Voting

Who are you going to vote for?

[John McCain] "The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." "But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

[Barack Obama] "We are no longer a Christian nation. At least not "just". We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers."

Videos below the fold...

So, we know some people on TV. And yes, this is an odd post.

The folks that Mandy and I know are Doug and Noelle. Doug is the Dad and Noelle is his daughter, who happens to be a former student of Mandy's as well as one of the bridesmaids in Mandy and my wedding.

They're participating in a show on the Lifetime network called "Your Momma Don't Dance". This week, they're in trouble. In my (and Mandy's) opinion, they don't deserve to be in trouble...especially for this week's performance.

I'd love if you could help them out by voting for 'em. To vote for Noelle and Doug dial 1-877-472-4702. You can vote 10 times per phone line. Thanks folks!

Here's Noelle's casting video * Warning. This link will take you to the Lifetime Network. You may experience a slight drop in testosterone levels when the site opens.

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

Hello All,

This is my review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist". I'd like to make some things perfectly clear before I proceed with this review. I am still, and barring some pretty convincing evidence that I find personally credible, will most likely always be an atheist. What I mean by "atheist", as I have written volumes about in the past, is someone in whom god-belief of any kind is absent.

I have lately (within the last few years) come to the conclusion that the entire social and political "atheist movement" 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 blog and organize activist marches and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group are lying to themselves. There is no "atheist group". Rather, a movement has emerged and become politically active lately that has co-opted the perfectly reasonable descriptive word "atheist" and has twisted its meaning into something that I do not agree with, endorse, or really even recognize any longer. Ellen Johnson telling all of us atheists to "Vote your atheism first..." was the last straw for me. I mean, what in the heck does that even mean? I am not a member of your little club, Ellen.

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal rationale 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.

I speak for myself, and myself alone.

I find it troubling that one of the recent trends in the "atheist blogger" community is to label someone who does not seem to toe the party line as an "appeaser" or as a "concern troll". It's complete crap. I didn't sign a fucking "atheist loyalty oath", and my lack of belief in a god isn't dependent on kowtowing to the self-anointed leaders of this misguided abortion of a political movement, whether or not they exist. If after this review someone uses the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me in this fashion, they can go fuck themselves. With a jagged stick. Sideways. The political and social issues that concern me - personal liberty, civil liberties, honesty, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom, justice, the American Way, all of that, don't require my allegiance to some new political movement. I was concerned with those things before I started calling myself an atheist, and I still am today. Atheism has nothing at all to do with any of that stuff. (See my first paragraph above.) Nether does "theism" for that matter.

I evaluate the books I read, the beliefs I come across, and the philosophies I examine fully, and with an eye towards the facts. I have a highly-sensitive bullshit meter, honed through 20-plus years of discussion, research, study, debate, and arguments with theists (that is, folks in which god-belief of any kind is present.) So, when you read the review below, keep in mind that I was really, really trying hard to find something that I could latch onto and argue intelligently and forcefully against. I was positive that it had to be there. I had my BS meter cranked up to 11 as I read through the book twice in an attempt to sniff out something that I could use - and the damned thing only went off a couple of times, and only when Day was explicitly talking about God and/or Jesus and his personal belief in the Christian mythology.

Shit. Double shit.

Ah, well. I am ethically and morally bound to review TIA honestly, and that is what I will do - regardless of how much it hurts me to do so. Heh. ;)

So, hang on to your hats and join me below the fold.

It's official. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to bring it into "God's standards".

[link] "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

We are in deep trouble if this lunatic gets elected. Get out and vote, folks. Anyone is better than this guy. It absolutely floors me that in this day and age a Presidential candidate can make a statement like this - and be dead serious. This country is teetering on the brink, and will self-destruct if a religious fanatic like Huckabee is elected to the Presidency. It is up to us to stop it.

Damn. This scares the crap out of me.

(Video below the fold.)

I hate Democrats. I don't want to hear another effing word from Democrats complaining about the war or the lack of health care or the big oil companies or torture or any other stupid-ass complaint Democrats have about our government.

NH Primary Results
In yesterday's primary the only two candidates who are convincingly anti-war got 1% of the vote. Kucinich got 3,845 votes and Gravel got 397 votes. Are you kidding me? To all registered Dems, please STFU from now on. I just don't want to hear it.

Dems: You overwhelmingly cast your votes for Hillary Clinton (110,550). The same Hillary Clinton who voted for us to get into this war. The same Hillary Clinton who didn't bother to read the NIE before voting to go to war over Saddam's non-existent WMDs. The same Hillary Clinton who will not apologize and admit a mistake for that vote. The same Hillary Clinton who just recently cast a vote to classify Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization (which is just another gold plated invitation for Bush to start another war).

Do you wanna know just how valued democracy is on the far Right? Here's a clue:

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What's not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on illegal immigration, too.

Need a bit more?

You wouldn't know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected -- in a landslide -- just weeks ago under Pakistan's own parliamentary system.

But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf's election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That's when Musharraf sent them home.

Friends

A quick reminder the election is coming up rather quickly and as usual, your local Board of Elections needs poll workers. As a matter of fact, the deadline may have already passed but still, you should make the effort. And if not this year, next year for sure!

I'm taking a vacation day Tuesday November 6 so I can work the polls. Start time is 5:00am and quitting is 7:00pm with about an hour clean up. Pay is something like $120. Not bad for 15 hrs. work! I'll be donating my pay to the ACLU on top of the dollar a day donation to NPR.

Please join me this year in working the polls and thereby, in part, let the world know the Atheists are willing to do something positive and patriotic.

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.)

During the course of my life (I'll be thirty mid-August) I've often wondered why my perspective on various issues differed from most of the other people I've met. Skepticism has, of course, played a major roll in why I view the world as I do...but I don't think that's all there is to it. I think, and I hope, that part of the reason that my worldview is outside of what's considered "normal" is that I don't buy into any particular ideology. As it says under my portrait, I'm a "liberal libertarian with conservative leanings". What that ends up meaning, government wise, is that I want to leave the parts of government that I think work and ditch the parts that I think are extraneous or don't work. The same idea applies for me philosophically.

It seems to me that when most people buy into a philosophy, religion, or even just a course of action they commit themselves wholeheartedly to it. When RAH's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" was released people bought in and formed "nests" of their own...despite the fact that a "nest" by itself leached off of the society around it for support (much like any cult or religion). In my short time on this planet I've had some things change my perspective. One of those was reading Ayn Rand's books, particularly "Atlas Shrugged". John Galt is and was an inspiring character and I can indeed see the "virtue of selfishness". Despite loving the book , I can still see the flaws in the idealized system that Rand seems to be extolling. They're as obvious to me as the flaws in any communist, socialist or laissez-faire capitalist worldview. When everyone is a hero, the ideological system always works and seems fabulous.

The point is that I think people end up finding something that their comfortable with and then buy into that idea completely, including any flaws. Yes, I'm accusing most people of being intellectually lazy. Whether it's Objectivism, Christianity, Islam, Liberalism, Libertarianism or a conservative worldview I want to be able to take the positive aspects of each and leave the chaff behind. I welcome people that challenge how I view the world and would really like it if the rest of humanity would accept the challenges that they encounter too; without just disregarding them because they don't fit nicely within their ideologically limited window of perspective.

Coturnix from A Blog Around The Clock interviews Democratic candidate for President John Edwards about his views on science and science education.

[Sen. Edwards] We need to strengthen scientific education in this country. We need to send more kids to college and invest in graduate programs to create a new generation of scientists who will continue to make America stronger and lead the way for the rest of the world.

Check it out.

The elections aren't exactly upcoming, but with candidates starting to declare it seems like a good time to post my positions on various issues. This is meant to be an interactive endeavor. You can challenge a position I've taken or suggest one that I've not addressed at your leisure. Let's get started with my first position.

Gay marriage: Who the hell cares? Well, I do if the state decides who can and cannot marry. If the state is going to sanction a union between two people, it should be any two people that choose to get sanctioned. Hell, this will really freak out the fundies but if 3 or 4 people (or whatever number) want to combine their efforts into a family "unit" I don't have a problem with that either! I do want to add...it's not a bloody slippery slope. No one's going to marry their dog or cat or a monkey. A non-sentient being can't give consent.

You can expect my positions on various issues to be espoused over the coming weeks. If you have suggestions for issues that I should address you can email them to me @ ulreyric@gmail.com.

Aurelius at The Atheist Seeker makes a great suggestion: why not pick our new President using a lottery system?

[Aurelius] Now that Hillary's 'in to win,' I can't help but fixate on a much better way to select a president in this fucked up country . . . lotto. Every four years we have a lottery to select a handful of cantidates from amongst the wealthy, white male population (just kidding) , then they have a few debates and we go push buttons on diebolt machines. Seems to me that a thirty-something pot dealer could run this country just about as well as anyone, and what they may lack in 'insider' connections, they would more than make up for with the fact that lack 'insider connections.'

Heh. I agree!

[link]When Kai Hagen (D) was sworn in as a new county commissioner recently, he declined to take an oath declaring a belief in the existence of God.

I thought religious tests were barred by the Constitution.

[link]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Is there really a difference between querying if someone holds certain religious convictions and seeing if someone is willing to take an oath affirming that they hold certain religious convictions?

Dennis Prager, the right-wing radio talk show host, has started some spirited discussion across the nation. In a recent column, "America, not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," he suggested that even though it's not a law, and even though the U.S. Constitution specifically forbids religious tests for office, and even though the tradition of taking the oath of office by "swearing on" a holy text from the individual's own faith tradition is not a requirement - that newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison, who is a Muslim, should bring not only the Koran to his ceremonial swearing-in, but also a Christian Bible - a religious text he does not believe in and does not follow.

Why?

Well, apparently because Dennis Prager doesn't want to piss off the schoolyard bully, the Christian Dominionists.

Prager responds to the critics of his original column in a new column entitled "A response to my critics – and a solution".

His "response" is laughable. A weird mish-mash of wishful thinking, stuttering indignation that anyone would dare question his opinions on the matter, paranoid claims of "hate filled attacks" from left-wing bloggers, backed up by smoke and mirrors and assertions as to how things "ought to be". No evidence, no law, no statistics, nothing to confirm that it would be the end of American Civilization, as Prager claims, if - *gasp!* - the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitutional guarantees of Freedom from a religious test for office and freedom of religious expression were extended to a newly-elected American Congressman who doesn't happen to be - *double gasp!!* - Christian.

His "solution" is to bow to the bullying and to have Ellison voluntarily give up his own civil rights because if he doesn't, the Christians will be really mad at him. That's it. Nothing else.

*sigh*

[Dennis Prager] I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country. He can still help reunite it by simply bringing both books to his ceremonial swearing-in. Had he originally announced that he would do that, I would have written a different column – filled with praise of him. And there would be a lot less cursing and anger in America.

Yes, yes. I am fully aware that Dennis Prager is not a Christian either, but he insists on asserting the moral superiority of Christians and seems to be advocating for nothing less than a Christian Theocracy to be installed in this country.

In short, he's a very strange, very confused individual.

Dennis Prager - I am speaking directly to you. The Constitution applies to everyone - not just to Christians. That means that you, me, and Keith Ellison can confidently practice our religion, or choose not to practice any religion at all, without fear of reprisals or punishment by our government. Christianity has held a privileged place in American society for so long that it's adherents - and deluded folks such as yourself - seem to think that it's traditions and ceremonies are akin to law. And that to go contrary to them is "disuniting America".

This is an abysmally ignorant position to hold, Dennis. You have made the classic blunder of considering the traditions and superstitions of your tribe to be laws of nature. They're not.

Our strength as a country comes from our fierce desire to protect our fellow citizen's civil rights. This desire forms the basis of, and is codified into the Constitution. In other words, we all have to watch each other's backs.

What you're doing is throwing a brave fellow American to the wolves to kowtow to the strongest bully in the tribe, the Christian Dominionists.

It makes me sick.

Grow a spine, for goodness' sake, and stand up for what's right for a change.

I found this article that mostly focuses on the electability (or lack thereof) of Mormons. Since the survey was conducted by an outfit called Rasmussen Reports, that oughtn't to be too surprising. If you're wondering what chance a Mormon has running for president, I'll go ahead and quote it here.

Some 43 percent of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for a Mormon for president

That, of course, isn't why I'm posting this. Now the good news.

Some 61 percent of likely voters would not even consider voting for a Muslim presidential contender while 60 percent wouldn't vote for an atheist, the poll found.

Squee!

Check out Paul Fidalgo's new political blog, FifteenNineteen and scratch your political punditry itch!

[Paul Fidalgo] The name for the blog comes from the Fifteenth and Nineteenth amendments to the Constitution, giving all races and both sexes the right to vote. Yes, there are other amendments that expand the right to vote to even more Americans, but adding more numbers to the site name would have made it way too long and harder to remember.

...for the first reports of voting results to come in (though there are plenty of stories of glitches), here's something to amuse, via Cosmic Variance:

Top 100 Hubble Space Telescope Images

Complete with your choice of viewing size. Yum.

Jim Downey

...and go vote. Right now. We'll still be here when you get back.

I heard him say it again. It was in the last couple of days, but when he said it doesn't matter. In fact, exactly what he said doesn't matter. He once again equated the war in Iraq with the "War on Terror". If, by some odd chance, you don't recognize who I'm talking about...it's Bush.

Here's my main beef: Why does the public continue to allow Bush to equate the "War on Terror" with the war in Iraq? It's madness. It's more than clear now that the terrorists did not arrive in Iraq until after our attack. No no...let me stop you there. I'm not saying that removing Sadaam wasn't a good thing. But let's call a fish a fish. Removing Sadaam has no bearing on the "War on Terror".

The "War on Terror" started as a response to an atrocity. 9/11 was a tragic, terrible event. The initial response was appropriate. But by allowing the Bush administration to add Iraq to the tally they've been given a free pass. The Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. If we'd not stopped paying as much attention to our initial objective (The Taliban), who were clearly involved in harboring terrorists, instead of redirecting our efforts towards Iraq, who only had the potential of maybe helping terrorists along the way (and turned out not to have to much to do, if anything, with the attack against the US), perhaps we could have "won" on that front.

The point is that the correlation between Iraq and terrorism is clearly dishonest and should be readily ignored. What should not be ignored is that the Bush administration should not be allowed to make this assertion unchallenged. We've wasted too many resources and lives chasing the phantom of terrorism in Iraq and the waste should be stopped.

We must be honest with ourselves. The "War on Terror" is a nebulous war and one that can never be won. All we can do is work to minimize the threat. Unfortunately, the current American response doesn't come close to mitigating the possible damage. A change in leadership is in order, if only to stifle the damage that could still be done.