed to “another family that’s in need of a blessing.”

Essentially, we’re talking about a bogus chain letter here. The urgent plea for me to return the prayer rug is clearly made to encourage an immediate response. It’s a taxpayer-financed get-rich-quick scheme.

So, I made some phone calls: the post office, my U.S. senators, and the IRS.

After introducing myself, here’s how I opened each conversation.

There’s a group of con artists that have apparently been given tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization. They’re doing a mass mailing of a fraudulent chain letter asking me to send them money to a post office box. The group is posing as a church, but they’re criminals; the whole thing is clearly a scam. I object to using my hard-earned tax money to finance a crooked scheme.

I emphasized "my hard-earned tax money." If I could have spoken in red, boldface, italic, capitalized, underlined type, I would have. In lieu of that, I reached into my linguistic arsenal and found my pissed-off voice. That's the one I've borrowed from Donald Duck.

The Response at the Post Office

The woman at the post office took my name, address, and phone number. Then she asked for the name and address of the bogus church. After she got this information entered into “the system,” she apologized for my inconvenience. I told her that I accepted her apology but that, really, she wasn’t responsible.

“I don’t believe in killing the messenger,” I joked.

She didn’t understand what I meant, so she apologized again. I’m hoping that the Feds don’t show up to arrest me for making threats over the telephone.

The Response at (titular Democrat) Bill Nelson’s Office

I’m not a fan of either political party, but I tend to lean a bit more toward the Democrats’ line of bullshit these days. So first, I called Senator Bill Nelson’s office in Washington.

A too chipper guy answered the phone, and I rattled off my introductory paragraph.

He said, “Thanks for calling. I’ll pass that information along.”

I said, “Wait a minute. I didn’t give you any information.”

He said, “Oh, OK. Give me the information.”

I asked, “Will you pass it along?”

He said, “Mmm-hmmm. Yes. Definitely.”

I said, “No you won’t.” Then I hung up.

The Response at (Republican) Mel Martinez’s Office

The man who answered in Mel’s Washington office listened to my spiel and said I’d better call the senator’s local office in Florida. He gave me the number and told me to say I was phoning about “case work.”

I did so. A very charming woman listened carefully to my gripe and asked whom the letter came from. I told her and she said, “Well, obviously the IRS has given them tax-exempt status because they’re a church.”

I went into detail about the contents of the envelope. She chuckled a few times.

“Doesn’t that sound like a con to you?” I asked.

She laughed again. “I can’t really say,” she replied. “Lots of people have faith in different things. I go to church every Sunday and tithe, so I can understand when someone sends money to a church. But let me look this one up for you to see if there are any other complaints.”

I didn’t know where she was searching, but my astute Sherlock Holmes mind interpreted the tapping and I assumed it was somewhere on the Internet. I waited patiently for a few seconds. “Well,” she said, “you’re not the first person to make a charge against them.”

Then I heard the tapping again. She said, “I went to their Web site. It looks like they actually do have a church building. So it’s not just a post office box.”

“But, tell the truth. It looks kind of fishy, doesn’t it?”

She repeated: “Lots of people have faith in different things. I’ve heard of churches that sell water that’s supposed to be from the Sea of Galilee.”

“Yeah, other crooks. I mean, have you ever heard of a Christian prayer rug? Does that sound kosher to you?”

She tittered ever so slightly. “Well, I can’t say. But you might want to report this to the IRS and have them look into it.”

More tapping. “OK,” she said, “I’m at the IRS Web site and it looks like there’s a form you can fill out to complain about tax fraud.”

“Yes,” I said, “but isn’t that only if you’re trying to report a person or company who’s cheating on taxes? Like Al Capone.”

She giggled. I mentally gave her some points for recognizing my reference. “All right, I’ve got it. Here’s instructions about how to write a personal letter to them. That’s probably what you should do.”

She also gave me a phone number to call. I thanked her and told her that I was impressed with how non-commital she could be. She laughed yet again and wished me good luck.

The Response at the IRS

By now I felt like just some old crank, but I decided to finish what I’d started. After dialing the number and pushing the right buttons to get to the department I wanted, I was placed on hold. The music I heard was from “The Nutcracker Suite.” I checked my calendar to make sure it’s the middle of May. We old cranks sometimes forget stuff.

An agent finally answered and identified himself by name and official number. I went through my intro.

He told me I could either write a letter and mail it, fax a note with the appropriate details, or send an email. I said an email would be great, and he gave me the address. Then I asked him if it would be worth my time and effort. He said, “Yes. Give us as much information about the organization as you can. We like to investigate these things.”

So now, having spent a few hours mostly on hold, I’ll follow through. Tomorrow. By that time, I'll have recranked my crank.

More — if I actually get a response — in the future. In the meantime, watch for my barefoot photo in your local newspaper.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

My Friends Call Me "Rezz"


Well, I guess Jesus is all-seeing after all. Even though I’m clearly identified here on No More Hornets as “The Exterminator,” the Christ has figured out that I don’t usually go by that title in my day-to-day life. I got a piece of mail from his representatives today, and it was addressed to me by the actual name I use in my non-blogging existence: RESIDENT. (Confession: It used to be RESIDENTOWITZ, but my grandparents changed it to make it sound more American.)

The envelope was dated “Sunday — May 2008.” I was under the mistaken impression that there were four Sundays in May 2008, but I guess I was wrong. However, I did wonder: If Jesus is so magical, how come I received the letter on a Wednesday? I guess we all know that the lord works in mysterious ways. As god always says: “Sunday, Shmunday. What am I, a watchmaker?”

Also on the envelope, there was a lot of red type and underlining and double-underlining and italics and boldface and BOLDFACE CAPS. And, of course, what would a note from Jesus be without at least one exclamation point! Not only is he omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, but he's also omnifonted. In the beginning was the MS Word.

Contained inside the package was some hoopla about an accompanying paper prayer rug, and how the closed eyes on the Jesus face would open if I stared "into" them hard enough. They didn’t, but I was briefly able to see the messiah's face in complementary colors when I quickly looked up at my white wall. There was also the text of some mumbo-jumbo I was supposed to repeat while kneeling on the rug or holding it over my knees, as well as some instructions for where I should stick the thing overnight. No, not there. And of course I was asked — gently — to make a contribution to St. Matthew’s 57-year-old Church (not to be confused with St. Matthew’s 58-year-old Church), the institutional sender of this First Epistle to Residentians.

The prayer rug was a folded piece of 11 x 17 paper, tinted in lavender and orange, which is certainly the most holy color combination. Near the bottom, it was conveniently labeled "Church Prayer Rug," so I wouldn't mistakenly think it was just some run-of-the-mill unfolded picture of Jesus. The thorn-crowned savior's face sat smack in the center and some ersatz Persian-ruggish design surrounded him as a border. On the back of this treasure, a short text informed me that it had been “Soaked with the Power of Prayer.” It didn’t feel moist, but maybe that’s because I’m an atheist. Anyway, I was ordered to use it immediately, and return it because “Timing is important to God.” (That's probably why he's such a great comedian.)

So I had in my hands:

  • a very personal letter (Dear ... Someone Connected with This Address);
  • a genuine paper prayer rug with Jesus's authentic face, complete with a pathetic, solitary tear streaming down from his closed left eye;
  • testimonials from women who had received financial windfalls from J.C., but neither of whom, judging from their pictures, saw fit to use the cash for a much needed makeover;
  • an offer for a “FREE, DEUTERONOMY 8:18 PROSPERITY CROSS, BLESSED BY THE CHURCH (Look it up, you lazy bastards);
  • special Christian fortune-cookie prophecies personally meant for me, RESIDENT (apparently, I may feel my inner power growing);
  • a checklist designating exactly how I’d like the church to use their power of prayer for my family and myself (e.g., A New Car, A Money Blessing, or A Closer Walk With Jesus);
  • an important shilling notice reminding me that I should “Pray about sowing a seed gift to the Lord’s work,” and asking me to “give God your best seed and believe Him for His best blessing" (yeah, I was tempted to do what you’re thinking of);
  • and an enclosed return envelope (addressed to “PRAYER BY LETTERS”).
All this had been stuffed into a business envelope that had a printed notice in place of a stamp:
NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT No.

636
So our tax dollars, yours and mine, are being used to pay mailing fees for a scamming CHRISTIAN CHAIN LETTER!!!

I’ll be calling the postal authorities tomorrow. I’ll also be contacting my congressman and both senators. More later.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

An Atheist Goes to a Wedding

On Sunday, I went to a wedding.

Intellectually, I’m a cynic when it comes to weddings. Not marriages, necessarily — but weddings. I believe that neither a god nor a government should have a role to play in announcing that two people love one another and have decided to make a mutual commitment. In the United States, as in many other countries, there are certain legal ramifications to being married, but I don’t see why families should spend thousands and thousands of dollars to declare, in essence, that a man and a woman have decided to pool their property. It’s a contract, is what it is.

Emotionally, I’m not such a cynic. Weddings are symbolic rituals that go back to the beginnings of civilization. When a couple gets married, they’re joining hands with their ancestors, with all of our ancestors. They’re enrolling in a very non-exclusive club of humans who have recognized that life, in one way or another, is more livable with a partner. They’re making the same kinds of promises that their great-great-grandparents made, promises that may be kept or broken, but promises that are as old as history. Time stops. The couple reaches backward to the past and forward to the future to carve out their own traditional but complex relationship that we need only two words to define: “They’re married.”

The wedding that I went to on Sunday was held on a large projecting balcony area of a hotel. Beyond it lay the ocean, a beautiful and natural backdrop. As the guests seated themselves, the waves, timeless but ruled by time, pleaded again and again with the shore: Let us stop moving; let us stay here. Give us a break.

Pelicans, whose faces resemble the flying lizards from whom they’ve evolved, soared in formation overhead. They flapped their wings infrequently and — to my thinking — reluctantly: Let us stop moving; give us a break.

In the distance, someone on the beach was listening to rap music with a bass beat we could feel in our shoes, music that tried to propel us up out of our seats (and onto an imaginary dance floor) as it competed with the Bach, Vivaldi, and Pachelbel played so solemnly by the string quartet. Our bodies cried out to the faraway sounds: Let us stop moving; give us a break. Wedding marchers walked slowly and awkwardly in time to the strings, pausing every few steps so as not to get too close to those who preceded them. Their nervous eyes and pasted-on smiles said to one another: Let us stop moving; give the people in front of us a break.

So here’s what the preliminaries of the wedding made me think of. In all the crazy motion of life, a wedding is an attempt to fix a certain moment in time: If only for a few minutes, let us stop moving; give us a break. We humans, for whatever evolutionary reason, require our ritual occasions to put us back in touch with the rest of our species, both living and dead. Some of us may even choose to reflect for a short time, to revel briefly in our commonality. Let differences be forgotten for this instant; give our reciprocated animosities a break.

But, of course, that was not to be. The fatheaded officiant brought her god into the proceedings and made the whole thing trivial and silly. She rattled on and on and on: Jesus wants the couple to do this, Christ wants the couple to be that. Her ADHD deity, who never takes a break to smell the roses that he allegedly created, after who-knows-how-many failed attempts, had hand-selected this pair to be “one.” He was deliriously happy that they’d come together in front of relatives and friends to build their futures on the rock of his Christianity. Despite all the crap that’s going on in the world, he managed to put other concerns aside to come to this insignificant small-time wedding on a beach in the middle of nowhere. He smiled on the bride and on the groom and gave them their marching orders; get busy leading a holy life. In Jesus’s name amen.

Meanwhile, the sea — carrying countless lifeforms as it has done, without any supernatural commands, for well over three billion years — kept saying to the priestess: Give them a break. Shut up, and give them a break.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Hillary Get Your Gun


How much more disgusting can Hillary Clinton get?

Here she is (according to Huffington Post) in Indiana, responding to Obama's oh-so-outrageous "elitist" comment that he thinks bitter, frustrated people focus too much on their guns, their religion, and their prejudice against immigrants. Hillary loves her firearms so passionately that she can channel Charlton Heston:

You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl.

You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.
I think any people for whom killing defenseless animals is an important part of who they are ought to be kept as far away from guns — and the White House — as possible.

Aren't sentiments like Hillary's exactly what's wrong with this damn country?

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

The God-Gene: An Evolutionary Reality?

Well, now I’m completely pissed off. And what I’m pissed off at is that no one else seems to be pissed off about this.

I imagine you’ve already seen or heard the story of Fofo the gorilla, since it’s all over the media today. In case you didn’t know, Fofo is the daughter of the famous Koko. Koko, as everyone knows, understands approximately 2,000 English words, can sign more than 1,000 of them, and even invents her own compounds (for instance: “finger” + “bracelet” for “ring”). That’s better than most fundies do with the language.

So Fofo was “lent” — whatever that means — to the Nonoverlapping Magisteria Foundation, the mission of which, according to its literature, is to “reconcile science and religion.” In order to work for the foundation, a researcher must be both a recognized scientist in his or her field and a person who believes in a god.

That requirement alone should set off alarms in your head. But the Fofo project is funded by some mysterious shadow organization called “Answers in Gorillas.” Here’s what the Foundation’s literature has to say about its research: “Through our work with one of humankind’s allegedly closest evolutionary ancestors, we expect to demonstrate conclusively that a God-gene was placed by the Creator into the brains of every living creature on Earth.”

This is from the AP story:

Linguists at the NMF have been working with Fofo for several years, and are now satisfied that she not only understands the concept of God, but believes in Him, as well.
Those so-called scientists have taught her a number of signs for “religious” feelings. Get this: when she points upward and smiles “beatifically” [NOTE: AP’s word, not mine], she's saying “god.” And when she scrunches up her face in pain and stretches her arms out from her shoulders, she's saying “Jesus.” She has even, according to Dr. Enrico Bonzoni, who heads the project, invented a sign for “Christian.” Here’s the AP again:
Bonzoni began to notice that Fofo would make the signs for “me,” “love,” and “Jesus.” Through some simple exchanges, Bonzoni made her understand that he, too, loves Jesus. He says, “Then I showed her the gold cross I wear around my neck, and she seemed eager to have it. So I put it on her.”

Other researchers followed suit, each ultimately contributing a cross for Fofo’s collection. She now wears twelve crosses, and refuses to take them off. According to Dr. Bonzoni, Fofo “now sees that she is part of a worldwide community of the saved.”

About a year ago, there was an unfortunate incident with Dr. Chaim Nogoyim, who is of the Jewish faith. He wears a Star of David, rather than a cross, so Fofo offered him one of hers. Trying to make Fofo realize that there are many paths to the same God, Nogoyim signed “God,” then “no” (or “not”), and “Jesus.” Since then, Fofo has refused to “speak” with him any longer.
Great work, NMF. Fofo is now the world’s first anti-Semitic gorilla.

But here’s the part of the story that really got me up in arms. An unidentified researcher has complained that all is not as it appears. Fofo is being threatened whenever she misbehaves.
“If she acts up,” an anonymous researcher on the project claims, “she’s shown the sign for hell, which is a forefinger repeatedly pointed downward, a tortured expression that looks something like the 'Scream' painting, and a little dance as if the signer is walking on hot coals. Fofo has become terrified of that word and will do almost everything to avoid seeing it or signing it herself. However, about two months ago, she started using it whenever Dr. Nogoyim happened to pass in front of her enclosure. And now, she uses it every time she notices one of our interns wearing a mini-skirt.”
It’s clear to me that Fofo is being abused. Atheist organizations should join hands with animal rights groups to put an end to this outrageous exploitation. But it may already be too late to stop the madness from spreading. The last paragraph of the AP report is infuriating:
Under the auspices of yet another clandestine benefactor known as the Parroty Institute, the NMF has already begun research on the existence of the God-gene in African Greys. In the first experiment, three birds have been taught to distinguish linguistically between two similar objects. When asked “Who was responsible for 9/11?” they respond “progressive secularists.” But when asked “Who was responsible for Hurricane Katrina?” they respond “secular progressives.” Lately, the religious scientists, themselves, have been astounded by the parrots’ progress. When the researchers recently added a third question, “Who’s responsible for global warming?,” they tried to teach the test subjects the answer, “What global warming?” Instead one of the birds replied, “Dr. Nogoyim.”

Friday, September 21, 2007

Is Rainwater All Wet?

Today I had a personal email from PhillyChief, asking me to write my own post on the same subject as one he’d just published. It’s really nifty, I think, that some of us atheists communicate with one another privately to ask for advice, comments, and criticism, and to urge further discussion on issues that need to be hashed out in the Atheosphere. We are a community, and I count Philly among my friends.

The trouble in this instance, though, is: I disagree with him. Go read Philly’s post, so I don’t have to restate the whole situation. You might also want to take a look at John P.’s post, while you’re at it.

* * *

Welcome back. I’m gonna digress for a minute to quote the U.S. Constitution once more, because I don’t think it can ever be quoted enough. The First Amendment begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...
The first few words of the Amendment are often referred to as the Establishment Clause. The second prohibition against governmental interference is known as the Free Exercise Clause. And, of course, the rest of the part I quoted is the Free Speech Clause. For fans of the Marx Brothers, I’d like to point out that there is no Sanity Clause.

Neither the Freedom From Religion Foundation nor schools Superintendent Art Rainwater are claiming that the Free Exercise Clause is at issue. The FFRF is claiming that distribution of the fliers violates the Establishment Clause. Rainwater’s claim is that distribution of the fliers upholds the Free Speech Clause. Hey, we’ve got ourselves a potential Constitutional conflict, don't we? No governmental institution (among which, clearly, are public schools) may work toward establishing a religion, nor may it abridge the right to free speech. I’ve already addressed this dilemma in my post Bongs Hits for Establishment.

So the School Board, in the alleged goal of creating “a limited public forum,” decides that any “appropriate” flier (apparently purely commercial advertisements are disallowed) may be sent home with the kids for the parents to read. The flier must include a printed disclaimer stating that the activity is not sponsored, approved, or endorsed by the school.

Now, we’ve seen the tactic of sending home Christian messages before. The godpushers who want to enslave young minds are delighted to be able to do so under the auspices, if not the technical support, of public education. Their agenda is obvious.

BUT ... and it’s a big but (no offense to anyone) ... the School Board’s policy, as stated, sounds commendable. What better way to teach children that speech is free in this country than to let them be inundated with fliers of all sorts? Yes, we should teach them, speech is free, but not all speech should be accepted as true or valuable. Each member of the audience must decide for him- or herself whether the message is gold or garbage. That’s a very cool lesson. And remember: parents can simply toss out any flier they find offensive. Or, better still, they can use it as a springboard for a family discussion.

If we really believe in free speech, we should support it everywhere. Free speech may be offensive to some, but that’s the way it is with freedom: sometimes it's messy. Either you’re for free speech or against it; there’s no picking and choosing. And it should extend to the classroom, too. As Justice Fortas wrote in a different context:
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.
So there in Madison we have a potential Constitutional problem: Do the fliers violate the Establishment Clause or are they merely an exercise of Free Speech? I’d be inclined to go with free speech for the time being, and leave the school board alone. As unlikely as it seems to those of us who have seen the fundies’ dishonesty time and time again, perhaps this situtation is different.

There’s an easy way to decide. The offending flier said:
Plant the Seeds of Faith in Jesus in Your Child at Our Sunday School ...Don't Neglect the 3 R's: Religion, Relationships and Rejoicing.
An atheist group should come up with a similar flier that says (for example):
Plant the Seeds of Reason in Your Child at Our Sunday Secular Meeting ... Don’t Neglect the 3 R’s: Reality, Rationality and Relish.
(I also like Revitalization, Release, or Risibility as substitutes for that last R. Even repeating Relationships or Rejoicing would be fine. Just don't make it Republicanism.)

If that flier flies, we atheists should have no complaint. If it’s banned for any reason, we’ve got an Establishment and a Free Speech case.

So let’s be reasonable, as we atheists always claim to be. It’s premature to be flooding the school board with letters and emails. There’s a small chance that they really do care about promoting free speech. Wouldn’t that be fantastic, eh?

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Hey, I'm Not Sticking it to the Pope Today

Every single day, my newsfeed sends me at least one or two articles featuring a whine by some religionist about the “militancy” of the “new” atheists. Today’s bellyache, a piece called "Secularism: Boring (Part I)," comes from Jacques Berlinerblau, “associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.” According to his attached bio, Berlinerblau has “written extensively in scholarly journals,” (NOTE: not “for,” which would be the preposition of choice by any English-speaker who wanted to distinguish himself from persons who merely jotted their maunderings in the margins). You’ll know if you’ve ever read a scholarly journal that the above is not necessarily an impressive credential.

In any case, Berlinerblau begins with this query:

Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than thirty seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the common good, crypto-Nazis, conjure men, irrationalists, pedophiles, bearers of false consciousness, authoritarian despots, and so forth? Is that possible?
The short answer is: Yes, it’s possible. The longer answer is: Yes, it’s technically possible; we atheists will gladly eschew those terms when describing any theist to whom they don’t apply. Got a suggestion?

He then goes on to characterize the atheist writers of best-selling books as “the soccer hooligans of reasoned discourse.” You can almost hear the author rubbing his hands together at his single “clever” turn-of-phrase, and calling his friends to say, “Hey, listen to this!” The problem is: that’s not exactly a reasoned response to a stream of thought-provoking volumes. Instead, it’s the response of someone who is an imbecile, an extremist, mentally deficient, irrational, a bearer of false consciousness, and an authoritarian despot. Whether Berlinerblau is also a fascist, an enemy of the common good, a crypto-Nazi, a conjure man, or a pedophile is not clear.

Berlinerblau’s main complaint is that atheism’s current advocates lack “new ideas.” Well, of course they do. Atheists’ one and only unifying “idea” is that a belief in any supernatural beings is ridiculous because it can’t be founded on evidence. In addition, many of us see that religions inherently create artificial separations among peoples, and lead to wars and other atrocities. How evil of us to notice that! These are old notions that have gone unanswered — at least satisfactorily — by godpushers since way before the Christian era. They’re not new ideas; they’re old ideas whose time, we hope, has finally come.

Berlinerblau does make a valid point, however:

... contemporary nonbelief lacks any discernible political dynamism, not to mention power.
He’s right. That’s why all atheists should unite in the next election. We must refuse to vote for any political candidate — any! — who (1) doesn’t speak out actively and agressively for continued separation of church and state, (2) won’t clearly support the rights of millions of nonbelievers in America, and (3) panders to religious voters with implied promises of governmental favors. Much as it makes me wince to say this: we atheists have to vote as a bloc. If that means writing in “The Exterminator” on your ballot, sobeit. (If things come to that pass, I will publish my real name, so your losing vote counts.)

The associate professor goes on to say:

For the past decade or so, only the most snarling and extreme variants of atheist and agnostic thought have been featured in Book Review sections, Op-Ed pages, and magazines of opinion. Sticking it to the Pope, taking on Islam in its entirety, or ridiculing Bible-carrying Christians has become the admission ticket for those nonbelievers craving media attention.
It would be difficult to disagree with that assessment, were it not so maliciously misleading. Yes, in order to appear in The Washington Post or Newsweek Magazine — sponsors of the “On Faith” forum that published Berlinerblau’s article — an atheist must say something outrageous. Is that the atheists’ fault, or the media’s? Are Newsweek and The Washington Post seeking out non-sensationalist atheists to write columns for them? They wouldn't have to go far; the Atheosphere is filled with gentle non-souls, who make confrontation-free, humanistic arguments for godlessness. But those kinds of people wouldn't sell paper, or generate hits, on the scale to which "On Faith" aspires. So, instead, rabble-rousers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are encouraged to shock the audience that clamors to be shocked.

Even amongst our controversy-hungry media, I think an atheist like Neil deGrasse Tyson, for instance, gets some well-deserved attention without “ridiculing Bible-carrying Christians.” As far as I know, “sticking it to the Pope” is not a feature of any writings by Daniel Dennett. “Taking on Islam in its entirety” is a powerful-sounding, but meaningless phrase, since atheists take on all religions in their entirety.

And if he were really hungry for non-extreme atheist writing, Berlinerblau could find plenty of it readily available. Even setting aside the "moderate" nonbelievers' blogs, why hasn't he read the hundreds of philosophy, science, humanist, literary, and skeptic magazines that treat all facets of freethought? Because that doesn't make good copy for his own snarl.

So let’s add “maliciously misleading” to Berlinerblau’s list of descriptive phrases.

The article finishes with a suggestion that we atheists indulge in self-criticism. (The italics are his.) I volunteer to start. I hereby criticize myself for spending far too much time reading drivel like Berlinerblau’s little essay (Part I of it, anway) . In future, I resolve no longer to take seriously the ravings of maliciously misleading imbeciles, extremists, or mental deficients, even those who have written extensively in scholarly journals.

Think of that as my first campaign promise.

Friday, June 01, 2007

Carnival of Indoctrination

We English-speakers in the Atheosphere tend to focus on the claptrap spoon-fed by Christians to their innocent children. However, many other religions also enjoy brainwashing the young. In this, the first and—let’s hope—the last Carnival of Indoctrination, I’ve collected some choice gems from around the Internet. Enjoy!

Commentary
Many, many years ago, I substitute-taught for a week at a yeshivah in Brooklyn. When I passed out a test one day, the kids all reached into their pockets, and there was a sudden flurry of little cards. Each boy had placed a small inspirational photo or drawing on his desk. Walking around the room, I realized that the “helpful” pictures reminded me of Catholic saints. I said to the least unsecular kid, “I thought the Jews didn’t allow graven images.” He responded, “This is no graven image. This is my rebby.” The following game reminded me of that.
Instructions
Although the page doesn’t say so, you can move a piece just by clicking on it, as long as it's next to the empty space. I guess there’s a passage in the Torah explaining this.
Jewish Indoctrination

Commentary
A du’a is a personal supplication to Allah, kind of like a solicitation call to the sky. Basically, you’re free to ask for anything, but—and I’m giving you a big hint you don’t deserve—Allah seems to prefer that it not be a car or money.
Instructions
Click on the dropdown menu to see your choices. If you have some other ideas that aren’t listed, take it up with your imam.
Muslim Indoctrination

Commentary
The finished picture may remind you of THE virgin and child, but it isn’t. Jesus, as everyone knows, was not blue (except perhaps in the emotional sense). The infant shown is actually Rama (not to be confused with Rama Lama Ding Dong).
Instructions
Oh, yikes. Just read “How to Play,” f'chrissake.
Hindu Indoctrination

Commentary
This is actually my favorite of the sites. I must admit, though, that I expected to hear traditional Asian hymns. Instead, the featured music is the same insipid, twangy stuff that Christians used to go for before they discovered the money-raising wonders of ersatz hard rock.
Instructions
The instructions fail to mention that you have to anticipate the arrows, not just wait until they land. And the blurb about loading the hymns isn’t kidding when it says “You have to wait awhile ....” But patience is a virtue, right? By the way, once the song has started, there’s no way to stop it before it’s done, unless you exit the page. If you get bored of the game, perhaps you can practice clapping with one hand.
Buddhist Indoctrination

Commentary
Although it may not be apparent, this propaganda puzzle is for followers of the Baha’i faith, which was invented in the mid-1800s by a Persian who called himself Baha’u’llah. His message was one of world unity and peace, so it's obviously unappealing to followers of the Abrahamic cults.
Instructions
If you click on “New Game,” you can begin playing. Start at any appropriate letter, and move your mouse to block out a word. There are three different games available. Nothing against Baha'i, but I can't imagine how Chicago could be considered a “religious place.”
Baha'i Indoctrination

Commentary
This coloring book describes a typical spring day for little “witchlets.” You’ll find that their activities are mostly similar to those of normal evangelical children, except that these youngsters have a brief episode in which they seeing faeries. Notice that the simple-minded author couldn’t find a rhyme for the word “flew,” so she magically changed the past tense of “fly” to “flied.” Witches can do shit like that.
Instructions
This is a PDF file, and takes a long time to load. The upside is that you can print out the pages to color. Warning: Do NOT use your crayons on your computer screen.
Wiccan Indoctrination

Commentary
This is not an indoctrination for children per se, but I did want to share its message with all my readers. On first viewing, you may think that some kind of sadistic eye test is going on, but sit quietly and relax. Unless, of course, you have the same response that I did and the music makes you want to jump up and start belly-dancing. Note: Your wife will probably not be entertained by that.
Instructions
Duh. Click on “play.”
Zoroastrian Indoctrination

Commentary
Well, try as I might, I couldn’t find any sites specifically dedicated to brainwashing tots in Scientology. This interactive feature is the closest I could come.
Instructions
Set your E-meter to “Stupid” and go.
Scientology Indoctrination

Well, boys and girls, we've reached the end of our little fun fair, at least for now. But you know where we are. The next time you need your brain washed, ask your parents to bring you by for another visit. Remember: Your mind can never be too cleansed.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Who Cares What That Idiot Thinks?

In its continuing campaign to confer legitimacy on the creationism and intelligent design movement, The New York Times has today published an opinion piece written by Senator Sam Brownback. "What I Think About Evolution" is the kind of essay so blatantly dishonest that it isn’t even worth dignifying with a comment. You might want to read it though, bearing in mind that this lying ignoramus is running for president.

Here’s a taste:

...I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Brownback — or, more likely, his ghostwriter — really went to town to obfuscate his meaning, eh? But in plain English, what that last sentence implies is: If a scientist doesn’t accept the concept of intelligent design or purpose, you've got to wonder if he or she is really being scientific. This, as everyone with half a brain knows, is the final unutilized product of the digestive process excreted from the anus of male bovines whose sexual and reproductive organs are intact.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Dozens of Great Rides at This Carnival!

In a stunning achievement, PZ Myers at Pharyngula has produced a mammoth carnival about the Creation Museum. I counted 73 links, none of them "missing," organized thematically. Maybe Myers is that intelligent designer some people are talking about.

Every link is well worth clicking on and reading, even if it takes you 6,000 years (roughly the age of the Earth, according to the Museum) to finish.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Genesis of a Lawsuit

Among all the hoo-ha about the opening of the Creation Museum in the wilds of Boone County, Kentucky this weekend, I have yet to see this simple point made:

The minute a public-school teacher takes his or her class on a field trip to the Christian House of Deception, we’ve got a lawsuit a-borning. Ever since the Supreme Court’s Edwards v. Aguillard decision in 1987, schools that are paid for with taxpayer cash have been forbidden to teach creationism as if it were science. As most of us know, this ban emboldened creationists to change the name of their unnatural history to “intelligent design.” But the non-distinct distinction between ID and creationism has not tended to hold up in the few cases that have reached the courts.

In any event, though, the Creation Museum doesn’t seem to be making a pretense of teaching intelligent design; its lessons are creationist, pure and simple. Ah, but they’re passed off as science, and that’s where the courts will be able to step in.

From what I’ve read and seen, the Creation Museum is putting a strong emphasis on its bogus science, advertising itself as, essentially, an alternative science attraction. So it would be the height of dishonesty for a public school teacher, principal, or school board member to justify a trip to this evangelical magic show as a study of “literature,” or “history,” or “comparative religion,”or any other educational endeavor besides the very science it pretends to be. That so-called “science,” as judges in several venues have found, is really fundamentalist propaganda.

Concerned parents, therefore, could certainly sue if a trip to the museum were an outing sponsored by their child’s public school. I think such parents might even be able to bring legal action if a public school official so much as suggested that students visit the place. Even initiating a discussion about it in the classroom—or the lunchroom, gym, or cafeteria — could well be deemed legally suspect. And don’t fool yourself: One of these things will happen. The museum’s in Kentucky, for crying out loud!

Now, Ken Ham and his institution would likely not be defendants in the case; the school board, principal, or offending teacher would. But Ham would then be stuck with the choice between throwing his full support behind the field trip to his museum, or repudiating it as an improper activity for public school children. The latter course seems unlikely if he wants the ignorati to cling to the illusion that his exhibits present honest-to-god (obviously not to anyone else) science.

Ideally, such a case would give Ken Ham, speaking on behalf of the poor, beleaguered Christian kids in the public schools, all the publicity he seeks. But in court, he’s bound to emerge as the ill-intentioned, know-nothing fraud that he is. With decent lawyering for the parents and enough stubbornness on the opposing school board’s side, Ham’s ham-handed brainwashing could well be exposed as fakery on a scale that would make P.T. Barnum envious.

Unfortunately, such a circus trial wouldn't lead to the closing of the museum, or the opening of the American mind. But it might give some of us hellbound secularists far more satisfaction than holding a vain protest in Daniel Boone’s own boonies.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Three Cheers!

Well, ding-dong the witch is dead. Jerry Falwell has gone to meet his maker: evolution, which resulted in the many microorganisms who will happily feast on that villain’s disgusting remains.

But who now will tell us which of the Teletubbies is a homosexual? Or reveal that the Antichrist is most likely a currently living male Jew? Who else can bilk millions of ignorant followers into contributing dollar after dollar to religio-fascistic causes, or threaten believers with an eternity in hell if they dare to even think of voting for a Democrat? What man or woman is left to proudly condone preemptive nuclear strikes on countries whose non-Christian peoples are the “enemies of god”? What voice will cry that there’s a conspiracy to steal Christmas? What smug, hate-filled demagogue will explain away the worst manmade and natural disasters as Jesus’s personal revenge against “pagans, abortionists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle,” or claim that “the ACLU’s got to take a lot of blame” for the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

No longer will we Americans get to hear words of wisdom like:

  • The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
  • If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.
  • Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.
  • The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.
  • It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.
  • It is God's planet - and he's taking care of it. And I don't believe that anything we do will raise or lower the temperature one point.
  • I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
Well, he didn't live to see that, but, oh, what a happy day this is. In some small way, the world has been made a better—and smarter—place. Hurrah!

ADDENDUM (9:17 p.m. EDT): Now that I’ve had a chance to look over Blogworld’s reaction to this vile monster’s demise, I’m fascinated by how many bloggers, myself included, quoted “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.” Why did that specific meme spring so readily to mind? I think it’s because the lyric is one of the few examples in popular culture of general jubilation over someone’s death. Normally, we all tend to show “respect for the departed,” at least for a little while. But millions of people — atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, feminists, environmentalists, peace-lovers, homosexuals, women in need of abortions, sufferers who would benefit from stem-cell research, Democrats, Liberals, Libertarians, the poor, the sick, the helpless, and all who deplore the purposeful spread of ignorance — were relentlessly targeted by that glib son-of-a-bitch who used his governmental connections to sow hatred and superstition at every opportunity. We’re all delighted to see that bastard finally board the outbound broomstick. As the song says: “Yo ho, let’s open up and sing, and ring the bells out!”

Monday, May 07, 2007

No Pray, No Pay

Imagine that you’re looking on a job-listing Web service for a spot as a secretary. The site you’re browsing is a “One-Stop Career Center,” which is run by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. It’s paid for with funds from both the state and the U.S. Department of Labor.

You find a position that sounds as if it would be a perfect match for your skills. But in big letters, the listing says:

No Jews need apply. Buddhists not wanted. Muslims will be refused. Hindus are not acceptable. If you’re a Wiccan, forget about it. And don’t even think of contacting us if you’re an Atheist.
Seems like that ought to be illegal in the U.S., right?

Well, guess again, buddy. You must not know about the Geneva College situation.

Geneva College in Beaver Falls is one of those schools with an Evangelical mission, and it proudly offers a Christian education (as opposed to a real one). The Geneva application asks students to list the name of their church and the names of both their pastor and youth pastor, as if one brain-washer in their lives were insufficient. Applicants are informed that they might be entitled to additional financial aid if one or both of their parents work as a Christian School employee, Missionary, Pastor, or Other full-time Christian worker. (Part-time Christians are, obviously, not eligible.)

Of course, America is a free country, and students— or, more likely, their parents — can pay for whatever indoctrination they’d like to support. All manure-shovelers are equal under the law.

However, Geneva wants to make certain that the propaganda is laid on as thick as possible. The school’s powers-that-be apparently feel that students might be tempted off god’s path if they have a conversation with a custodian or food-preparer who does not share the institution’s particular brand of superstition. That’s why every potential employee must demonstrate a commitment to Christianity.

The Pennsylvania job-seekers’ Web site heroically refused to permit Geneva College to list its employment openings. The U.S. Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, and various Pennsylvania officials decided that the college’s listings violated the Workforce Investment Act, the source of the federal funds. The WIA specifically outlaws discrimination based on various criteria, including religion.

Now, bear in mind that no one was suggesting the school should be denied its right to hire high-level administrative personnel or faculty who conform to Geneva’s stated purpose. The government was not telling them that they must employ rabbis, imams, or scientists to teach the Evangelism-doused classes. In fact, the federal law allows certain exceptions to its anti-discrimination requirement in cases where a candidate’s religion is an honest qualification. But we’re talking here about a hypothetical case of a lower-level employee, the kind of person who, in fact, is most likely to search for work using just such an online service as Pennsylvania offers.

The college filed suit, and was supported by — who else? — the Association of Faith-Based Organizations. Assisted by the nation’s holy hooligans, Geneva argued that it was being denied its constitutional right to freedom of religion. Why should it be precluded from using a publicly accessible Web site? Isn’t everyone in the U.S. entitled to the same civic benefits, regardless of his or her beliefs?

Once again, the theocrats succeeded in setting up a dichotomy between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. To bypass the costly and time-consuming litigation that would surely have ensued, the state of Pennsylvania agreed to allow Geneva to post its help-wanteds on the taxpayer-funded site. The rationale? The college is not, technically, a recipient of government monies.

So go back and read that boldface ad again. Although it will certainly be phrased in a vaguer, more deceitful way, that’s basically what it'll say. And our tax dollars — yours and mine — will pay for it.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

About-Face the Nation

Reporter Bob Schieffer is a great example of exactly how useless — and potentially dangerous — the mainstream media are. On today’s Face the Nation broadcast, he helped theocratic candidate Mike Huckabee spread misinformation that, if accepted by enough viewers, would lead the country backward into the church-dominated Middle Ages.

Huckabee, for those of you unfamiliar with him, is a Baptublican who served as a pastor from 1980-1992. That should make him no stranger to bilking money from the gullible. But, so far at least, Huckabee’s candidacy doesn’t seem to have a financial prayer.

A graduate of Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the candidate is a firm believer in a woman’s right to have a baby whether she wants to or not. He also supports a Constitutional ban on unbiblical gay marriage, and opposes federal funding for soul-killing stem-cell research. His view of science education was enunciated a few years ago on “Arkansans Ask,” a radio call-in show:

I think that students should also be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution, but to the basis of those who believe in creationism....I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally.
No, what he necessarily buys into, personally, is a collection of unsubstantiated fairy tales. The sad thing is that if he had his way, it would be U.S. citizens’ taxpayer dollars that he uses to make his purchase.

In introducing this medieval crank, Schieffer twice told viewers how remarkable Huckabee was.

SCHIEFFER: Even he would admit he’s at the back of the pack, but he is among the most interesting of the candidates this year.
SCHIEFFER: He is also a candidate who says what he thinks, and he is one of the more interesting people around politics, if I do say so.
Schieffer’s idea of “interesting” sets an unprecedentedly low standard for the usage of that word.

During the interview that followed, the reporter kissed the candidate’s behind so hard, that Huckabee will have trouble sitting down for a week. Schieffer spoon-fed the blandest of questions at the interviewee, and accepted without question the predigested answers. An early response of Huckabee’s showed the audience just how interesting he is:

HUCKABEE: ... [T]hose who claim that they represent a certain branch of our party, primarily the Christian evangelicals, got into politics because of adherence to certain moral principles. Now, if those moral principles no longer are the driving force, they render their whole purpose for being in politics irrelevant ...
At least Huckabee was honest in this blatant endorsement of a taliban-style state. But Schieffer was so uninterested in the implications of Huckabee’s statement that he let it go.

The most infuriating interchange during the interview was this one:

SCHIEFFER: Well, let’s talk a little bit about what you’re for and what you’re against. I noticed that you said at one point, “We have to stop driving god out of the public square.” You are an evangelical, I take it?

HUCKABEE: Yes.

SCHIEFFER: What is the connection between government and god in your view?

Notice that Schieffer gave Huckabee yet another opportunity to thump for theocracy.
HUCKABEE: Well, the First Amendment’s pretty clear, and it’s simply this, that government should neither prefer or prohibit the practice of religions. Government shouldn’t go and tell people how to worship or even that they should worship. Government ought to have a hands-off attitude. [Correct so far: The Exterminator] But what government shouldn’t do is tell people that they can’t, or put restrictions. And so I think we’ve made something complicated out of something that the founding fathers really made very simple in the First Amendment. You neither prefer one religion over another, but you don’t prohibit the free exercise thereof. And so when there are efforts made, whether it’s because of political correctness or court decisions that have run amok, where you say you can’t have a nativity scene or a menorah on capitol grounds, that’s absurd ...

SCHIEFFER: All right.

HUCKABEE: We ought to welcome the discussion of faith in the public square.

Now, Schieffer could have said any of a number of things here that would have gently — not adamantly, but amicably, and merely for clarification’s sake — pointed out how Huckabee’s reading of the First Amendment is wrong, wrong, wrong. He might have explained to Huckabee that Congress is forbidden to make “any law respecting an establishment of religion.” The clause does not say a religion, but religion in general, religion of any kind. Thus, according to the Constitution, the government is most definitely not prohibiting the free exercise of religion when it refuses to spend public funds supporting anyone’s beliefs.

Perhaps Schieffer might have at least said, emulating Huckabee’s phraseology on evolution: “I do not necessarily buy into your interpretation of the First Amendment, personally.”

Instead, here’s what he did say:

SCHIEFFER: And where do you come down on the war?
New subject. Huckabee’s antihistorical drivel went undisputed.

Shortly thereafter, the candidate ended the interview by pulling a familiar rabbit out of his hat:

HUCKABEE: Thank you, and happy Easter to you and all your viewers.
Schieffer did not remind Huckabee that at least some of his viewers — say, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Zarathustrans, and, of course, atheists — might not care for such a benediction. Instead, the great reporter replied:
SCHIEFFER: You bet.

Thus, in just a few short minutes, Face the Nation became a venue for unchallenged propaganda. The program helped a godpushing humbug hurl his half-truths without rebuttal. Is that an example of irresponsible journalism? To quote Schieffer: You bet.