Wrong In Their Mind Tanks

"Non-Believers"

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:25:00 +0000

Yesterday's inauguration speech was, in many ways, big. Again, Obama spoke to the nation like the adults we are, which is a refreshing change from having to revert one's mind to that of a child, just to be able to figure out what your leader is saying.

The speech was big in another way:

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.

This was unexpected. First, that he included Muslims and Hindus, and second, because he included us. It was just one little word, and for some it may have gone unnoticed, but for non-believers like myself, it was stunning. And I imagine for the ardent believers, it was infuriating. It was a big word, and it's enunciation and context is important.

Obama listed the big religions, and ones emerging, in our country, and then, after the briefest of pauses, he added us. I prefer not to read that pause as a hesitation. That pause seemed added so as to prepare the nation for what he was about to add--that he knew it was the first time, that it meant a lot. To my ear, it read like poety--not in some deep, sentimental way, but in it's construct. We were at the end, and maybe some cynics would prefer we were at the start, or mixed in the middle. But that pause, and that final word--"non-believers"--acted as punctuation. To my ear, that word became bigger and louder than the others. Maybe Muslims and Hindus feel the same way, but, as polls show, America hates us most.

Some might view this as a token gesture, like the assigning of Bishop Robinson to say a prayer on Sunday. For me, though, the context counted. We were not assigned some empty representative to stand up in some segment before the swearing in, where people could tune out and not really listen. We were deliberately inserted into Obama's speech--the main event--the words the nation all shut up to listen to. This ensured that everyone would hear it. HBO would not pull us off the air. People would not be looking at each other, talking about what to have for lunch after the inauguration, or just starring ahead unhearing, waiting for the real words to be spoken. We were included among the real words, and everyone heard.

For whatever smalls gains we've made in the last few years, this is a big deal. It is a huge acknowledgement. For the first time, throughout the primaries, throughout the campaigning, the conventions, and the election, I felt like a part of the process. Yes, I voted; everyone votes and we're all "part of the process." But it is one thing to cast your vote and know that no one cares about your concerns, and something else to cast it and feel like your voice might actually be heard.

Apparently, Obama heard our voice, and that he took the time and made the effort to acknowledge us--during this historical moment, where African Americans are finally getting what is theirs--to say to us that, finally, we exist.

This is a big deal. What happens in policy and what happens legislatively, among people who despise us and wish we'd do nothing more than disappear back into the woodwork of society, is another matter. But, for us, we now know that someone is listening, and not just someone--our President, and this time it's in a way that previous presidents haven't tried. We all remember Bush 41:

"I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

What we heard yesterday is a far, far cry from that.

Yes, this is a big deal, and, to me, I think this should enable us to think differently, and more strongly, about our activism. We are continually told we should shut up, even amongst our own. It's been easy for people to tell us this, because they had power and popular opinion on their side. They knew no one was listening to us. Now someone is, and this should be viewed not as finally reaching our destination--as much of a milestone as that word at that moment was--but as a moment into which we can read encouragement.

Speak loudly, godless folk. Someone is finally listening.

Atheists Aren't Real People, We Get It Now

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:04:00 +0000

One of the first blogs I check while I'm having my coffee in the morning is vjack's Atheist Revolution, and many times, his posts are the inspiration for my own. Today, that is the case.

Today, he's got a post up about atheists' exclusion from the inauguration. There was a lot of uproar about Obama's choice of Rick Warren to lead the apparent National Delusional Prayer. The LGBT community was quite up in arms, given Warren's anti-gay bigotry and following on the stinging heels of the Prop 8 fiasco in California. And rightfully so. Absoultely.

Both the gay community and the atheist community have been a bit on the irate side regarding Warren, but the reaction to the complaints has been very, very different. See, when Warren compares homosexuality to incest and bestiality, that means he's a bigot. Response: Bishop Robinson, the openly gay bishop who delivered Sunday's invocation. There you go, Gay Community--your indignation has been recognized and rewarded with a token nod.

However, when Warren goes on about how he could never vote for an atheist (because, apparently, we are arrogant for not needing magic to run the country), he's not an anti-atheist bigot--he's just another American citizen (one of the infamous "48%"). We get no representation at this historical inauguration. We get no token nod. What we get is deliberately trod upon.

No, wait, you say. No one is actively insulting you, you're just being sensitive because no one will let you play. That is partly true. We want to play "American Citizen" too and yes, we're a little upset that we no one ever lets us. But it's more than that. If you go to vjack's post today and watch, and discuss, this interview with Bishop Robinson, you will hear him say something that really gets at the crux of our problem.

Vjack points out:

He prefaced many of his statements with "As a religious person...," making me suspect that he must have some awareness that non-religious persons exist.

I think this is exactly right--while he says this, because he says this, it's clear he knows there are non-religious people. And he goes on to talk about Jesus' "big tent," you know, much like our political "big tents." We can argue that he is only saying these things in the context of the administration vs. the gay community. But the fact is that the godless have been quite vocal about their exclusion as well. There is not just silence on the part of those in charge--when they tout their all-inclusiveness, when Robinson says that "all voices" are being heard at this inauguration, while at the same time ignoring our concerns, they does not translate as mere silence. It is a very clear message to us that we do not exist.

Robinson says that we are all children of God and therefore "worthy of respect and concern." You know, while we don't believe we are chilrden of God, it still remains that they do, and despite that, we are still not worthy of respect or concern. I don't doubt for a moment that when they say they're including everyone, they really, truly believe it. And when atheists say 'Hey, wait a minute,' I believe they are genuinely confused. We could say that this is just how they were brought up, they've been conditioned to not really understand anything outside of their worldview, etc. I think that's a cop-out. They know we exist--when they say they include everyone but we are not included, they are saying, loudly: "You Do Not Exist." More importantly, the more pointed and most terrible message is that we don't exist because we are not real people--they do not consider us as such. We are sub-human. We don't get the same considerations as the real people. Now, how does that make you feel? Don't cry too loudly, as Judge Walton says we've brought it upon ourselves. You know, for wanting to have representation. And to not have state sponsored religion. How dare we?

This isn't the first time this has happened on such a large, public scale. Think back to this past July: Remember the big all-faith orgy the DNC decided to include in their convention? They talked about "unity" then, too. Yeah, and remember when the Secular Coalition for America wrote a letter to Rev. Daughtry asking to be included? Does anyone remember the reaction? She didn't know how to react, and so, she ignored us. We don't have to be considered because we are not real people in their worldview. How loving. We were excluded then, again, as they all patted each other on the back for their all-inclusiveness, you know, of the real people. This inauguration in the DNC convention all over again.

Am I angry? Sure. But what no one wants to admit is that this is also incredibly hurtful. Here is my problem: I have gay friends that have a stake in this. I am from an interracial family, and they have a stake in this presidency. People I care deeply about are being affected by this. Historical things are afoot. It's important. And basically, I am being told that I can't be a part of it. I am being told that I must remain on the outside of the fence. I can watch, but I can't play. Maybe I am hurt especially because these things are very close and very personal for me, but I imagine that many atheists, even those without gay or black friends or family, feel the same way. This kind of wholesale rejection, as being people, and having selfhood, and being a part of the overall community that is worthy of "respect and concern," is wearing. It wears you down. It is hurtful. And, as per usual, it is unsurprising that this sort of hurtful behavior comes from the people that claim to hurt least: Christians.

Yeah, some days, I'm just tired. And hurt. It's true. I want to be happy tomorrow. I have hated the Bush administration as much as anyone and am deeply relieved to finally see him gone. It's been an active, somewhat psychologically traumatizing part of my life for the last eight years, and as shocking as this might come to some Christians, what with my being an atheist, it's been difficult precisely because I believe all people are worthy of respect and concern, and the policies of that maniac have crapped on everything that stands for. Unfortunately, because of this very obvious snub from the new boss who promised all that hope and change, I do not get to enjoy the catharsis that this inauguration will be for many people.

I've committed myself to attending a friend's inauguration celebration on Tuesday evening--you know, snacks, champaign, that kind of thing. Because we are Democrats. I'm trying to think of a way to get out of it. My heart's just not in it.

Screw the Forefathers

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:45:00 +0000

I was just skulking around some of the atheist blogs I regularly read and, as is usually the case, the came across a handful of Christians, doing what they do. We all know their general MO. The Christian shtick that's annoyed me today--well, every time I see it, but I decided to blog about it today--is the ol' "This-is-a-Christian-Nation-something-about-Church-and-State-something-about-Freedom-of-Religion-NOT-Freedom -from-Religion-yadda-yadda-yadda.

I've decided, just now, that I don't give two shits about what our founding fathers meant. I really don't. And anyone should understand that these were all considerations taken--whether pro-Christian or pro-neutral--well over two centuries ago. There's a lot of going back and forth as to whether Jefferson was an atheist, or Lincoln, or if Madison was a Christian. Hey folks...who cares? They're dead.

Some will say that it matters because it's important how to know how to interpret the Constitution--that's how we figure out what can can and cannot legislate. Although it seems pretty clear in the first amendment that Christians want to ignore that part that says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and want to focus just on the "freedom of religion" (Not from! Not from!) part, why is it that we can't take it upon ourselves to say, hey, we're grown ups now? We can do whatever we want.

We, as enlightened people, should be able to look around us and say, hey, things have changed, and thankfully so. We should be able to examine our past, with its slavery, its oppression of women, and approach things like the possible ricin mailings to gay bars in Seattle, and say, no, wait, this is wrong. The bible says it's fine to own slaves, but we* said, no, it isn't. The bible makes women property, but we said, no, they aren't. The bible supposedly cracks down on homosexuals, and we are now slowly but surely coming to the understanding that this, too, is wrong. I know these crackpots are out there, but really, how many non-batshit "love the sinner but hate the sin" Christians who oppose giving gays their civil rights also oppose blacks being able to vote? Or marry *gasp* white folks, for that matter? Not too many. But even those progressive Christians will not understand (or should I say "refuse to") that extending rights to gays is the same thing, and if we Americans have rejected the views of our forefathers on blacks and women, why can't we do this for gays as well? And if we can do all of this--if we can reject "what they meant" when they said "free men" (read: white and absolutely not women), then why can't we also offer up out own interpretations of the first amendment on religion?

There is no logical reason we can't completely discard what the forefathers "meant," felt, thought about religion. It doesn't matter. We can very clearly see that, today, we live in a country with many faiths and also with many people of no faith. So, if it's clear that a more modern approach to these things is needed, and that since we've ignored the forefathers on these other issues, then we should be able to apply that to this issue, then it also becomes clear that the only reason we aren't doing that, is because Christians won't let us.

See, Christians, that you are very picky-choosy-fickle on what you want to say is right and wrong when it comes to our Constitution and our history, it becomes rather obvious that the only reason you waffle on these things is to retain what power you have left. Your "forefathers" argument becomes moot in the light of your not caring what the forefathers thought about some things and only applying it to the things that bother you today.

So, I say, it doesn't matter what they thought. We've progressed enough to not have to care--we should be able to just see what's right and what's fair and act accordingly. So long as Christians continue to grip violently to these "rights" in what are hopefully death throes, as if what was said or written 200 years ago is somehow set in stone when we have proven time and again that it is not, we are going to have problems.

*When I say "we," I mean us, as Americans, as a whole, despite grumblings from the throwbacks.

CADC's Top 10 "Egregious Acts of Christian Bashing" for 2008

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:42:00 +0000

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has released its list of top ten "most egregious acts of Christian Bashing in American (sic) in 2008." According to them:

Every day in America serious Christians face increasing hostility at work, school, and in the culture because they stand for their faith and values.

Yeah.

So, onto the list:

INSTANCE #10: Jack Black Musical Video

In a short video posted on FunnyorDie.com entitled, "Prop 8 The Musical," an all star cast of Hollywood celebrities perform a low budget musical farce that defames Christ, mocks Christians and distorts the teaching of the Bible. Jack Black played the lead role of Jesus.

Terrible. It's terrible that you can't infringe on peoples' civil rights and expect to be rewarded for it. I like that they do add specifically that Jack Black played Jesus, as if that is just adding insult to injury.

INSTANCE #9: Bill Maher Gratuitously Attacks Pope

Bill Maher, host of the HBO program Real Time, made light of the Pope during his recent visit and the tragic sexual abuse scandal. Maher said, "Now I know what you're thinking, Bill. You can't be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy (radical Mormon polygamist) Texas cult. For one thing, alter boys can't even get pregnant. But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. Cults get raided; religions get parades... If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you Pope."

I like here how they refer to the "tragic sexual abuse scandal," as if it had nothing to do with them. Few bad apples, you see.

INSTANCE #8: ESPN Anchor Dana Jacobson's "F--- Jesus" Remark

Speaking at an ESPN corporate event in Atlantic City, N.J., to honor ESPN Radio personalities Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic, Dana Jacobson let go with a steam of vulgar remarks; "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus." Jacobson was suspended for a few days for the incident.

Actually, I need to find video of this and loop it for my own entertainment. I guess the CADC aren't "sticks and stones" people.

INSTANCE #7: Minnesota University Professor Desecrates Communion

A Biology Professor from the University of Minnesota, Paul Zachary Myers, recently desecrated a consecrated communion wafer from a Catholic Mass. Meyer's has also asked people to steal the Eucharist for him in order that he might desecrate it and display it on his blog.

Congratulations, PZ, for making the list.

INSTANCE #6: Religulous the Movie

Bill Maher released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Religulous. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on the faith. Maher studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals.

So, the complaint here is that he "did not cover new intellectual ground." Honey, covering new intellectual ground would mean that we've been allowed to move past the 'with God all things are possible' stage of the discussion. As soon as you folks are ready to do that, I'm sure Bill, and the rest of us, would love to move on. And, really: "legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals?" Really? I'll put this up there with the Easter Bunny, Santa, and God.

INSTANCE #5: Chaplains Fired for Praying in Jesus' Name

Chaplains for the State of Virginia are being denied their right to pray in Jesus' name. Six chaplains were fired for continuing to pray in Jesus' name. Earlier this year in Virginia, Rev. Hashmel Turner, a city councilman in Fredericksburg, was told by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his prayers during city council meetings that ended in Jesus' name will continue to be banned.

Christians don't seem to understand that there are other people in the world with faiths other than their own. I mean, obviously, there shouldn't be any kind of prayer, in Jesus' name or otherwise, during a flippin' city council meeting, I suppose unless you can show that every tax-paying citizen in town a bible-thumper. Again, if you don't let Christians deep-throat you with their crap, it's all "you're picking on us!"

INSTANCE #4: Colorado Law Criminalizes the Bible

SB200, a Colorado state bill recently signed into law, criminalizes the Bible. Section 8 of the bill entitled "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden" makes publishing the Bible illegal because it contains anti-homosexual passages. This is part of a larger effort to criminalize the expression of certain opinions and beliefs.

I'm interested in exactly what these anti-homosexual passages are. Regardless, there's plenty of other offensive material in the bible--let's not get started on the sexism. Be that as it may, I'm against the banning of books, even this heaping pile of Wrong.

INSTANCE #3: Barack Obama Defames Christianity

According to research into President Elect Obama's own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama's position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a "devout Christian."

Wow. I mean, wow. Obama not being the right kind of Christian is an "egregious act of Christian Bashing." Dang, they're slappin' Obama--Obama--with the ol' "you're not a real Christian" shtick (I know, it's a classic, all-purpose kind of move). That's the other awesome thing about Christians--they are very much a 'take a yard if you give them an inch' bunch. You get some prayers at the Dem convention--not good enough. You get to keep your bullshit Faith Based Initiatives--not good enough. You get flippin' Rick Warren for the innvocation--not good enough. You get more prayers and Christian peeps at the inauguration---nope. Atheists are just looking for a little representation. Hey, Christians, how about quit hogging everything?

INSTANCE #2: Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin Is Attacked

Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, came under sharp attack by some in the mainstream media because she self-identifies as a Christian. The Washington Post published a cartoon by Pat Oliphant mocking Palin because she has a background as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian. A suspicious arson fire at Sarah Palin's home church recently caused over $1,000,000 in damage.

Whoa, now wait a tick. Does anyone know whether that fire was started because it was a church, or because it was political, or maybe for insurance purposes? Okay, I added that last bit, but, no, really, does anyone know? Look, Palin was attacked because she was just barely functionally retarded and running for a pretty vital position in our country. I know you'd like to think she was being picked on just because she was a god-head, but, no, that's just not it. By and large, she was pilloried because she was an idiot. Oh, did I just say that--it is kind of the same thing, isn't it?

And finally, the #1 Christian Bashing Instance in America for 2008...

INSTANCE #1: Radical Homosexuals Assault Prop 8 Marriage Supporters in California
During and after the November campaign stories flooded in of pro-Prop 8 signs being taken, people verbally and physically assaulted, church property and private automobiles vandalized, and person's jobs and pastor's lives threatened simply for exercising their right to campaign and vote in support of traditional marriage.

Really, this is number one? Now, I don't condone violence, even on a bunch of haters. I admit though that I just don't care either way about "church property" or "private automobiles"--in my grand scheme of things, I'm really just don't care. Getting verbally assaulted while you're protesting anything is kind of par for the course and you should probably just suck that one up. But, again, like number 10--maybe, just maybe, you Christians might want to lay off the stiffling of other peoples' rights. I mean, really, this "instance" probably should not have happened, but really, the kind of hate and bigotry you folks float around out there is bound to irk some people. All I can say is if you're goign to insist on oppressing people, you should probably develop some thick skin or just brace yourselves. I want to sympathize with you, but really, I have a hard time with that.

I'd like to see Mojoey at Deep Thoughts come up with a Top Ten list for 2008 of the most disgusting acts committed by Christians--I mean, if he thinks he can narrow it down.

For Every 'God,' Give to the SCA.

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:05:00 +0000

The Friendly Atheist has a brilliant idea for the inauguration.

I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot of God talk over the next week from these four pastors. For every mention of the words “Jesus,” “Lord,” “God,” or “Christ” during the four prayers next week, I am going to make a $5 donation to the Secular Coalition for America — a lobbying group in Washington working to support the rights of non-religious people and educating Congress about the separation of church and state.

Will you do the same?

Pledge the amount you plan to give per Godly-word-mentioned in the comments — any amount is ok! Then honor your commitment after next Wednesday. I’ll tally the numbers and report back.

Yes. Yes, this is a great idea. I love it. I'm broke and it would have to be a weenie amount, but yes, I'd like to do this. Please join us.

Cathloic Nuttiness on the Down-Low

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:37:00 +0000

Okay, this is great. The Vatican is drawing up new guidelines to assess the validity of Virgin Mary sightings. And that sort of thing. Awesome:

Catholics who claim they have seen the Virgin Mary will be forced to remain silent about the apparitions until a team of psychologists, theologians, priests and exorcists have fully investigated their claims under new Vatican guidelines aimed at stamping out false claims of miracles.

The Pope wants to "help bishops snuff out an explosion of bogus heavenly apparitions." Um, I can help them out with that. Try all of them. All of them; every single one. The best part is this:

...anyone who claims to have seen an apparition will only be believed as long as they remain silent and do not court publicity over their claims. If they refuse to obey, this will be taken as a sign that their claims are false.

So, as long as your nuttiness is kept on the down-low, they will consider it. So long as you don't publicly embarrass the church with your battiness, fine. This, to me, speaks volumes. They know it's crap.

If the visionary is considered credible they will ultimately be questioned by one or more demonologists and exorcists to exclude the possibility that Satan is hiding behind the apparitions in order to deceive the faithful.

Okay, maybe they don't think it's crap. They probably buy it, because they are insane. So, they will buy it, if its "credible" (and they're idea of credible will always remain a point of amazed fascination with me, mixed with a kind of loathing) they want to make sure it's not that wacky Devil causing a ruckus. Good thing there, 'cause, you know, he's a trickster.

But, they obviously know that we've moved into an era where everyone else thinks they're nuts. That's good. Yes, hide your craziness; hide it away in shame.

Well, it's nice to see they are updating their guidebook. It's only a matter of time before they have to update it to the extent that they finally admit there are no miracles. Then they can dissolve their organization. Sure, it won' t happen in our lifetimes, because this kind of craziness is hard to shake. But, someday. Someday.

Next, they'll be able to bury their morbid relics, like the venerated Holy Prepuces. We can only hope.

EDIT: I was just talking about this to The Boyfriend, and I also wanted to point out this:

The visionaries will then be visited by a team of psychiatrists, either atheists or Catholics, to certify their mental health while theologians will assess the content of any heavenly messages to see if they contravene Church teachings.

Yeah, that's right. You have to throw some atheists in there because we validate things with our reason. Frankly, an atheist should be able to look at anyone making a claim like this and stamp them with the loony stamp. But even we know that's not socially acceptable, so you'll find some godless psychiatrist who will say something along the lines of "Well, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with their cognitive functioning..." Getting the input of atheists is the only way to possibly legitimize your insanity. Now, let us take a whack at the "content" of your "holy messages" and see how far you get.

On a side note, this is pretty funny, regarding the Holy Prepuce of Calcutta:

In 1983, however, parish priest Dario Magnoni announced that "This year, the holy relic will not be exposed to the devotion of the faithful. It has vanished. Sacrilegious thieves have taken it from my home", where it had reportedly been kept in a shoebox in the back of a wardrobe.

Hahahhahaa! Shoebox...oh...good stuff...thank you, Catholics.

Fundie-Dumdie

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:38:00 +0000

I just knew I'd be able to get on here at least one more time today to post something with a little more substance than the last post. And, by "substance," I mean, proof of fundie-dumdie (yes, I just made that up, right this moment. It is my new word for the species of dumb with which fundamental Christians infect our space). This week's winner--and I realize it's only Monday but really, this is great--is Patrick. Patrick had the distinction of leaving the first comment over at Atheist Revolution to a post about some other moron yammering on about there being "no atheists" during times of crisis. *sigh*

Are you ready for the wisdom? Are you ready for the deep thinking? I am. God, am I. Patrick asks:

I read that atheists believe that there is no evidence for the existance of God, yet they complain when we hold atheists to be strong evidence for the existance of Satan.

Confusion ensues, as mostly what seem like baffled but well-meaning atheists try to explain why what he said doesnt make any sense.

Yoo offers: "Maybe it's because there's no logical connection between the two at all ..."

vjack himself asks: "That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would an atheist believe in this being you call Satan? We don't."

Stardust reiterates: "Patrick, your comment makes no sense at all since, as vjack points out, atheists do not have imaginary friends or enemies."

Steve clarifies: "I'm not sure if 'complain' is the reaction you're looking for, there Patrick. A lot of atheists are used to being called Satan and the usual response is an exasperated eye-roll."

And GingerRed pleads: "Okay, now can we try making a point with logic?"

All I can offer poor Patrick is this week's Fundie-Dumdie Award (quick, someone design me a logo). Yes, it's juvenile. But, I can sleep at night knowing it's no more juvenile than this guy's level of reasoning. In fact, I would age my immaturity here at about 12, and this guy...this guy...this guy is prenatal.

Congrats, Patrick.

What Does Jesus 'Verb'?

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:16:00 +0000

I have a lot to do today. But I am allowing myself a leisurely coffee before I'm off and running, and while I have that coffee, I will use this time to post something inane. I know, I am always posting something inane. This, I cannot argue. But today's post will be really inane.

I'm going to pick three random verbs. Then I'm going to put "Jesus" in front of it, Google it, and see what I get.

Let's keep it simple. Eat. Play. Like. See, nice and simple.

Eat:
1. Jesus Eats with the Sinners, Publicans, Tax Collectors. (What a bastard.)
2. "What Would Jesus Eat?" (See #3.)
3. Cereal, it's what jesus eats in heaven. (Ah, but what does he eat when he's on the road?)
4. Jesus eats burgers, devil rides T-rex. (Oh.)
5. Jesus eats at OCB also. (Ah-ha. This makes sense to me.)

Play:
1. Jesus Plays Sports: New York Times Strikes Out. (Jesus took on the entire NYT editorial staff in a game of ping-pong.)
2. Jesus Plays Call of Duty 4. (This...not surprising.)
3. Jesus Plays Golf. (A little surprising.)
4. Jesus plays the theremin. (I like that he's flanked by two Budweiser dartboards.)
5. Jesus Plays Poker Online? (It's because he can't afford to be caught in public doing it).

Like:
1. Jesus Likes Gays, "But Not in That Way." (If that's what you want to believe).
2. Jesus likes his explosions like he likes his coffee. No fat chicks. (...)
3. Jesus likes to eat good food with his friends. (See, he's just like me and you!)
4. Does Jesus likes happy meals from McDonalds? (Yes.)
5. Jesus liked to have his face tickled. (It took this long to get weird...hmmm...)

The next best thing to find out this information about Jesus, after Googling it, is to ask God himself. So, I did. It's hard to tell when he might be straight at any given time--most days he's blazed on something. At least, that's been my experience (he doesn't even offer, which makes him quite rude). Anyway...

Me:
What up, yo?
God:
Searching...Searching...Please stand by.
Me:
Oh, come on God.
God:
OK. GOD rules.
Me:
Sigh.
God:
Sorry...
Me:
Okay, I have a few questions.
God:
Yeah okay, What are these questions ?
Me:
What did Jesus eat?
God:
he said we should forgive those who harm us.
Me:
Yeah, but what does he eat?
God:
Hmm. I think he does whatever he wants.
Me:
I assumed that, but what does the man eat?
God:
You know what you do when you assume!
Me:
Sigh.
God:
Sorry...
Me:
Okay, what does Jesus play?
God:
Yeah okay, What do you think it does?
Me:
Jesus is an 'it'?
God:
Did you go to Catholic school?
Me:
Who's asking the questions here?
God:
Not a robot. Probably a human. Maybe a celebrity? Check back later and see if I learn the answer to that one.
Me:
Good luck, Einstein.
God:
Thanks for the compliment. A deeper algorithm is needed to respond to that correctly.
Me:
I'm feeling a little surly this morning, lord.
God:
Do you mind if I tell other people you are surly this morning lord.
Me:
Um. No, I don't mind.
God:
OK. Thanks I will add it to my gossip files.
Me:
Yeah, you do that.
God:
Tell me more. I will. Will you?
Me:
Yeah, so anyway...are we getting anywhere on this 'what does Jesus play' question?
God:
In any case, Next question? Ahem. We are just having a little chat.w.
Me:
Do you even know?
God:
I may not know it, but I could find out.
Me:
Oh, really. How about you do that. Go ask him.
God:
That's cool. For real. I will. Will you? Ok I will ask him when he comes back.
Me:
Oh, come on. He was supposed to have been back by now. And where is he? Off playing something, no doubt.
God:
"Ok I will ask him when he comes back."? Oh, come on.? I'm just kidding around. Oh. When was he? I think he is in California now. On and off.
Me:
Moving on.
God:
Where are you going?
Me:
Just...shhh. Alright. What did Jesus like?
God:
OK. he said we should forgive those who harm us.
Me:
*glare*
God:
Are we still talking about shhh?
Me:
No, we're talking about your son. You know, your son? Jesus?
God:
What is the subject? Sure, my son sounds like a good topic. Of course I know my son. Jesus is the Son of God.
Me:
Brilliant. What does he like? Does he have any hobbies?
God:
Not really that much, but thank you anyway. I think he does whatever he wants. I don't think he has many possessions.
Me:
Okay. As usual, you are useless. I have stuff to do today. I'm off.
God:
Ah. Cool. I have a friend named "John Lennon". Do you mind if I tell other people you are off.
Me:
Shut up.
God:
OK I'll stop talking now.

Does it seem like I always end these by telling God to shut up? Hmmm...

Southern States Boo-Hoo

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:57:00 +0000

This is interesting:

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to examine whether a central component of landmark civil rights legislation enacted to protect minority voters is still needed in a nation that has elected an African American president.

The provision (of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) in question requires "a broad set of states and jurisdictions where discrimination was once routine to receive federal approval before altering any of their voting procedures." Of the states in question--Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia--all but Virginia voted against Obama. So, because the nation elected Obama, but eight of the nine states named in this provision, did not, we no longer have to babysit them to ensure the minority folks in these states get fair play? Hmmm...

Rick Warren: Mass Murderer

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:03:00 +0000

I know, shocking title, eh? Shocking! What slander! This will make sense in just a moment.

Vjack at Atheist Revolution has an interesting post up today highlighting the work of your friend and mine, Rick Warren, in Africa. You know Africa. Lovely landscapes, nauseating HIV/AIDS rates. Apparently, the oh-so good work he's done there--the stuff he touts, the wonderful work battling HIV/AIDS--includes his man on the ground there, Martin Ssempa, doing great things. Things like burning condoms for Jesus. And demonizing homosexuals. Because everyone knows homos carry AIDS and disseminate it amongst us decent, healthy heteros like the plague. *shudder at the dumb*

This is how Rick Warren combats HIV/AIDS. Heck of a job, there, jackass.

So, what about this mass murderer stuff? Well, I'm only applying the same idiot rationalization that folks like Warren apply to women and contraception. See, all forms of contraception (which, obviously, must be burned) prevents pregnancy. Therefore, it is murder. Therefore, one women who uses, say, a condom to avoid becoming pregnant has, by all intents and purposes, murdered that unborn child. She is a murderer. So, by that reasoning (*cough* I choke using that word), Rick Warren and his pal Ssempa, by spreading misinformation regarding condoms, are indeed, mass murderers. See, if a man does not use a condom when he's engaging in a sex act with another person, he is deliberately avoiding keeping the disease to himself--he is purposefully spreading the fatal disease. He is a murderer. If a man tells thousands of people not to use life-saving contraception, he is a mass murderer. Rick Warren has made murderer of innocent Africans. He is complicit.

So, if we are absolutely compelled to take these people seriously, and by "these people" I am referring to the lunatics of the right-wing religious fringe, by legitimizing their lunacy and giving them a stage from which to spread their poison, aren't we also complicit? Of course, we're not. We don't condone this. We have been saying no, we will not give these crazy people the time of day. But who has? Barack Obama. And he will be doing it officially as he is sworn in on January 20th. Isn't that lovely? Yes, the man who promised hope will be giving his official stamp of approval to, not just an individual, but to a school of thought that knowingly kills thousands Africans and orphans their children. He is complicit.

It's not too late, though. He can look at this interesting (read: sickening) new information about Warren, though, honestly, every disgusting thing Warren represents up to this point should have been enough, and he can refuse to give him this national platform. I'm willing to bet money, though, that he won't. He will go ahead and give his approval. This, people, is not good.

Obama So Helps Him God

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:56:00 +0000

So, Obama has responded to Newdow's lawsuit:

(CNN) — President-elect Barack Obama has requested that the words “so help me God” be added to the end of the oath of office to be administered by Chief Justice John Roberts on Inauguration Day.

That confirmation came in an affidavit filed today by Roberts' court counselor in a pending lawsuit by an atheist opposed to any mention of God in the inaugural ceremonies. Roberts said he would abide by Obama’s wishes.

(I like how Newdow is nameless here, as if his identity was somehow impossible to discern. No, he is just a scary, trouble-making 'atheist.')

Okay, fine. This is fine. Even Newdow's suit says that if Obama wants to add it personally, then fine. I am wondering, though, if there will ever come a time when Obama acknowledges the faithless. And I don't mean in a Yes-I-know-you're-there way. More in a Yes-I-know-you're-there-and-I-respect-you kind of way. He's already spat in the eye of both atheists, but more particularly (at least, in the priorities of the nation) gays with this whole Rick Warren crap, but it feels a little like Obama is at least willing to do something to placate the LBGT community. Like this:

A source tells me Fred Hochberg, an openly gay former Clinton Administration official, will be named to head the Export-Import Bank.

Hochberg, who was deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration under Bill Clinton, was a prominent Clinton supporter in the primary, and a is a major donor to both Democratic and gay causes.

Gay groups have complained of a shortage of high-profile gay and lesbian appointees, and the appointment of Hochberg, who is prominent in gay political circles and served on Obama's transition, may ease those complaints, though gay groups had been lobbying to make him Commerce Secretary.

Is this a little 'Hey, sorry about that Warren thing' appointment? Maybe. Probably not. The question is why we freethinkers do not get apology appointments, or anything, to make our group happy (don't expect any godless appointments any time soon). Is it them, or it is us? It's both.

We catch a lot of heat for being vocal at all--whether it's through lawsuits like Newdow's, billboards, or counteracting signs for nativity scenes. We're supposed to shut up, like blacks were supposed to shut up, like gays were supposed to shut up, like women are still expected to shut up.

Obama's move here, to me, doesn't diminish Newdow's attempt. In fact, I think it shows that these sorts of actions need to be taken up more, with more fanfare, with more gusto. Just because we didn't get the answer we wanted doesn't mean we should sit quietly in the corner and, well, shut up. We have a point, we will continue to make that point until someone of authority finally realizes that we will not shut up, like blacks didn't, like gays won't, like women shouldn't. That's why no one--so far--really listens to us, nor cares to. Part of it is who we are. The other part is that we are not as vocal as we could be as who we are. We need to shout louder--it's that simple. We need representation. We need to get over this 'herding cats' mentality and join forces.

Newdow's lawsuit isn't a failure, it is one more block in the successful building of a wall of resistance to religious tyranny. I suggest, as I always do, that you atheists who are active, stay active. You who are not--who don't think we need to be--wise up or shut up.

Honk if you Love Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:45:00 +0000

Big props to Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for posting this, as it made me guffaw. Yes, I actually guffawed, which is not lady-like, I know, but there you go. The Boyfriend also guffawed, which he can get away with much easier. Note to self: Must get 'Honk if you love Jesus' bumper sticker.

New Pew Poll Stinks of Religion

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:58:00 +0000

I don't think one's religious affiliation should have any affect on one's occupation--especially, say, in Congress. I don't think it's anything the public needs to know about, particularly because, I repeat, it just shouldn't have any impact on that person's ability to serve. Of course, we are a sad bunch, we American People. Despite hundreds of examples, big and small, of 'religious' folks doing terrible things, we still elect them. Why? Because we still believe that 'religious' equals 'moral.' And, despite that atheists, time and again, continue to do much good, we are still labeled 'immoral.'

For many Americans, "there's this idea of morality being linked to belief in God and to religion," Masci said. "Atheism is different in that it's a real departure from the common-denominator faith that at least most people accept."

I'm a lot more optimistic than I was when I was younger. I used to think humanity was about 98% dumb. I have a much better outlook today. I give people the benefit of the doubt. When they do and say stupid things, I forgive them. I remind myself that we can't all be on the ball all the time, and, when it comes down to it, we are but dumb animals. But come on. Really people?

Our 111th Congress is full of religion. I'm excited to see which members will screw the pooch this year. Which members will go on to get caught doing something reprehensible? Will it be just a kind of general monetary-related corruption, or will they be trying to diddle our kids, or frequenting prostitutes? (Blagojevich is Serbian Orthodox, Mark Foley is Catholic (shock!), and David Vitter is also Roman Catholic. in case you were wondering). And from what religious affiliation will these fallen folks derive? We won't know because, when that time comes, no one wants to know. Well, I do.

We have these polls--statistical information--about the religious make-up of our Congress. Okay. It's interesting. We have this information because, apparently, we care. We sure the hell care about this information when we're pulling the lever or blacking in bubbles at the polling booth. But, when these people shit the bed, suddenly, we don't care.
It's interesting because, when these politicians turn out to be no more moral than anyone else--particularly no more moral than your average atheist--the question is one of morality, but, at this point, their religion suddenly becomes a non-issue. Someone gets caught doing something questionable and everyone clicks their tongues, saying how baaaaad the person is. Chances are, that person's religious affiliation played a role, possibly a sizable one, in getting them elected, and yet, now it doesn't matter--there is no reflection on that fact when they fall from grace.

Still, come campaign season, everyone's out there with the faith on their sleeve, advertising their inherent goodness. Everyone except the godless, who have to deliberately hide their lack of faith.

...in fall 2006, the secular coalition embarked on a quest for the highest-ranking non-theist public official in America. It offered a $1,000 prize to whoever identified the winner.

Nearly 60 members of Congress were nominated. The coalition sent them surveys, and Kaplan said that when he interviewed the lawmakers, 22 confided that they did not believe in a god. Fearful of exposure, all but Stark told the group to keep quiet.

I mean, as far as I know, Pete Stark, the only publicly 'out' godless member of Congress, has not been embroiled in some terrible corruption schemes*. I haven't been privy to any instance where him sodomized anyone or thing against their will with a foreign object. Still...if he did--I mean, if it just so happened that Stark got caught doing something oh-so nasty--you now what the outcry would be. It's because he lacked faith. He's bad because he was without GOD. You don't think so? Really?

We "unaffiliated," according to this poll, have three times more representation in the population than Jews and Mormons combined, but still, we have "0%" representation in Congress. Jews (8.4%) and Mormons (2.6%), at least, have some. What is the problem here? The problem is one of perception, and, frankly, that we godless still have a long way to go in terms of making our needs and concerns relevant. No will...and I mean no one...will give us the time of day unless we demand it. The perceived morality bubble in which these people exist is far too comfortable for them to come to the conclusion on their own that we have rights too. It's way past the time for us to get out of little godless pins and do some popping.

Maybe it's not all bad, though. Here's the good news:

But if more atheists, humanists, freethinkers and nonbelievers "come out," Kaplan said, "the stigma -- which is clearly there -- will begin to go away."

The evidence? Kaplan points to Stark. In November he was elected to his 19th term with 76.5% of votes.

Despite Stark's 'coming out,' he was re-elected by a hefty margin. I hope this becomes a trend and the trend continues. We need to let our politicians know it's okay to be godless. We, as atheists, if we are so inclined, should not be put off by running for a political position. We need to get in there and change these numbers.

*As a matter of fact, if you Google "Pete Stark" and "scandal" the first item you find is this, and the "scandal" is only there because of someone's else's scandal, and this instance where he is, apparently, investigating someone else's corruption.

How Many 5-Year-Olds could YOU Take?

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:51:00 +0000

Just so you know.

Jesus is a Friend of Mine

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:14:00 +0000

I almost lost my mind when I saw this.

What can I say? Zap!

Girl in Need...

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:06:00 +0000

I found this via Atheist Revolution, who got it from Pharyngula.

Graduate student and fellow atheist from New Zealand got a call informing her that her father died, rather unexpectedly. Terrible, terrible news. Because everything is last minute, the ticket back was pricey, but she managed to get a good friend to foot it on her credit card. That card's going to need some payment. Let's all chip in and lend a hand. I know how hard it is to be puttering along in life, just making ends meet, when, quite suddenly, a big fat bill for funds you don't have lands in your lap and it's entirely unavoidable. Now, compound that with grief.

If you've got some to spare, how about a little charity, up close and personal? Donations can be made via PayPal.

We Need to Rethink the Argument

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:27:00 +0000

Michael Newdow--our good atheist fighting the good fight in California--is, once again, standing up for our rights. He is known for working through litigation to remove the words 'under God' from our Pledge of Allegiance. This is what he's up to now:

California atheist Michael Newdow -- famed for challenging the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- has gone to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to prevent Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., as well as the congressional sponsors of the Jan. 20 inaugural and several other defendants, from inserting the words "so help me God" into the oath.

The argument:

...it would be okay if Obama adds the phrase on his own. But if Roberts "prompts" Obama to recite the offending phrase by offering the words himself, that would amount to a "state actor" endorsing religion, Newdow asserts. And that would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, according to Newdow.

Okay. I think I kind of agree with this. If Obama wants to, personally, add the religious endorsement, you know, as an individual American with the right to worship and believe as he sees fit, then, yeah, fine. If he is prompted to do so, by being asked to repeat the words by a Supreme Court Justice, then, yes, that kind of does seem like an official endorsement.

If some people think this is a silly, superfluous thing--that it's not really an endorsement and doesn't mean anything, let's try a tiny thought-experiement. Imagine, if you will, an atheist President. I'll give you all a moment to laugh that out of your systems. But, let's just say for argument's sake, that an atheist won the election and was being sworn in. Now, what if he or she was prompted to say these words and he or she refused? Admit it...there would be an outcry. It would start in the weeks before the inauguration. Pundits would include little segments in their shows: Joe or Jane Atheist's Inauguration: So Help Him or Her God? And people would call in or email that, darn it, it's a national tradition! And what would a Justice like Roberts do when the time came? Would he respect the President-elect's personal, individual beliefs, or would he insist on pushing this supposed national tradition? And if he chose to push it, would he be doing so out of some zombie-like adherence to 'tradition,' or would it be for a whole other zombie-like adherence to endorse a certain religion?

Some people claim they are just words, but the fact is that we all use words, every day, sometimes to bullshit, and sometimes, just sometimes, we use them to say exactly what we mean. And in this context--as with any context where these words are coming out of the mouths of our government officials for governmental events--this is a problem.

Also, a commentor on this article makes a good point. An anonymous poster says:

I thought it was odd that the controversy was that Obama selected Rick Warren for an official prayer, rather than that there is an "official" prayer at all.

Wuh...huh? Uh, yeah. And, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm surprised this isn't the argument I'm seeing from atheists. It's like the whole 'remove the nativity scene from the public building' thing. It's not the nativity scene we are protesting. It's not the particular religion we are against. It is the representation of any religion on public grounds--public grounds paid for by all citizens and not just adherents to a certain religion. It is the official endorsement of any religion by a government who is supposed to be representing all citizens and not just the ones who believe in one particular sky-fairy.

And so why aren't we protesting the idea of an innvocation in the inaugural ceremonies, as opposed to which deluded representative is picked to serve as MC? I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you why folks would say that we shouldn't. More accurately, why folks would berate us and attempt to humiliate and marginalize us further. They will say that we're trying to degrade our nation's (Christian) traditions, and worse, when we do this, we are only making ourselves look foolish for expending these energies on such silly things. Of course, they will overlook the point that if they think we should find these things meaningless and silly, they themselves should do so as well, and so removing them shouldn't be a big deal for anyone. The fact that it always is a big deal shows that it is important. It is important to strip these religious endorsements from our government, for the sake of everyone.

I'd like to point out that I almost typed '...not just atheists, but for anyone with an alternative religious view other than Christian.' But I hate that. I hate it when atheists say that they're not just arguing on behalf of 'just' atheists, as if we don't count and can be overlooked as not really being citizens, but on behalf of these folks--the real citizens--who believe, at least, in something.

No, I think Mr. Anon is right. Warren is not the problem, the invocation is. Words like 'under God,' 'In God We Trust,' and '...so help me God,' are not, in themseves, the problem. They are when they are if they are in our Pledge, on our money, and/or coming out of the mouths of government officials for official purposes. Right now, they are acting in all of these capacities. These words are all beings used, right now, as official endorsements of Christianity by our government. Our government. The government that governs us all. This needs to stop.

Small Town Dumb

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:02:00 +0000

Disturbing things afoot in small town America--imagine that! Vjack at Atheist Revolution commented on this apparent fiasco in-waiting last week (links provided later--I am not home and am having technical difficulties at the moment), and I guess it's not going away. In fact, for the poor guy who complained (and rightly so), it's gotten much worse.

It seems a man did what any citizen who gives two shits about what is and is not legal, and the separation of church and state, had the audacity to seek a dialog regarding a nativity scene displayed in a public library.

There's been a dialog, alright--on the library's public forum (again, I'll get links up as soon as I am able). Here's a taste:

that is just so stupid.... what do people think Christmas is???? the celebration of Christ's birth.... HJ, if you want to take God out of the Government, man there are alot of things that are going to have to go...... including your money which states in God we trust...... nancy has a right to her beliefs.... so do the other employee's there.... and people wonder what is wrong with this country.... no tolerance.

Right on! Uh...wait a tick. 'Tolerance.' I'm wondering if my specially patented atheist dictionary has a different meaning of the word than this commentor's specially patented Christian dictionary. I'm leaning toward that assumption, because I've come across so many instances of serious discrepancies. So, Nancy and the library's employees have a right to their beliefs, but not this guy. How dare he? We agree on one thing, though--they are absolutely right, a lot has to go, and I'm perfectly happy starting with 'In God We Trust' on the currency. We can then move on to 'Under God' in the pledge. I'm ready to remove these when you are.

And this:

As I tried to point out in my first post, the nativity isn't an offensive display, except to religious bigots (that may not be a term you hear much, but there are people that believe that any belief in a higher power of any sort is a lie, and therefore they actively fight all mention of religion).

'Relious Bigots.' Read: Atheists. Specifically, atheists who open their mouths and dare to speak reason to the unreasonable. This fellow might also do well to seriously think about the terms 'belief,' and 'unbleif' and what those things mean in this existential argument and specifically to an atheist and what that moniker actually denotes. Somehow, I think these things will be lost on him, but, whatchagonnado?

And this:

This is another sign of the war on christmas and Christianity. This guy is a loser with nothing better to do.

Hey, baby, war is over, if you want it. But then, the guy who said that was a flaming atheist. So, pointing out disparity and the role of government to not involve itself with things religious is what people with nothing better to do with their time do. Well, I surely hope there are a lot of us with nothing better to do with our time. We should be so lucky. No, sweets, the fact is that we all have many other, much better things to do with our time, but you jackasses force us to take time out of our busy schedules to step up and do what's right. So, thank you...no really, thank you for providing us with opportunity after opportunity to waste our precious time, when we could be doing other things, like, I dunno, volunteering at soup kitchens. I suppose you could be doing the same, but you're too busy getting your Hanes in a twist over some decorations. I mean, that's what folks claim, right? They're just decorations, while at the same time screaming bloody murder out of the other side of their mouths about the birth of Baby-Flippin-Jesus. Man, we just want to get through the holiday season without watching our tax dollars (I know, it's shocking to think that atheists both pay taxes and care about where they go) spent on mangers and wise men.

There have been a number of suggestions to include displays from all religions (good luck with that, I hope you have room), including atheism, which is not a religion, but people seem happy enough to throw it in there. They suggest this because, still, they just don't get it. Atheists, as far as I can tell, do not want a display of their own. Atheists only put up displays to draw attention to the fact that no displays should be up in the first place--not on public property, paid for by all tax-payers. This is rightly seen as an endorsement of religion, particularly or not. And, I'm sorry folks, religion just has no place in our government, and people of no-faith should not have to foot the bill to promote any religion, whether it's one, or all of them.

I think it's probably safe to say that we would be perfectly content to never have to mention our atheism. We don't want displays, or billboards, or anything that expresses what is really, merely, a lack of god-belief. We could be just going through our lives, doing good, loving our loved ones, helping here and there, without ever having to bring it up. But, here's the hassle: if we don't, we are overrun with religion, and it affects us in every way, especially when it is filtered through government expression, be in a nativity scene or legislation that, say, doesn't allow gays and lesbians to adopt or form meaningful, legal relationships with all the perks included therein. Or, when women are forced to turn over their bodies to someone else's moral beliefs. It's bad enough when the folks affected by these things are religious themselves, you can imagine how galling it is to be a gay or lesbian atheist, or an atheist woman. Yeah, you can just imagine. You Christians are good at imagining things, so why don't you try that hat on for size?

We don't have a choice but to express our atheism. You don't give us a choice.

This isn't that hard to figure out, and really, atheists have been pretty clear on the argument. But, again, Christians with their aforementioned (repeatedly mentioned) Persecution Complex just absolutely refuse to hear. They are waaaaay to busy stomping their feet and balling up their fists to squinty, tearful eyes to listen.

They are also too busy calling this poor, unsuspecting guy a 'jerk' and an 'asshole.' Great.

Well I doubt that anyone in Elwood will believe this!!! Some jerk... and believe me I'm being king (sic) in my adjective.... the jerk comes
into the library and DEMANDS that the Library's Christmas nativity display be taken down!!! It violates HIS rights and because it is
in a public building he DEMANDS that it be removed from the display case!!!
What an asshole!!!!

I love Christians. You always have to be alert with them, because no matter how much kindness and tolerance they preach, they are sure to throw you for a loop at every possible opportunity. No one can accuse them for not being...um...complex. Believe me, I am also being king (sic) in my adjective. That's nothing to say of the very serious abuse of the use of the exclamation point here. I would also like to point out that she doubts anyone in Elwood would believe this (!!!) I know, right? This, to me, speaks volumes of the little town of Elwood, Indiana--a place where everyone believes in a sky-fairy, but no one would believe that anyone else might not believe in the sky-fairy (shock!), or worse, that anyone might care about fairness in governmental representation and what that means. Yes. Lots of deep-thinkers there in Elwood.

Point: This guy's life has become difficult, just because he rightly and admirably chose to step up and attempt a dialog with people who have no experience in dialog (if you read the info provided by Vjack, you will see that the man did not just barge in, foaming at his baby-eating mouth, demanding the display be removed). And now he's being harassed for it:

I am the Elwood Public Library patron who complained about the nativity scene. I need help here – these people do not think the law applies to them. Please share this information with your readers. There is now a witch hunt against me, and I am seriously fearful of someone hurting me and my family. Please take a look at this link: http://www.elwoodindiana.org/elwood-library-nativity-display If you notice the signing of the name, this is a library employee that started this. If you read the comments, you will see what I am dealing with here. This is the PG version of what people are saying about me. There are other sites that people are posting to that you must have a membership to view, which are definitely rated R.

Oh, hey, thank Fingaaz for intact links through cut & paste! Please do go to Atheist Revolution, whose link can be easily found at the top, to the right, of this blog. Read the bullshit. Write to the board. This guy is in a small town and we all know that this is exactly the place that this sort of bullying and intolerance...yes, intolerance...breeds and inbreeds. The mutations that result are no less than ugly, destructive monsters. It's got tentacles, and we know how bad they are. Let's rally folks. Let's save this guy, his immediate surroundings, and the rest of the country from this freakish, genetically mutated monster--the one I will call Real Religious Bigotry.

Links - Democratic Socialism

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:17:00 +0000

Democratic Socialism from The Barefoot Bum. And, for fun, his snarky follow-up. Everyone loves a bit of snark.

Why Atheists Hate Religion

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:53:00 +0000

Another Christmas season as come and gone--the 'War on Christmas' is over, for this year. Be sure to look for it again about mid-November next year. I've come across more than one 'article' asking why atheists hate or fear Christians and Christianity so much--apparently, we purposefully get particularly riled up this time of year. I'd like to take a stab at answering this question, but first, I should explain that it isn't even a valid question. As in, you holy folks aren't asking the right question, and I can only assume this is so because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about (I will chalk this up to your immense persecution complex and leave it at that).

I don't know of many atheists who hate Christians, and the ones that actively do, well, I see that more as an individual character flaw that has less to do with their atheism than their general personal stupidity. There are sometimes people who just like to hate and they come in all faiths, or lack thereof. We will set those people aside as a whole other dialog that has nothing to do with atheism or Christianity.

It is likely that a number of atheists hate Christianity. Just as they hate every other organized religion. This is pretty easy to explain--they hate what these religions represent and the actions they support and propagate. I'm talking bigotry, sexism, sadism, hypocrisy...you know, the general inequality and brutishness that keeps them afloat. Atheists hate the divisions these religions create because it's these divisions that make it so hard to find peace and decency on this planet. For those who disagree, I challenge you to find me an example where atheists' and their atheism has been the root cause of systemic hatred, intolerance, violence, and death--I'm talking as a direct result of the foundations of their atheism. Don't give me that old Stalin/Hitler crap, because those loaves don't float.

The fact is that the Big Three religions have long and bloody histories, where they kill each other and every other living thing that happens to have had the great misfortune of being near them. This is why we hate these religions. Case in point. Thanks Israel.

And I don't think hate is too strong a word. Ask me if I hate violence, sexual assault, and murder. I will say that yes, I do. I hate these things. I hate them. And yes, I hate the organizational structures that continue to push these terrible things in order to prop up their sad, delusional philosophies, and more importantly, their powerful grip on the subconscious of the human race. No, hate is not too strong a word.

We also hate that we, who have no bones to pick with anyone that might result in violence and/or death (no, we have no dogma that says it's okay to kill and abuse), are continually demonized. The old argument that atheists have nothing to keep them from acting like maniacs, save our own decency that stems from a love of this life, this world, and the people in it (oh noes!) is a fallacy, and every Christian that actually stops to think about it--but who never do, because they are so ill-equipped for personal, individual considerations that fall outside the box they created for themselves--would see this. They would know this. (For a good piece on what might happen if the roles were reversed, see vjack's Atheist Revolution).

And so, we are deemed the 'bad kids.' And not just during the Christian holidays, but all year 'round. We are discriminated against, we are seen as unfit to hold office, unfit to raise children, unfit for just about anything that requires a conscience. These roles are filled to the brim with the religious, who, as one can easily see in any newspaper and on any news show, every day, sometimes, quite literally, get away with murder. And molestation. And rape. And violence. And adultery. And scams.

Why? Because there is a myth perpetuated within our culture that the religious are pious, no matter what they do, and atheists are evil and destructive, no matter what they do. And Christians wonder why we get so bunched up.

So, why does it seem like the atheists come out of the woodwork around Christmas time? Is it just to make your lives difficult, Christians? No. It's because every year, you seem to feel the need to highlight this monumental social discrepancy, by doing things like, oh, I dunno, using government branches to make a statement--that we are a Christian Nation--to all other faiths, and especially the faithless. You feel the need to scream from the mountain top that we have no place at the table and never will. How very...Christian of you.

You apparently feel like we should happily eat the shit you shovel into our mouths every. Single. Year. And let's not forget, the other 364 days. We can either stand by and take it, which is tantamount to agreeing with you, or we can make some sort of demonstration against it, which we have been doing, more and more so, every year. And we'll continue to do so, so long as you insist on making us not only feel like second class citizens, but insist on painting us in the horrible false light you insist on painting us in.

This is the bed you've made. I hope you sleep well in it, because let me tell you, our stepping up and pushing back allows me to sleep quite well.

Top Three Assholes of the Holiday Season

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:44:00 +0000

This past semester sunk its claws into my pecs and just wouldn't let go. Technically, it still hasn't let go, as I have a thesis to write--one that should have been at least started quite some time ago. I have a lot of work to do--and so, I decide to blog. And what is blogging to someone like me besides very cheap and much needed therapy? After such a lengthy hiatus from any real blogging--I don't know if what I did can really be considered real blogging--I've decided to take it easy and not address anything too existential. Today I will comment of my Top Three Assholes of the Holiday Season.

Coming in third place is this situation. I say 'situation' because, honestly, I have a hard time figuring out who exactly is the biggest asshole in this mess. I will preface this with a disclaimer to state the obvious: It is wrong to shoot anyone for any reason. There, now that that's out of the way...

Tip to the bullet-catcher: How about, next time, not talking through the flippin' movie? I can't begin to tell you how often I've wanted a gun because some jerk-off is yammering on throughout a film. Everyone knows it's rude. Everyone knows not to do it. But, yes, it's wrong to shoot people, so Mr. Shooterman wins today's prize. But Mr. Bullet-Catcher and his Yappy Family should, I hope, take something away from this beside a little lead: Shut your pie-hole when Brad Pitt is on the screen.

In second place, we have this rocket scientist, a study in how not to win back your boyfriend. So, Idiot--we'll call her 'Idiot'--makes up a baby to lure her ex-boyfriend back, and when he does right by showing up to address the new reality that he has a son, she says, oh....er...uh...he's missing. But think not of the child, LOVE ME! See, Idiot is a real forward thinker. She's always one step ahead. The best part is this description:

She claimed her infant son had a mohawk and a tattoo.

I laugh out loud every time I think of this. I am laughing right now. So, Idiot files a missing persons report, yadda, yadda, yadda, and wasted authorities' time on Christmas Eve, when I'm sure lots of horrible, real-life tragic events were occurring, you know, to people who could have used those resources. And it never once occurs to her that this can go nowhere but down. Down, down. Like, really badly down. And how about the boyfriend, whom we will call the Inadvertent Sucker? Inadvertent Sucker took an involuntary roller coaster ride at Mind Fuck Amusements this Christmas, c/o his Idiot ex. Good job, Idiot. Bravo!

The winner this year, as I'm sure you all guessed, is this waste of skin and hair (you should know that in order to find a link to provide here, I simply Goggled 'Santa rampage.' Something is wrong with the world).

So, guy is disgruntled because of a recent job-loss and a divorce (recent lay-offs and new divorcees across the country are scratching their heads and claiming they didn't know this was an option). Waste of Skin and Hair (WoS&H for the sake of brevity) dresses up like Santa Claus, shoots an 8-year-old girl in the face upon entering the domicile of his ex-wife's family, goes on a shooting 'rampage' (as my Google search would suggest), douses the place with racing fuel which prematurely ignites, receives third-degree burns, melts his Santa suit to his very own self, then drives to his brother's house, rigs explosives to his car, and offs himself. He didn't plan that last bit--he meant to go to Canada, and apparently live in the wilderness, or something. I can't imagine how he thought he might ever be able to live among the populace, even in heathen Canada, again.

Some might say that WoS&H had deep psychological issues that were sparked by recent negative turn of events in his life. I would buy this, if it weren't for the fact that he deliberately dressed up as Santa---what? To finagle his way into the house? He had a gun! The first thing he did was shoot an 8-year-old girl in the face! And after wreaking so much havoc, it wasn't enough. He knew he was going to die but he couldn't stand the thought of not killing at least a few more people, so he rigs his car, you know, just to take out a few first responders.

No. This guy can't rely 'mental illness' to somehow explain his actions. The only reasonable explanation is that this guy was an asshole. Crime of passion? Momentary lapse in judgment? No. This guy wanted to create as much pain and suffering as he possible could. This guy was just an asshole. He was the kind of guy who deliberately drove through puddles while people with umbrellas walked along the side of the road, trying to stay dry. He was the kind of guy who left quarter tips and loosened the screw cap on the salt for the next diners to discover.

And today, I'm a big enough asshole to hope he had fun with that whole Santa suit melted into his very flesh thing. Congratulations to Waste of Skin and Hair for being this year's number one Asshole of the Holiday Season, and almost guaranteeing a real-life Silent Night Deadly Night in the shape of that little girl in about 10-12 years.

The Hardcore Atheism Meme

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:20:00 +0000

Thanks to vjack over at Atheist Revolution, I have something to blog about that requires no thought. :)

The rules:

Copy and paste the list below on your own site, boldfacing the things you’ve done. (Feel free to add your own elaboration and commentary to each item!)

The list:

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
3. Created an atheist blog.
4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron (well, I can't watch it either way).
7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
9. Have come out as an atheist to your family.
10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.
11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony (I've attended one, does that count?).
13. Donated money to an atheist organization.
14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.
17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.
18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
19. Attended a protest that involved religion.
20. Attended an atheist conference.
21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.
22. Started an atheist group in your area or school.
23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.
25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).
29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills (only when I'm feeling particularly surly).
30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”(It's amazing how offended people seem when you say nothing at all).
32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
33. Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.
35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant (I did, but I now have the Gospel of Fingaaz, my own personal pretend god).
36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).
37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)
38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.
39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).
45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.” (It's on the list of htings to do).
47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.

Happy Thanksgiving

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:20:00 +0000

So, today is Thanksgiving. Between the attacks in Mumbai and the watching of the documentary Why We Fight last night and ruminating on our nation's scary, heart-dropping Capitalistic military industrial complex, it's hard to find big things to be thankful for, let alone to have much hope. But I'll give it a shot.

Today, I've decided to be thankful for people. This is a big step for me, especially in light of so much destruction, perpetrated by people for one reason or another, be it their religion or their greed. One has to keep in mind that for every individual destructive force, there is, hopefully, one for good. I'm thankful for all the people who work to make the world better, less violent and more altruistic. Often, it seems like those people are few, or that their voices are rarely heard above the din of explosions or the gibbering nonsense of mobs. They’re there, though. They feed the hungry, they clothe the needy. They speak to authority and make tiny inroads to right wrongs. And they are frequently derided as being day-dreamers, as if defending the rights and needs of other human beings in light of those ever-present and insidiously undulating ‘needs’ of caustic forces, whether in the form of, say, corporations, or worse, nameless, faceless dogmatic concepts like religion or nationalism, is passé. As if this work is not worth doing, and even if it was, it is useless, or powerless.

I was recently involved on my campus in bringing Mark Rudd in as a speaker. He was a high-ranking member of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 60s, and went on to become a member of the Weather Underground, spending seven years or so as a fugitive. While he regretted the path and the actions of that group, both for moral and logistical reasons, he did not necessarily abandon the impetus for such actions, which I appreciated. Towards the end of the lecture, a friend of mine spoke up and told Mark that, during that time, he considered him as a sort of hero. Mark is a wonderfully affable and humble person, and for a moment, it seemed he didn’t quite know how to take such a statement. My friend, John, clarified with this: Some people care about shapes, and colors, and we call those people artists. Some people care about people. Those are moral artists.” There was a thoughtful silence in the room for a few moments. A moral artist. Someone who cares about people the way an artist cares about, say, the picture he’s painting, or the sculpture he’s shaping—colors as needs, shapes as rights, and putting it all together so that it becomes a coherent image of what we have and what we require to live on this planet.

I am thankful for all of the moral artists out there.

The 'Undecideds'

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:06:00 +0000

I was over at Atheist Revolution, and had my hackles raised by the subject of this post. (Thanks vjack...heh).

Few things irk me more than the fact that I've been up on politics and this election for two flippin years now (I'm stressed, I am tired), and again, like always, when it comes down to it, these self-important nimrods to are 'undecided' get a tremendous amount of attention for being the 'deciding votes.' As far as I'm concerned, if you are really 'undecided' at this point, considering the length and breadth of this campaign season, you just haven't been paying attention and have no idea what's going on. In fact, I will go so far to say that, considering the saturation of the media with this national event, you'd have to have been really going out of your way to avoid information on the election, and if that's the case, how on earth do these shit-for-brains get the 'deciding vote?' It makes me want to say that anyone who says they're 'undecided' at this point, with a stupid giddy smile because they think they're special, should have their voter registration cards taken away, because they clearly have no idea what's going on.

I like the idea that every American has the right to vote--it sounds nice. The fact is that when the Constitution was being argued, Federalists believed that the people were self-serving, antagonistic idiots who couldn't handle the responsibility of voting, and the Anti-Federalists believed that an informed populace that realized the value of being informed and actively taking part in decision-making that affected their lives was possible. Though the Anti-Federalists lost out to the Federalists in many aspects of our Constitution, on the idea of the informed popular vote, they won. Only to have these 'undecided' shitsticks centuries later walk into voting booths with no idea of what's going on, actively participating with no consideration as to the affect of their uninformed vote on the process. Because it's their 'right.' Because they're Americans. It's amazing the kind of crap one can get away with just because one if an 'American.'

I'm not for disenfranchising anyone, but really, I see the uniformed vote as not just a handful of useless votes, but as actual, real, counted votes that affect elections. It's completely contrary to what those 18th century folks who argued on our behalf to get our voices heard intended, and is only proving the point of the votes who didn't want us to have a direct voice in government.

Jackasses.

Gov. Avon Lady & the Witch Doctor

noreply@blogger.com (IsThatLatin) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:52:00 +0000

Watch this clip from Bill Maher's Real Time:

And finally, new rule: You can’t be President if you practice a violent, Middle Eastern religion and worship a genocidal desert god. Which is why Sarah Palin can’t be President. Now all the churches that Sarah Palin has attended, and she’s been to almost as many churches as she has colleges, have one thing in common: a belief that the Bible is literally true. She’s not “Country First”, she’s “Bible First”. And not just the New Testament. That’s the happy half of the book: the baby in the manger, Jesus doing magic tricks, long romantic walks on the water that turn into fishing trips with the guys and a generally positive message. Jesus, after all, preached love and forgiveness, not shooting wolves from an airplane...