Theocracy

Nah, not me. That's the title of a new Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi.

Taibbi went 'undercover' to attend an Encounter Weekend at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in Texas. Hagee, you may recall, has been recently in the news for being batshitinsane, and oh yeah - for endorsing John McCain for president.

And Taibbi is not being metaphorical or ironic in his title. He is referring to the culmination of the Encounter Weekend, where:

One of our favorite guys, Rob Sherman, testified before the Illinois House State Government Administration Committee on Wednesday related to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposed $1 million grant intended for Pilgrim Baptist Church, and was blindsided by wackjob theocrat Rep. Monique Davis who seems to think that atheists don't have any right to exist, and that we are "dangerous to children".

[link] Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

You can listen to the whole sordid thing here.

(Tip of the ballcap to Twitter and Hemant!)

I find myself conflicted. I have no ready resolution to my problem. As it says in my introduction on the sidebar, I'm a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. What that really means is that I'm a registered Independant who doesn't concur with the party platform of the Republicans and Democrats. I am, with caveats, an Objectivist. I may address the hows and whys of those tenents at another time. I promised my conundrum though, and here it is.

These parents allowed their child to die because of their religious beliefs. They allowed a sentient being, a person with their whole life ahead of them, to perish because they believed that if their daughter was worthy, or their prayers fervent enough, she'd be healed by their magic sky fairy. They have murdered their daughter. I use that term, murder, intentionally. They have willfully denied their daughter medical care and because of that she is no more. This is especially tragic to me given that I'm an atheist. Without an afterlife to "live" for, or to transit to post-death, this result, death, is the worst outcome possible in my view. The parents failure to obtain proper medical care for a perfectly treatable condition is a travesty of both life and liberty.

The "State" is not necessary for many things. We are an over-regulated people in America. We have laws governing many of our behaviours. Of these laws, I believe most to be at best unnecessary, at worst intrusive. My conundrum lies in the straight fact that I'd like what these parents have done to be illegal. I WANT state intervention because I can't think of another way to handle such a case. This couple's daughter should be alive today. I'm not feeling my libertarian edge right at this moment and I'd like it back. Help?

Hello, I'm reeling with a lot of new ideas gathered from you people, and this is a rewrite of my first blog entry which basically sucked.

Here's one of the main reasons I came here.

My brain was altered by the Methodists' "dogmagicians" starting when I was almost 6 years old.

Before then, my agnostic dad kept religion out of my life and off my back, but my mother couldn't live with herself, let alone anyone else, so she split and I got moved into her parents' home and church.

Something has to give, when the people you love and trust tell you with a straight face that a guy was killed and then a few days later, he woke up and walked out of the tomb and flew up to heaven where he's been hanging out ever since, waiting for the big day.

So what exactly is it that gives?

Kids in the cult I was forced into get the dogma drill around 5 or 6, by which time they've begun to feel good about their ability to figure things out for themselves.

First of all, let me say that I am fairly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people. One of the most amazing and dynamic professors I had in college was this man. However, the conflict between the Israeli's and the Palestinians is a huge mess that effects everyone in the world, directly or indirectly. Until a peaceful settlement can be reached, violence will be the regions main export.

Of course religion does absolutely nothing to help. As a matter of fact, religion is just another issue to divide us, cause more conflict and further complicate issues. That's why I get so upset when I see video's like this:

And here is a longer version.

Most of the time I have nothing but nice things to say about Ellen Johnson. She's an intelligent, brave, proud spokesperson for atheists. I probably agree with her 98% of the time. But, I don't know what the hell she is thinking in this instance.

I couldn't disagree more. Not voting is the best way to make politicians continue to ignore us. I am frustrated by the same things Ellen is. However, it makes no sense at all to forfeit my vote, as a protest. That's the worst idea I've heard in a while. Write in Richard Dawkins' name or something, but don't sit home.

Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.

Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.

Kind of.

Sort of.

Mostly.

Here's what I agree with you about:

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

Here's where our opinions may part:

I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.

more below the fold

I've heard and seen much mockery focused on the Tom Cruise Scientology video over the past couple of days. (I apologize if that link no longer works, but the video has been on and off the net and that's the best link I can find at the time of this article.) The truth is, while I believe that atheists (especially agnostic atheists), in general, have a leg to stand on in this case, I don't think the rest of the godders, or innumerable other groups, do. Let's look at a few things that Cruise says.

Tom Cruise: ...I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a Scientologist, and it’s something that you have to earn because a Scientologist does... has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them.

"But that’s what drives me... I know that we have an opportunity to really help... effectively change people’s lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that.

Replace the words “Scientologist” with the words Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Nazi, Feminist, Vegan, vegetarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, geek, Sikh, or even self help guru and you'll see what I mean. This statement, minus the maniacal laughter, could have come from any of the groups I listed and a whole lot more. Let's move on to the next set; shall we?
more below the fold

An attorney friend sent me this juicy item:

ABA Asked to Examine Accreditation of Pat Robertson's Law School

On Friday, a Houston civil rights lawyer sent a complaint letter to the American Bar Association asking the group to examine the accreditation of Pat Robertson's Regent University School of Law after the school allegedly violated his client's free speech rights.

***

"As a Christian and as a Lutheran, Mr. Key has religious convictions that religious leaders be held to high standards and that it is permissible to criticize any wrongful behavior," the complaint letter states. "When Mr. Key refused to conform to Regent's religious and political views, he was suspended and ultimately removed from law school."

"What they're doing is they are creating a bunch of lawyers who don't believe in free speech," says Kallinen, who wants the ABA to revoke the law school's accreditation.

Today Romney gave a speech on his Mormonism to squelch the effects of religious bigotry on his chances of receiving the Republican nomination for President. In the speech Glen Johnson of AP cites these three quotes in succession (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_28;_ylt=...):

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

He assailed "the religion of secularism" he said was creeping into American life, and drew chuckles from his invited audience as he complained that Europe's picturesque cathedrals are largely empty amid societies "too busy or just too `enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."

Romney said: "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders, in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

So let me get this straight. We should be tolerant of other people’s revelation of the divine.

But if your personal revelation should lead you to a secular worldview, then you should just accept that you are not a citizen. At least that is what I take from his condemnation of the enlightenment (which by the way the founders would have taken a dim view of) and his endorsement of the phrases In God “WE” trust (if you don’t trust God you are not part of WE) and “One nation” under God (if you don’t believe in God you are not part of this “one nation).”

Way to attack religious bigotry Mitt. By perpetuating that a significant percentage of the American public is less American than others because of religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

Tully

Betty Dowdell is a Christian apologist who lives out here in my neck of the woods. She's the author of "How to be a Christian Without Being Annoying", and is touted as a home-spun apologist who speaks in plain words for the average Christian. She claims that most Christians don't even know what the word "apologist" means, so, basically, she dumbs it down for them into easily-digested chunks.

How sweet.

This doesn't make her any less annoying, regardless of what her book is titled. She repeats so many of the same, old, tired arguments that it make me tired to think about even starting to address them all. Again. However, one article she wrote stood so far out there with the astonishing assertion below that I couldn't let it go - I had to address it. It's just, well, a bald-faced lie. I mean, most of the time apologists leave themselves some sort of "out" so that they can later claim that they didn't really mean what they said, and that us nasty church-state separation supporters are obviously quoting them out of context, or some such.

Please, I strongly encourage you to read her whole article. You'll agree that her statement below definitely means what it says, even in context with the rest of the article. Here, just check it out for yourself:

[Betty Dowdell] ...the Constitution specifically provides for a Christian chaplain for each branch of Congress.

Well then Betty, I guess you won't have any trouble pointing out the specific part of the Constitution that actually says this.

More below the fold...

No, I don't mean her Adam's apple. I mean her latest diatribe. According to Coulter, America would be a better place if everyone was a Christian. I know it's nothing new, but this time, the condescension is directed at Jews.

She actually said on CNBC's Donny Deutch (who happens to be Jewish) show that "we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." Meaning that Christians like her, feel superior to Jews. I have to admit, I kind of get a kick out of watching one religion go after another. My favorite is when people attack Tom Cruise and his Scientology as if they are crazy and Christianity is sane.

Three quick items from the last few days you might enjoy...

Talk about your "Magic Man in the Sky" category:

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia has come up with the world's first comprehensive guidebook for Muslims in space as its first astronaut prepares to go into orbit next week.

The book, entitled Guidelines for Performing Islamic Rites at the International Space Station, teaches the Muslim astronaut how to perform ablutions, determine the location of Mecca when praying, prayer times, and how to fast in space, the Star newspaper reported on Saturday.

"The reason we formulated guidelines for Muslims in space is because we wanted to ensure our astronaut could fully concentrate on his mission, without having to worry about how he should perform his religious obligations in space," Abdullah Md Zin, a minister for religious affairs, was quoted as saying.

But that book isn't nearly as good as this one, I bet:

Richard Carnes writes a bi-weekly column for the Vail Daily newspaper. This week he wrote a really good piece called "Atheist is not a four-letter word". Read it and you'll find the same points that we make here at UTI all the time.

[Richard Carnes] Atheist is not a four-letter word. Neither is it a euphemism for devil worshiper, totalitarian dictator, child molester or moral-free heathen who reads “Nietzsche for Dummies” for philosophical reference.

An atheist is simply a non-theist, meaning one who does not believe in the existence of gods.

I liked the article, but I had to respond to one of the Christian commenters on the story.

Not only does commenter "frelor" seem to completely mis-understand Richard Carnes' very clear prose, but he also has some pretty wacky ideas about atheism, how to raise good Christian robotschildren, and a masterful plan to out-breed the dreaded Muslim menace.

More below the fold...

Giving Landover Baptist a run for their money! Baptists For Brownback 2008!

[link] Today, in an America filled with adulterers and baby-killers, an even worse sinner casts a shadow over them all—the atheist. Yet atheists are difficult to spot. They hide their sinister cult behind masks of smiles, science and soft, pleasant voices. Your next door neighbor might be an atheist. You just can’t tell.

Imagine if it was simple to identify atheists and their tainted works. Would it not be grand? Think how much easier it would be to protect your children’s eyes, ears and souls from atheists’ influences if their websites, books, movies and yes, even their very clothes, were clearly labeled with a bright scarlet “A”.

Curses! Those godly folks have somehow conspired to place one of those scarlet "A"s on UTI as well! Now if I can only keep UTI from being listed on their Hellbound list... **shakes fist**

Ron Paul is an interesting candidate on the surface. A Republican, he voted against the Iraq war, and against the Patriot Act. Democrats are starting to support him. Michael, a left-leaning blogger who writes the "Blog For Arizona" blog from my own state, talks about why Democrats should support Paul:

[link] I don't want to see another Republican President any more than the next Democrat. But I do want to see a Republican nominee who stands up for civil rights, who speaks sensibly about America's place in the world, who insists on the rule of law and rejects the exceptionalism and emergency powers advocated by every other GOP candidate. I want to see the Republican part rally around a voice that is not encouraging them to tear apart the Constitution in fear of terrorism. I want to see a Republican nominee who will enable the American people to experience a campaign of hope and ideas, not of fear and McCarthyism.

But does St. Paul really stand up for our civil rights? What about the first one? What exactly is his position on the First Amendment, for example? Separation of church and state and all that stuff?

[Ron Paul] The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Well. Isn't that special? Apparently he thinks it's a dandy idea to have government-sponsored prayer in schools - as long as it's the state's decision, not the Federal government's decision. You know, because when the state forces you to pray to a magical man in the sky that's A-OK.

Not to mention that his supporters come across as - how should I put this delicately - fucking nutballs when they are defending his honor against the heathens who dare to be critical of St. Paul.

"Godless" from the No God Zone, has an excellent analysis of Ron Paul's position on the First Amendment. And Paul's position does not fill me with confidence, to say the least.

[link] But how well does he know the Constitution? He wrote:

[Ron Paul] The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

Let us put aside for a second his opposition to "rigid separation between church and state" and concentrate, not on Constitutional theory, but on Constitutional facts. Mr. Paul claims that the Constitution is "replete with references to God". Now replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So if the Constitution is abundantly filled with references to God how many are there? Let's get precise. How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?

Zero! And if you don't believe me you can go check Ron Paul's own congressional website where he has a copy of the text. Go to the page and read it yourself. It is worth reading now and then. But if you don't have time do a page search for "God" and see all the abundant references on your own. All zero of them.

(Tip of the ballcap to UTI commenter McMillan.)

One of the arguments against stem cell research, frequently and freakily heard from the fundie camp, is that there’s no PROOF that it will lead to cures.

Ugh. The argument is so stupid, so grossly wrongheaded, I have a hard time imagining someone actually saying it out loud. “Since we have no idea what breakthroughs might happen, we should stop this evil research before they do.” But they do say it.

Wrestler Chris Benoit has recently been in the news, of course, for allegedly strangling his wife, smothering his young son, and then hanging himself.

One of the many details coming out of the convoluted story: Benoit’s son suffered from a condition known as “fragile X syndrome,” a genetic illness characterized by “hyperactivity, attention deficit, repetitive behavior, anxiety and cognitive difficulties ranging from learning disability to mental retardation.”

So, in this discussion over on dKos this morning, I made the following comment pertaining to the question of whether or not we face the prospect of some kind of civil disintegration in the US, specifically regarding some kind of violence generated by the far Right:

(My paranoia level is rising...) Because this country is a tinderbox, and once some idiot strikes a match, the whole thing could go up in flames around us.

I'm not saying that we have to give in just because some idiots threaten violence. I am saying that we must work in ways that avoid violence. Because as anyone who understands violence will tell you, even if it is justified, once it happens it will change you forever.

To be honest, I'll be astounded if we make it through the next decade without something disasterous happening in this regard. I hope I'm wrong, and will work to do what I can to avoid it - but I fear I'm right.

Yup, that's exactly what happened today - in Turkey. From the AP:

ANKARA, Turkey — More than 200,000 Turks protested against Turkey's Islamic-rooted prime minister Saturday, demonstrating the intense opposition he could face from Turkey's secular establishment if he decides to run for president next month.

Protesters called on the government to resign and chanted slogans including, "We don't want an imam as president."

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has brandished his strong religious convictions while at the same time pushing Turkey toward European Union membership, represents a challenge to secularists' traditional approach to government in this 99-percent Muslim country. Many fear that if he or someone close to him wins the presidency, the government will be able to implement an Islamist agenda without opposition.

Impressive. They've also got the backing of the military, which has been known to intervene to keep Turkey secular: