yes, i am

sweet baby space jesus

2009-10-16T19:12:00.005-06:00

The full text of the very quickly infamous Dallin Oaks BYU-I speech has much more crazy in it that just the extremely racist, homophobic, ethnocentric statements about the post Prop 8 Mormon "persecution" being the same as blacks in the south in the 60s. Just as crazy, and perhaps more dangerous are his arguments about religious freedoms, and how they apparently trump the freedoms of the non-religious or gays (who apparently are all non-religious).

The problem for him is that Oaks is stumbling into dangerous waters with his religious vs. gay framing of the debate - because it's a false dichotomy. There are quite a few religions which strongly favour gay equality, gay marriage, total equality for all. His arguments therefore lose their potency because the only grounds upon which he has to argue against gay rights are religious, and indeed, are the only grounds upon which he even tries to argue, in this particular speech. What he forgets to mention is why his specific, Mormon, religious beliefs should be able to trump, in secular society, the religious beliefs of the UU, Church of Christ, liberal Quakers, or Episcopalians, etc., let alone non-Christians.

Because of the constitutional issue of separation of church and state, the state cannot favour one religion over another. Even if we were to allow it to favour religion over non-religion (which we don't allow, or are trying not to at least), it still could not constitutionally or legally allow conservative religions to overrule liberal religions on this or any other issue.

And I just can't believe he's stupid enough to not have realised this - though perhaps I'm over estimating his intelligence - but I have to assume he knows how fundamentally flawed his entire argument is. I am forced to conclude he's only using it to cynically manipulate those who won't question his words or fault him for his massive illogic. Oaks, Hafen, et al. are just not so cleverly or subtly giving the faithful ways to not feel guilty about being homophobes. They are making the members perform their dirty work by filling their heads with lies and half-truths and faulty logic, and then telling them it's their godly duty to oppose equal human rights for all.

I think it is also clear that Oaks believes (or at least says he does) that gays shouldn't be allowed to even protest. The church clearly believes they have some imaginary right to be immune to all criticism. They seem also to think that they have a right to fund votes on which minorities get which rights, and receive no legal or social consequences, simply on the basis that they're a religion. This mentality stems from the idea Mormons are brought up with that they're special, better, and more righteous than EVERYONE ELSE EVERYWHERE, EVER. They have the "ONE TRUE TRUTH" from sweet baby jesus, and that gives them the right to lord it over everyone else. They simply don't comprehend why society can't function when people act or think like that, or why they should be subject to the same secular laws as all the heathens and fags. They just don't understand that their apostles aren't in charge of the country, that their imaginary space-jesus isn't really running things on earth from his perch on Kolob, and that they're on the very, very wrong side of this issue, as so often in the past.

If we were to give into his and the church's ideas of religious "rights" (and the evangelicals', etc.) we would swiftly have several fundamentalist Christian theocracies warring with each other, rather than a free, democratic, secular, and pluralistic society where individuals and minorities have (at least some) rights.

And that is why Oaks is full of shit, why his ideas are dangerous, and why I hate him and his ilk.

what the fuck?

2009-10-13T16:52:00.002-06:00

Mormon Church Leader : "Mormonism is the new black"

i has a food blog!

2009-10-13T11:07:00.002-06:00

Which is here. It's pretty naked right now, but I'm working on it. Look for developments in the near future.

recipe of the week

2009-10-11T22:59:00.030-06:00

Beer Braised Chicken with Herbed Dumplings

8-10 chicken thighs, skin on
2 12 oz bottles of beer* (see below)
4 C low sodium or unsalted chicken broth
1 bunch flat-leaf Italian parsley
20 g (one .7 oz pkg) fresh thyme on the stem
15 g (3/4 of a .7 oz pkg) fresh rosemary
2-3 dried bay leaves or 8-10 fresh
5 garlic cloves
kosher salt
1 large onion
3-4 large ribs celery (with leaves if possible)
8-12 oz cremini mushrooms (baby portobello)
fresh ground black pepper
celery seed

Dumplings:
3 C flour
4 t baking powder
1 1/2 t kosher salt
freshly ground pepper to taste
4-5 scallions (green onions)
1/2 C milk
1-1.5 C beer (8-12 oz)
reserved herbs

Wash the chicken thighs and pat dry with paper towels. Season liberally on both sides with kosher salt, pepper and celery seed. Lightly oil a very large, at least 4 inch deep skillet, pot, or electric frying pan and pan fry the thighs on both sides until well browned and the skin is crispy. You may have to remove some of the grease half-way through.

While the chicken browns, chop the herbs, stripping the thyme and rosemary leaves from their stems. Mix the dough for the dumplings, adding in about 2/3 of the rosemary and thyme and 1/2 of the parsley to the dumpling batter as well as all of the scallions, reserving the rest of the herbs for the gravy/garnish. Add in the liquid, adding in more beer if needed to make a slightly stiff dough. Dice the onion and celery, mince the garlic, and halve (or quarter if large) the mushrooms.

Once well browned (don't worry about cooking through, because you'll braise them later) remove the chicken, set aside, and then remove most of grease without disturbing the cooked-on remnants. Leave enough fat to sauté the onions, celery, mushrooms and garlic in. Add in the onion and celery and season with salt and pepper, scraping up the browned bits. Sweat until soft and slightly caramelised, then add in the garlic and mushrooms, being careful not to let the garlic burn. Add more of the chicken fat if needed. If using fresh bay leaves, add them in with the garlic and sauté them slightly being careful also to not allow them to burn either. Once cooked, deglaze the pan with one of the bottles of beer*. Again scrape up any browned bits on the bottom of the pan, and then add in the chicken stock. Check for saltiness and add more salt if needed (if you use unsalted or low-sodium stock it will definitely need salt). Add the chicken back in at this point, as well as the reserved herbs (keeping 1/4 of the parsley until the end as a garnish for the whole dish), cover so as not to lose liquid volume, and let braise on medium-low heat for about 20-30 minutes.

At this point, spoon the dumpling dough into the spaces between the chicken (into the broth). The starch from the dumplings, as well as evaporation, will begin to greatly thicken up the broth and turn in into a gravy. Replace the cover, and steam/braise the dumplings for about 7 minutes, and then add in the second beer and (if any) left over which you didn't put in the dumpling batter. Cook for another 10-15 minutes until the gravy is thickened, but not too thick (add in more stock and/or beer if the gravy evaporates too much/gets too thick). If too watery, remove the cover and let simmer for a few minutes until thickened. Remove the bay leaves.

At this point, serve the dumpling and chicken, spooning gravy over the dumplings. You might want to also serve this with a light salad or carrots, or green vegetable, as this is quite heavy (but goddamn amazingly flavourful). Garnish with the reserved chopped fresh parsley.

*Ideally a medium-heavy bodied, hoppy & malty ale such as an amber ale, red ale, pale ale, Belgian ale, or some types of non-stout medium dark porters). You definitely don't want to use either a light lager or dark stout - something in between. In Utah we have beers called Polygamy Porter and Evolution Amber Ale, either of which would would be ideal for this dish.

One of the benefits of cooking with alcohol (besides the addition of tons of delicious flavour) is the fact that while alcohol has a lower boiling point than water, all of the alcohol won't cook out, and it acts as a natural flavour-enhancer (like salt, but obviously without the sodium/salt taste). I add in the second beer later to keep in more of the alcohol in the gravy so the flavour is that much more enhanced, and to ensure the gravy doesn't cook down too much.

Furthermore, I love to use the beer in the dumplings because the acid in the beer reacts with the baking soda to create fluffier, more flavourful dumplings than one would get with using milk only.

Using fresh herbs in this is a real must if at all possible. Dried herbs in the dumplings especially would create a different texture and be too bitter and strong. When cooking with fresh herbs, use 3-4 times as much as you were to normally use dried. Some herbs (like parsley and cilantro) lose their flavour when dried, and so are really only useful fresh. Other more woody herbs (thyme, rosemary, oregano) intensify when dried, and are good in some dishes/in some instances. I keep dried herbs in my pantry, but regularly purchase fresh herbs for most uses.

just so you know

2009-10-08T11:47:00.002-06:00

Einstein was not a theist. He wasn't even a deist. No matter how often theists try to pretend he was one of them by quote mining him out of context, he was not, so stop it.

And we have proof.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition.

Suck on that, theists.

and it came to pass jesus did cum down and did most vigorously fuck mohammed in the ass, and god looked down and said, oh me that is so fucking hot.

2009-09-29T17:00:00.002-06:00

Tomorrow is International Blasphemy Day. Why is it important? Well, the Center for Inquiry has more than a few ideas, and so does PZ Myers of Pharyngula - all of which I agree with.

From the article on the CFI website,

Blasphemy Day International is a campaign seeking to establish September 30th as a day to promote free speech and stand up in a show of solidarity for the freedom to challenge, criticize, and satirize religion without fear of murder, litigation, and reprisal. It is the obligation of the world's nations to safeguard dissent and the dissenters, not to side with the brutal interests of those who demand "respect" for their beliefs (i.e., immunity to being criticized or mocked or they threaten violence).

The right to free speech, which includes the right to criticise any idea, is one of the most important human rights.

Certain religious people, groups and countries seem to think that religion should be exempt from criticism (i.e. blasphemy) because religious ideas are somehow deserving of immunity from criticism. Of course, that's utter bullshit, but that fact hasn't kept the UN from giving into pressure specifically from Islamic nations to do the exact opposite of what makes sense, and declare the "defamation of religion" a human rights violation. The problem is, human rights are about protecting humans, not human ideas. Not one single idea, concept, or belief should ever be exempted from the most intense scrutiny or criticism.

It is grossly disturbing that free speech is being so constricted by the international community. No idea should ever be exempt from criticism, no matter how "sacred" or important it is to a society.

Though this was specifically instigated by Muslims' freak-out over the Mohammed cartoons of 2005, Islam is far from the only offender, though perhaps currently the worst. Christianity has just as bad a history as Islam does in allowing free inquiry, and the vast majority of religions curtail in to one degree or another.

While in most parts of the world physical violence is no longer likely if one blasphemes Christianity specifically, it is still very taboo in many cultures and countries, where it enjoys a very privileged status. For example in Ireland, it is even now illegal to blaspheme. From wikipedia,

In Ireland, blasphemy is prohibited by the constitution and carries a maximum fine of €25,000. A controversial law was brought into law on 9 July 2009 making blasphemous libel a crime for material "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage"blasphemy is prohibited by the constitution and carries a maximum fine of €25,000. A controversial law was brought into law on 9 July 2009 making blasphemous libel a crime for material "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage"

In some countries the right to free speech is curtailed under existing "hate speech" laws where "inciting hatred" against specific groups is illegal, and while certain degrees of hate speech should be illegal (inciting murder for example), far too often it is applied to something as trivial but important as the right to "insult" religious groups, through criticising or attacking their beliefs and traditions. This happens routinely in Canada and Europe especially.

I do my best to blaspheme daily, but I think it deserves a little extra attention tomorrow. The only way we'll ever bring about tolerance for others' right to be and believe different is to allow complete and open criticism, comment and speech on every topic imaginable. Notice I didn't say tolerance for other's beliefs, but rather their right to those beliefs. I believe in being utterly intolerant and disrespectful of bad beliefs, non-scientific beliefs, and harmful beliefs. But beliefs and their expression cannot ever be curtailed.

In this one instance, the laws of the US are ahead of the rest of the world - because of the first amendment. But the cultural ramifications of blasphemy are still very real in the US, and conservative Christians specifically seem unable to grasp why they don't deserve any sort of special respect for their beliefs, nor why when they preach against other creeds (atheism, Islam, polytheism, etc.) they're doing exactly what they want to be exempted from.

Unabashed and unending blasphemy is one of the best solutions to bring awareness to the importance of the right to free speech and right to criticise any and all ideas. Free inquiry and free thought are the foundations of rational thought, science as well as are the core of the very idea of human rights.

So to start off,

Joseph Smith was a paedophile, con-artist, and all-around fuck-tard, Tommy Monson and his cronies are in charge of one of the cleverest, richest and brainwashiest pyramid schemes/cults of all time, and aren't fooling anyone as to the real reason of their obsession with attacking gay rights.

Any other takers?

i am rubber and you are glue

2009-09-24T13:11:00.001-06:00

As I've read this thread over at Mind on Fire, I've been thinking about why it is that there, in a space that is dedicated to open-thought, scepticism, and the breaking down of social norms, that those who seem to be against those things to whatever degree, go into that space and try to invalidate our experiences by saying they're not representative of the "true" Mormonism - whatever the hell that is.

I've been considering why some of those who are part of the Mormon system, the hierarchy, the organisation often seem to evidence the need to both further alienate the disenfranchised as well as attack and discredit our experiences in and feelings about Mormonism.

This is not by any means specific to Mormonism, nor religion, and is in fact something that I've found to be very common throughout every level of our society. As an atheist, as an ex-Mormon, and especially as a gay, I've experienced constant attack by those in the mainstream (the religious, the Mormon, and the straight) telling me that my experiences aren't real, that they are outliers, that they don't have the right kind of meaning or usefulness, that I deserve to be ostracised and reprimanded for not conforming, and discredited for not having the same beliefs, wants, needs, feelings and experiences as the majority.

The pressure to conform to society is extremely pervasive and invasive. It is a threat to those in power to let heretics of whatever flavour (religious, political, sexual etc.) have an equal part in society. The need of the majority to overwhelm and suppress the minorities seems to be a strong drive in human societies.

I've seen that evidenced, both in John Remy's excommunication as well as much of the discussion which followed on Mind on Fire and elsewhere on the blogosphere. It is a fundamental threat to the hierarchy and power structure of Mormonism to allow anyone to get away with any sort of criticism, or to allow critics to have the tiniest degree legitimacy. So the church tries to silence us, discredit us, slander us, and ostracise us for daring to think and speak outside the pre-approved box. And there are very many individuals whose own beliefs and perceptions are threatened by what we discuss, and seem to feel the need to defend that which is indefensible and wrong.

I've seen this with certain of my own family members, who a more than a few times have been angry with me or offended because I have posted things critical of Mormonism or religion in general. Even if we're in no way attacking an individual, that fact that anyone is attacking a world-view they espouse feels personally threatening to them - and that is exactly what the church wants.

There are very, very few religionists who are able to handle any bit of criticism of their particular brand of superstition - whether religious, political, cultural, it's the same - no matter how true, accurate, or well-meaning the critique, because they've integrated their beliefs about the outside world into their sense of self. For them to have to change a belief or admit that any belief, let alone an entire belief system is incorrect is like being forced to rip off an arm or leg.

Mormonism is stuck in that space where admitting fault to any degree would invalidate one of the main premises upon which church is built, namely that the organisation is perfect and led by ALMIGHTY GOD. The fact that the the church has changed numerous times in the past and abandoned problematic dogmas is conveniently ignored or explained away with the most dubious of logic. The important thing is that it is completely true and inspired NOW - whenever that now takes place. In 20 years the church will doubtless pretend it was never officially homophobic, that its anti-gay commandments, doctrines, and policies were just the mistaken and bigoted teachings of men and try to explain away its official endorsement of those ideas just as it has unsuccessfully attempted to explain away its racist ones.

Most adherents to Mormonism are stuck in the same trap, not only are unable to accept personal criticism, but institutional. A typical individual Mormon feels the need to defend the church against any and all perceived attacks because the good (even perfect) reputation of the church is a part of their self-identity. To admit the church ever has been or could be wrong, let alone on the massive scale on which it actually is, would be psychologically devastating to most members of the church.

So rather than let those of us who have left or have broken out of that paradigm own our experiences and express them freely, those committed to the status quo feel the intense need to ignore the problem, pretend it's not nearly as bad as we anti-Mormons make it out to be, or otherwise ameliorate our criticism into oblivion so that they can stay in their blissful ignorant little box and not have to see the world as it really is: fundamentally flawed and dirty and beautiful, needing none of the nonsensical hypocritical rules and regulations.

Thankfully, it doesn't work.

finally

2009-09-18T12:36:00.000-06:00

Internets, I'm very excited for I have a job.

As an office assistant, miscellaneous staff person, and whatnot at a marketing company.

That is all.

whacks head on desk

2009-09-15T01:16:00.012-06:00

UPDATED & CLARIFIED

I thoroughly confused as to why theists try to argue against atheism by saying that atheism is just another brand of faith. I find it odd, annoying, and either completely cynical, or just plain stupid - either that, or one has stretched the definition of the word "faith" to be so broad as to have become completely synonymous with belief in general, and therefore useless.

I am personally offended when someone tells me that I "really" do have faith. To me that's an insult because faith is totally unwarranted and ridiculous. To say that my atheistic, rationalist, secularist, naturalist belief-system is in any way faith-based is to tell me that I'm 1) a giant hypocrite and 2) I'm an idiot. Obviously, those things are offensive.

First off in order to be able to discuss this coherently I need some definitions. To me religion and faith are nearly interchangeable, in that all religions are to one degree or another fundamentally based on faith. Faith is a non-reality based belief or set of beliefs.

An organisation which doesn't use faith I don't think is truly a religion - though I don't have a word yet for historicially religious traditions which have now rejected faith and dogma. (Most UU congregations fit into this - while historically religious, are more like community groups than a religion.) An organisation which originally wasn't a religion but adopts faith does, I think, become at least partly a religion (the American conservative Republican party is an example of this in many ways - especially in the past few years.)

Atheism is technically only the lack of belief in gods. In my own writing and philosophy, I generally use it a little more broadly - to me it is also a belief that there are no gods, nor anything supernatural. Though I do try to make it clear that I'm not speaking for all atheists, everywhere, and that some atheists believe to varying degrees in the supernatural and even religion, for example Buddhism, a religion, is technically mostly atheistic. There are no gods, but it makes supernatural unverifiable non-reality based claims.

So, to the topic at hand.

Over on Mind on Fire, one of my favourite blogs, a commenter said the following as a way to (as I interpret it) argue that theism is just as valid as atheism, and just another side of the faith-coin, or something like that.

As a former atheist, I’ve seen that humanism is just another faith system that is as prone to insular thinking, subjectivity, agendas, moralizing, etc.

There were so many things which bothered me about that statement that I didn't know where to begin, and ended up writing a long response which I decided would best be posted here, highly modified - despite the fact that I've reiterated these thoughts here a few times. Mostly I just thought it would be a shame to delete hours worth of writing and thinking.

First off, it seems he's trying to use the argument from authority - he was an atheist, so he can make valid judgements about what atheism is. Well, he's wrong. If he truly was an atheist, then he totally missed the entire point of both atheism and even more so of secularism. Right after saying "I don't believe in gods/I don't believe there are gods", the second inherent part of secularism is that faith is just so much nonsense.

Atheism is (most often) coupled with a complete rejection of the entire concept of faith. I find it odd when religionists try to characterise atheism or secularism or any other belief or belief system which is not religious as just another type of religion or faith. That is just simply not the case. Faith is fundamentally based on the idea that there are truths which are not objectively verifiable through any natural, observable, or scientific means. Atheism & secularism reject the concepts of religion and faith as being inherently false and unverifiable. The truth claims of every single religion, ever are either in contradiction with reality, and are therefore false, or cannot be backed up with any sort reality or facts.

Atheism, especially atheism as it exists in our society (as contrasted with the technical atheism that some Buddhists and sundry others follow), is a total rejection of religion, faith, all non-reality based beliefs, and the supernatural. If a belief is in conflict with reality, or cannot be supported with any evidence, then it is a useless and potentially harmful one.

The commenter went on to try and say that while he admits that religionists are judgemental, so are atheists, and while Mormons are admittedly guilty of "pious absolutism", so are humanists, secularists, and atheists. He went on to compare atheists' critique of religion as invalid because of the "whole pot/kettle and mote/beam thing".

In his attempt to characterise atheism as just another brand of faith, he seems to be arguing that the atheist critique of religion is further invalidated because he thinks atheists are guilty of the same kind of blind belief that religionists are. Unfortunately for him and his argument, that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny, nor indeed, reality.

First of all, those proverbs have to do with hypocrisy on the part of the criticiser. I, as an atheist, criticise beliefs which are not based in reality, especially when those beliefs motivate people to harm others, infringe on other's rights, or cause people to ignore or otherwise discount reality and science. That is not hypocritical because I substantiate my beliefs, and if I'm shown that I'm wrong, and given convincing evidence, will change that belief. That is, to me, the essence of atheism's critique of religion - that even when a belief is shown to be wrong or harmful, or both, it is often impervious to scrutiny, critique, or change.

There is a fundamental difference between religious "truths", which are more accurately described as faith-beliefs and scientific, reality-based truth - in that one is based on reality, and the other on conjecture, subjective emotional experiences, and often complete and utter fantasy. That is something which is simple fact, it is provable, it is scientific, it is real.

I think there are, objectively, four categories of things/beliefs:
1) things which have proven to be true or have significant amounts of evidence supporting them
2) things which have been proven false, or have significant amounts of evidence contradicting them, or supporting a conflicting view
3) things which have yet to be sorted into either category #1 or #2 but are verifiable
4) things which are not verifiable as either true or false, real or imaginary

Science - the thing most (but unfortunately not all) atheists believe is able to describe reality because it has proven itself able to, you know, because of REALITY - is about finding the difference between category #1 and #2, examining #3 to try and sort it into either #1 or #2 and ignoring everything in #4. There is some seeming overlap between categories #3 and #4, as we gain more knowledge and are more able to analyse our world, our perception of what was in #4 shrinks. #4 seemed to be a much larger category just a few centuries ago. While it has shrunk considerably, I do think there will likely always be some things in category #4 - things like whether there is an afterlife, whether gods exist, whether there are magical and secret handshakes and passwords which allow one into heaven, etc.

Religion's claims - i.e. those which are unique to religion and aren't found secularly - fit either into #2 or #4- which means according to science they are either completely wrong or useless ideas. Ideas in religion which happen to be verifiably true aren't there not because of religion/faith but in spite of it. Now, that's not to say the claims aren't or haven't been useful for some (unfortunately many) people - some of those uses arguably good, many bad, but there is just no way to determine if any particular claim is indicative of reality or not - which makes it absolutely useless to me as well as most atheists.

In addition, there is no way to discern the difference between the claims of one religion over another because there is no objective difference between religions. Mormonism's claims are fundamentally in conflict with Catholicism's for example, but neither can be verified, neither is more correct because neither are based on anything real or measurable in any useful way.

There is no way to find out if god really did speak to Joseph Smith as the Mormons claim, or whether it was "really" Moses or Jesus or Mohammed.

Or perhaps god(s) spoke to Moses, Joseph, & Jesus, but not Mohammed, or Mohammed, Jesus & Moses but not Joseph, or Jesus and Moses but neither Joseph nor Mohammed, or just Moses, or (and this scenario is most likely of all) none of the above because there is no such thing as gods, and all those men were either lying, crazy, and/or never said anything close to what is now attributed to them, and may not even have existed.

As I've discussed previously, the ways in which Mormonism gives to find spiritual "truth" are the exact same ways nearly every other religion give: read our holy writings, pray to some deity, attend our fellowship, and have a subjective emotional and/or psychosomatic experience which (inexplicably) means our truth-claims are true.

The problem (as if there were only one) is the verifiable and verified fact that one can (and many have) get the same promised result from any religion. Which means either that they're all equally true - which is impossible because one of the truth claims of most religions is that all others are false - or that indeed all religions are equally false (ding, ding ding!). None of them have objective truths, and all offer certain subjective and, obviously for many, rewarding experiences, but are not, in any way, true or indicative of reality in useful ways - which are the ways which atheists and secularists care about.

I do not discount the fact that many people find important things in religion, find solace, comfort, hope, community, etc., but it is entirely, utterly and wholly false to argue that religion offers "truth" in any way that is comparable to non-theism and science.

Atheism is not faith in any useful definition of the word. To water it down enough to have it include the type of belief atheists have, it would have to become completely synonymous for all types of belief, which would make it a redundant and useless word. Atheism is, rather, a logical, rational, scientific stance which, while not 100% proven, is by far the most likely scenario. It is supported by the fact that scepticism is scientifically the default stance, (that gods are, for example, no more likely than invisible pink unicorns or invisible tea-ware), by the ability of science to more than adequately explain our existence without positing the existence of any religion or gods, and by the fact the chance of gods existing ever, at all, is so infinitesimally small to make the chances of life arising on our planet look like the most boring and every day of common occurrences.

Finally, and to sum up,

ATHEISM IS NOT A TYPE OF FAITH AND IT IS NOT ANOTHER KIND OF RELIGION!!!

under rug swept

2009-08-05T00:56:00.004-06:00

liey mcliarson, or why conservative attacks on canadian health care are full of shit

2009-07-30T14:35:00.002-06:00

Many Americans who have been following the debate about health care have probably heard the horror stories about Canadian socialised health care from the mouth of Canadian Shona Holmes, whose "story" has been used in several Rethuglican and health insurance lobby attack adds.

Want to know the real story? Go here:

Oot and Aboot with Some Canadian Skeptic: IT'S NOT A TUMOR!

Be outraged.

faith vs. reason : the final countdown

2009-07-27T03:28:00.006-06:00

I was commenting over at Main Street Plaza on a post where the questions were brought up about why faith is bad, why rationality is good, whether we're ever really rational at all, and how (or if) individuals subjectively experience the "supernatural" and how that influences faith and religion.

I had a lot to say and wrote a crazy long comment which I decided to turn into a blog post.

It started with the following statement by one of the commenters:

We all use reason, but I weigh supernatural experience (as experienced by me) more heavily as evidence than you all.

Well that's obviously true, as I think that what is termed a "supernatural" experience isn't anything of the sort, and therefore isn't any sort of evidence for gods or the supposed positive effects of faith. I weigh it as having exactly zero evidentiary usefulness towards explaining reality, except in as far as the experience itself can be explained by reason - which I'll touch on in a bit.

Labelling the unexplained "supernatural" because there is no known natural cause is how religion got started in the first place when humans didn't know how suns were formed or why grass grew or how we evolved or why we reproduce sexually or how water freezes and so on ad infinitum. Of course, we've narrowed the gap between the unknown and the known, but it is still there. There are just far fewer things now that people try to explain as "supernatural". However, when we encounter something unexplained, we still have the impulse to label it as "supernatural" when the real explanation is that there is simply no current explanation, at least not to the individual at that time. Giving the "supernatural" "explanation" to an unexplained event is pointless because that's not useful, because it's a cop-out, because there's no way to check to see if that's the actual cause, and because it takes the onus from us to try to explain those events or experiences. It may be that some things aren't explicable, but that doesn't mean we should be lazy and label them "supernatural" when there is no evidence at all for anything supernatural existing, and because giving some unexplained event the label of "supernatural" is as silly as it was to say that the sun was a god who needed burnt human sacrifice to be convinced to get up each morning.

Even more implausible is trying to posit the existence of a single (or even a couple) version of the supernatural as the one "true" version. There being no evidence, no possibility of objectifying and measuring any particular supernatural world-view, every single one is therefore equally valid. It is completely ridiculous to even entertain the notion that there is some part of existence which cannot ever be measured, quantified, observed, or known. As soon as we start making such suppositions where does it end? If one god is real because of faith or so called "supernatural" experiences then we have to assume that all gods are real, all imaginations of every human is equally valid and real. Simply because a delusion is shared by many people doesn't make it any less a delusion.

In fact, I am convinced (until I've been presented with a more reasonable, convincing argument) that science is more than able to explain what many term "supernatural" experiences as natural events that happen in our brains, and have no basis in a reality that isn't measurable by science or reason. Any feelings I had when at church, praying, reading the Book of Mormon, or etc., when I was a Mormon I now know weren't any indicator of the supernatural (least of all the Mormon supernatural) but rather were biochemical, psychological, and other reactions (including many psychosomatic) that are natural and explicable, and happen to many, many humans in every culture and religion in the world.

While I know that my experiences, thoughts, feelings, and ideas are quite subjective, and that I'm not able to adequately distance myself from my own biases and prejudices to really be truly objective about my experiences, I can do a reasonable approximation of it when I look at a bigger picture. When I see that my experiences are not unique at all, but are wholly common to probably nearly every human, I can see that what at the time may seem to be a supernatural occurrence is actually nothing of the sort when I look at how brains work in general.

When I see that a Muslim has the same faith in their version of Allah that I had in my personal Mormon version of God, or that my experiences weren't at all different from those of any other religious person's, and that in fact that all types of non-physical reality-based belief are exactly the same means that my feeling that God was telling me the Book of Mormon was "of God", that Joseph Smith was his prophet, that being gay was evil that Jesus wanted me to go on a mission etc. can't possibly have been correct, but rather what I felt was my own desire to have what I was brainwashed/told/taught to believe be true. Indeed that has been shown by many, many psychological studies to be how the we cope with competing ideas and desires. Even though I wanted to not be burdened by the strictures of Mormon doctrines, I couldn't then conceive of a life without religious belief, and so created the feelings in myself to support the belief I already had. Those feelings weren't indicators that the belief was a valid one, simply that it was one that my psyche needed to preserve because it was a fundamental part of my world-view and self-concept. Logically, that is the only explanation that makes any sense at all, for all the explanations given by any one or all religions are all mutually contradictory and/or exclusive, and cannot be true, right, or in any way a useful or correct indicator of what is real in any meaningful sense of the word "real".

While we are very subjective beings by our nature, that doesn’t mean that we can’t step outside that limitation at times and use rationality and logic to get at the reality of our existence and our environment. The best logic and reason we can come up with very strongly suggests that the reality of the situation is that the chance of any gods/the supernatural existing at all is very slim. The chance of a supernatural-concept existing even remotely similar to how any one person conceives of is infinitesimally smaller (smaller in fact than the chance of life evolving in the first place in a totally natural way - untampered-with by gods or whatnot), and the chance of any group of people's (inevitably contradictory) concept of god being real smaller still.

Is it possible? Yes, it is, but so incredibly improbable (and unprovable) that is useless, silly, and a waste of time to seriously entertain the possibility. The obsession humanity has with religion and faith is purely detrimental. We as a species need to get outside our own heads and self-importance and see that faith and prayer and religion and magical thinking and prophets and baseless speculation about the “supernatural” don’t solve a damn thing, but rather make everything worse.

Faith is a negative because it teaches that belief in ideas for which there is no evidence is a virtue, when it is actually humanity’s greatest vice. We are remarkable only in as much as we are alive at all. We're no more special or at the centre of any grand cosmic scheme than some bacterium is. We're here by chance coupled with an evolutionary history that bred us and all life over billions of years to be the best suited organisms for our environment. That's it. No gods, no reason for faith, no basis for religion.

Even if there is some grand cause of everything, it's not like anything we've yet conceived of, and we can't see it or measure it's effects in any way, so it might as well not exist. And we've got better and more pressing things to take care of than to worry about whether made-up entities like Jesus or Jehovah or Allah or Shiva or Frigga or Zeus or Ra are the right imaginary deity to worship, or which of the untestable claims of Hinduism or Buddhism or Mormonism or Catholicism or Shintoism or Daoism is the best representation of an imagined supernatural world which exists outside/inside/over/under our own.

Personally I'm far more concerned about poverty and hunger and disease prevention, and whether I'm going to have health-care next year (let alone a job), or how to get it through the thick skulls of the crazies that all humans deserve the same treatment, and that comprehensive sex education is an amazingly good thing, and that socialism isn't going to eat your children in the middle of the night. Or how to stop our atmosphere from boiling off.

As a race, we've got no time to indulge in useless fantasies and faith, because we're not going to need a supernatural Armageddon, we're doing a dandy fine job of that all on our own, the natural way.

eavesdropping in slc

2009-07-26T16:49:00.004-06:00

Overheard at the Twilight Concert Series:

Mid 20s man to 2 friends: "I totally got me some dick and pussy last night!"

female friend : "Awesome!"

the rest of the story

2009-07-21T13:43:00.006-06:00

I really don't know why I kept trying to get through to her. Even before she responded at all the first time, I was quite certain it was useless, but for some reason I just couldn't let it go. She had personally offended me, and even worse had made the situation at BYU even more homophobic, and I felt I had to at least try to show her that her rhetoric (if not her position) was offensive, damaging and extremely hypocritical. Her response to the e-mail I posted yesterday was this:

Do you feel better now?

Which pissed me the hell off. I responded with this:

You're unbelievable! Did you even read it?

At which point I guess she decided to avoid the issue even more and sent me this e-mail which she titled "Common Ground":

Dear Craig:
Are you still interested in Germanic philogy?
Best wishes for your work,

I wasn't about to let her just avoid the issue, and her attempt to find "Common Ground" I found quite manipulative and offensive. So I sent her this reply:

What' I'm interested in is getting more understanding and compassion shown to gay people who have it hard enough already without your kind of unthinking vitriol thrown in their faces. I tried appealing to your compassion, to your logic, to your sense of fairness. Nothing apparently works. Did you happen to read some of the responses at the Daily Universe to your letter? Here's a convenient link. I'm by far not the only one who was upset and disappointed by your language.

I respect your right to your opinion, but don't you see you're making matter worse when you talk about the issue like that as if nothing bad ever happens to gay students and you're the injured one?

This is an incredibly important issue that, at times, literally deals with life and death situations. Suicide is a horrible thing, and I would hope you would want to not contribute, in whatever small way, to the despondency many faithful Mormon, gay BYU students feel when they read things like what you've written. It happens, it's reality. Do you deny that?

I want you to face the issue, not brush it casually off.

The next e-mail she sent was called "Common Courtesy":

Dear Craig:

A young man came to speak with me about my DU letter, during office hours last Wednesday. His intent was communication and understanding. We spoke together civilly for about 45 minutes. He thanked me for the discussion in an email followup. I responded by expressing respect for his courtesy and courage.

My letter appeared in a public forum and was not an invitation for you to attack me personally by email.

Best regards,

By this point I'm just plain pissed off. I've had enough of her complaining about me attacking her while she attacks all gay people in a public forum where I can't even respond or fight back because everything I write is censored. So this is my very direct and forceful reply:

Indeed it was in a public forum, but I thought you might benefit from knowing that people who know you personally were offended and how ludicrous your ridiculous comment about never hearing a bad thing said towards gay people was, as someone who knows first-hand. I also posted on the DU website, but of course my response was censored. This was the only way to address the issue. I can see (and had assumed from the beginning, but thought I should at least try) that you would be deaf to any criticism because you're convinced you're in the right, no matter what anyone says - this is a judgement I made when I was in your class and saw how inappropriately you censured and judged your colleagues and other students for political protests specifically re: Cheney speaking at BYU.

Your tone and words in the letter were offensive and hypocritical. But of course you're in the right. Because you follow the prophet, selectively. You chose what is comfortable and fits with your preconceptions and ignore the that which you don't want to address. You took offence at a gay student's call for compassion, when his call echoed the prophet you claim to follow.

Your homophobia with your "home-phobia" comment was obvious, and I thought you might benefit from some suggestions as to how your words are counter-productive, and don't represent the reality of what it is like to be a gay person.

I am an atheist and a non-Mormon and care nothing about your personal beliefs. I'm simply sick to death of people like you forcing their morality on the rest of the world and telling other humans what rights they do and do not deserve. It is disgusting that you act in this way, speak so callously of other humans, and so coldly disregard the fact that all humans are equal and deserve the same treatment, no matter how different or diverse.

I am ashamed of you and of your tarnishing of academia, free-thought, and human equality.

And her final response is weirdest of all. It is called "Common Destiny" and it is:

I am Cynthia. You are you. We shall be changed.

What the weird?! I have no idea what the fuck that is supposed to mean.

This whole experience of trying to break through her self-righteousness, just a little, and get her to admit that she herself had quite hypocritically said unkind things about gays in her letter, and to impress upon her the reality of being gay and Mormon and how that actually does lead many to suicide showed me that even if the situation with some people is hopeless, and they are completely blind to reason, and deaf to compassion, I still have to try.

She was wrong about my writing these responses to her to make myself feel better. It was only partly about me. It was much more about the hundreds if not thousands of gay students at BYU who are subjected to her extreme overt homophobia. It was for those who might just be suicidal or depressed and when read her letter about how clueless she is about them and their experience are going to feel even more isolated, alone, helpless, and despondent. It was people like her and rhetoric like the kind she uses which constantly made everything worse for me when I was there, and which was a strong contributing factor to my own contemplation of suicide. Her casual dismissal of suicide and her claim that nothing unkind is said about "those who struggle with same-sex attractions" infuriated me to a degree that hasn't happened for quite a while. On top of that, her logical fallacies and ridiculous complaint of Mormons being the "real" victims here induced me to keep trying to reach her until I found that her crazy was just far too entrenched, and it was indeed pointless.

Her apparent obsession with this subject (I still suspect it may well stem from intense internalised homophobia) doesn't give me hope that she'll leave the topic alone. At this point, I can only hope that even if just to avoid criticism from myself and others she'll word her homophobic epithets a little less caustically next time.

the blind following the blind

2009-07-20T13:27:00.005-06:00

I awoke this morning to find this response in my inbox:

Cynthia Hallen to me
Follow the Prophet.

Cynthia L. Hallen

Associate Professor of Linguistics & English Language

Brigham Young University

"What is more amiable and pleasant than those pure, innocent, endearing affections which God has placed in the hearts of the male and female, who are united in lawful matrimony, with a love and affection, pure as the love of God, because it springs from Him, and is His gift: with bodies chaste and virtuous, and an offspring, lovely, healthy, pure, innocent, and uncontaminated: confiding in each other, they live together in the fear of God, enjoying nature's gifts uncorrupted, and undefiled as the driven snow, or the crystal stream." (Teachings of Presidents of the Church, John Taylor, p. 194).

This brush-off annoyed me even more than a non-response would have, so I sent her a response which she will probably brush-off again because she's right and everyone else is wrong. It's probably a waste of time, but it made me feel better, and if she does actually read it, hopefully it may make her doubt her self-righteous certainty just a tiny bit.

I also found her choice of e-mail closing quote interesting. She seems obsessed with this issue to a degree that makes me wonder what her damage is. It's crossed my mind that she may well be a lesbian and is just full of self-loathing that she takes it out on other gay people. She is in her 50s, and unmarried, so she fits the profile of a repressed lesbian Mormon woman. Who knows. Whatever the reason for her homophobia, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

Here's my response:

Cynthia,

I can assume by your response that you refuse to even recognise, let alone take responsibility for your own hypocrisy. You claim to never have heard any unkind words directed towards gay people and turn around and say very unkind things yourself.

Regardless of what your beliefs are regarding homosexuality, do you not see that your words are hurtful and it is exactly those kinds of words that have driven many young Mormons to kill themselves? People I knew and loved were driven to depression and suicide because we as same-sex attracted people are bombarded daily from our professors, friends, and roommates, with hateful remarks.

Are you so callous that that means nothing to you? That you can't even respond or apologise for over-the top rhetoric that does nothing to address the issue in a respectful, responsible and adult manner?

Perhaps you ought to think beyond your own experience, and put yourself in the place of those of us who have experienced it.
Imagine that all day you hear about gays being evil, and how all gays are disgusting and should be shot, about being a son of Sodom, false claims about how we hate families and are destroying society. Imagine you're a faithful LdS person who doesn't engage in homosexual behaviour, who wishes only to live faithful to the commandments, and who yet stills hears this rhetoric day in and day out, who struggles with intense feelings of guilt because you were told (falsely) that you weren't really gay, and that you somehow sinned to bring those feelings upon yourself (two ideas which the church has now repudiated, but were for a time taught, especially by many LdS Family Services psychologists)? Imagine how devastating it is to live like that day to day, and then to read your own claim of never having heard an unkind word uttered about those who struggle with same-sex attraction. Let me tell you that this was my experience at BYU, and I am incredulous that you can make the statements you did without thinking for a minute that you're doing the very thing you claim never to have experienced.

I think it might be good for you to follow your own advice about following your prophets and have some respect and compassion even for those who disagree with you and have a different belief set from yours. Even though your prophet has advised the LdS church members to oppose the legalisation of gay marriage, he as also said that the members should be compassionate towards gay people, a phrase you apparently had a problem with to begin with. Perhaps it is time for you rethink your rhetoric and find a more compassionate, respectful, less harmful way of expression your opinions and beliefs about homosexuality.

I'm not asking nor expecting you to agree with those who wish to have equal marriage rights, but I do expect a more responsible tone. If you have in fact never heard any unkind words, then you weren't listening hard enough, because they're everywhere on the BYU campus. There are several students in various disciplines who openly acknowledge their same-gender attractions. Go to them and ask them about their experience. Learn first-hand more about the people you're reviling so harshly and undeservedly before you pass judgement.

J. Craig Fitzner

more mormon homophobia

2009-07-19T17:04:00.001-06:00

I just happened to read an interesting letter written by one of my former BYU professors to the Daily Universe regarding the treatment of gays and her ridiculous outrage over the censure those who oppose gay rights receive. Here is what she said:

Letter: Alternative compassion

Mon, 07/13/2009 - 19:25

In 23 years as a student and faculty member, I have never heard anyone at BYU make an unkind remark about those who struggle with same-sex attraction. However, I did find a large flier under my office door one evening, indiscriminately accusing Latter-day Saints of causing the suicides of gay people. Maybe we need a different “call for compassion.”

Let’s have compassion on those who have been denigrated, pilloried and belittled for defending traditional marriage. Let’s have compassion on those who have been persecuted for daring to express family values in public. Let’s have compassion on those whose vehicles were vandalized and whose safety was threatened because they voted for Proposition 8 in California.

Let’s have compassion on the Boy Scouts of America whose United Way funds were cut because they would not bow to the sons of Sodom and the gods of Gomorrah. Let’s have compassion for those who are mocked for promoting the Family Proclamation.

It is trendy to make accusations of homophobia when the real problem seems to be home-phobia.

Cynthia L. Hallen
Pleasant Grove

Her incredible self-delusion flabbergasted me, though I suppose I ought to have expected her to be this clueless. Her argument from authority and personal incredulity are unsurprising, but disappointing that a university professor, even one at BYU where censorship is the norm, would be so blind to such obvious logical fallacies.

I've never met a more blindly and vitriolically anti-liberal professor in all my time at BYU. During the time when Cheney came to give the commencement speech, she gave an in-class, highly inappropriate several minute long diatribe against any and all students and fellow faculty members (of which there were many) who dared to defy the prophet and protest that odious man's invitation to speak at BYU. She thought it was somehow important to malign most of her colleagues (many of whom participated in and even help organise the protest) in order to prove her piety .

For the record, she was totally incompetent and ineffectual as a teacher, partly because she didn't even know the material, and partly because she insisted on wasting at least 10 minutes of every class period with praying, singing hymns, and cloying spiritual thoughts during which she would routinely cry, in addition to her inappropriate digressions into her private life. She routinely indulged in disconcerting revelations as to why her personal life has sucked recently which was apparently to excuse her extremely poor performance as a teacher.

I decided I couldn't let her insanity go unanswered, so I both submitted a response on the DU letter thread (which I expect to be censored) and also e-mailed her a slightly more forceful version. Here it is:

Cynthia, as one of your former students (Hist-Comp Ling Winter 2007) I am deeply disappointed in you. I am gay, and attended BYU for 4 years. In just that time, I experienced systematic hate-speech, vitriol and incredible "unkindness" directed at me simply because I am attracted to men and not women.

You are not the victim here. I wonder if you can imagine what it is like to grow up in a culture that vilifies people for who they were born to be, for whom they are able to love. Imagine what it is like for a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person to go to BYU and be surrounded with such intense negativity and total lack of understanding, as you are yourself here evidencing. Your call for "compassion" for the supposed victims of the fight for LGBT equality sounds hollow and is offensive. As one who did almost commit suicide, and had friends who did because of the intense pressure to hide and pretend to be "normal" and lie about who you really are inside, and because of the hurtful, hateful rhetoric you are yourself using in your own protestation of innocence to ever being witness to any unkind remarks, I say you don't know what you're talking about, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This isn't about you, or your political or religious views. It's about creating a better world for all humans where all are respected and treated with kindness. Calling gays the "sons of Sodom" is supremely unkind. If you can't see how those types of comments denigrate and demean those of us who are gay, then I am unsurprised, but gravely disappointed, that you think you've never heard an unkind comment directed at those of us who are same-gender attracted.

Is more compassion, understanding and tolerance for those who are different really a bad thing?

J. Craig Fitzner

We'll see whether she responds at all. I'm not optimistic she will, but at least if she reads it, she'll know that at least one gay person whom she knows thinks she's absolutely full of shit.

crystal ball

2009-07-17T13:48:00.005-06:00

As part of my rejection of Mormon taboos about revealing "holy" things, I've decided to post the full text of my Patriarchal Blessing - the Mormon version of a fortune telling.

Note that the ridiculous punctuation, spelling and capitalisation are not mine, but that of the patriarch and/or his secretary.

Jonathon Craig Fitzner, in my sacred calling as Patriarch to the Madison Wisconsin Stake of Zion, I place my hands upon your head and confer upon you, your Patriarchal Blessing, a special communication to you from the Lord, by way of His Holy Spirit; and He is pleased that you want to be here to have this experience and will grant your every righteous desire. You have been blessed with many blessings already in your life, having been raised in a home where the principles of the everlasting gospel are observed and taught. You have been given this blessing because of your integrity, your righteous desires and your willingness to follow the counsel that was give you, when you dwelt in the realm of your heavenly parents.

You are of Israel and of Ephraim, son of righteous Joseph, who was sold into Egypt by his brothers; and it is through the tribe of Ephraim that the Lord is performing His work in the gathering together of His people on this earth, for the last time; and you are very blessed to be on hand to be a part of that great work.

You have many opportunities to serve the Lord in the building up of His kingdom , in the three-fold program of the Church; and will be able to serve your brothers and sisters in whatever ward you may reside, in the various callings, including those of leadership; and also you will be blessed to ave opportunities to share the gospel, not only as a member of the Church, who's responsibility it is to do so, but as a missionary, called and commissioned of God and sent somewhere in the world to seek out the honest in heart and bring them into the fold of Christ.

The Lord wants you to know that you are special and that you were sent to this earth to accomplish certain things,which you will come to know and understand, as you continue faithful and stay close to Him and let Him lead you by the hand.

A prophet of God as told us that one of our greatest individual responsibilities is in the seeking of the records of our kindred dead, for there are many of them waiting on the other side of the veil, who have a desire for their vicarious work to be done and are looking to you and your family to be saviors on Mt. Zion, for them. These are people whom you love, but whom you have never met; and they are important to you and you are important to them. I bless you that will have that burning in your hear and the strength to go forward and do the things that they need done, things that they cannot do for themselves.

I counsel you to study the Holy Scriptures, for in them is contained the fulness of the everlasting gospel, and also a knowledge of the mysteries, which can be unfolded unto you, if you pray and ask the Lord for understanding and allow Him to pour knowledge upon you, which will give you the things you need to succeed in all your righteous endeavors; and also will bring happiness and joy to your soul.

I further counsel you to pray to the Lord always and ask for strength to overcome your weaknesses and warn you that adversary knows both your strengths and your weaknesses and will try to put roadblocks in your way to prevent you from being successful on the Lord's errand; and I further remind you that you have power over him, through the gift that you were given, ant the time of your baptism; and that power will increase, as you progress and receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and magnify your calling.

I bless you that you will have the opportunity to receive all of the blessings and benefits of the Holy Temple, from the reception of your own endowments, to marriage for time and for all eternity; and the great privilege of watching your own descendants continue the work of service to the Lord, not only now, but forever.

I remind you that all promises and blessings that the Lord offers to us are predicated upon righteous and worthy living; and that these promises and blessings are also of an eternal nature and will eventually come to pass , if we are true and faithful to our covenants.

I bless that you will have the Lord's help in the pursuit of your education, in finding an eternal companion; and also in being successful in your life's work, so that you will always have the means to carry out every good and righteous thing you desire to do.

I bless that the day will come when you can stand before God with confidence in knowing you have done your best to serve Him; and have the Savior by your side to plead for you to the Father, and hear the Father welcome you into His kingdom, to be there with all those who have sacrificed everything for eternal life, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

Remember that everything you have done in the past, whether good or bad, whether large or small, is not as important as the things you do from now on, for if you have done bad things, they can be erased and if you have done good things, you cannot rest on your laurels, but must continue to serve the Lord, throughout your life; and if you do this, with all your might, the Lord can mold you to be one of His righteous and noble servants, which is what He sent you to this earth to be.

Remember that it is important that you have love in your heart for everyone, especially those whom you serve and those whom you teach, for with out that love, the Holy Spirit cannot do its work; and with that love, you can accomplish things beyond your greatest imagination.

I counsel you to follow the Prophet and the other leaders of the Church, stay close to your bishop or branch president in whatever ward or branch you may reside, do your best and eternity is yours; and this is your Patriarchal Blessing, which I seal upon you by the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, amen.

12 August 2001
Madison Wisconsin Stake
Harold J. Hovorka
Patriarchal Blessing Number 135

Oh, and just to complete the blasphemy, my temple name is Japheth.

recipe of the week

2009-07-15T23:09:00.011-06:00

Roasted Mushroom Cream Soup

1 1/2 lbs cremini (baby portobello) mushrooms
1/2 lb shiitake mushrooms
1 white onion
6 cloves garlic
15 stems thyme, leaves stripped off
2 cups dry white wine (Sauvignon Blanc or Chardonnay)
2-3 C vegetable or chicken broth
1 1/2 - 2C heavy cream
salt and pepper to taste

Save as Draft

Rub the dirt off the mushrooms with a damp paper towel. Cut the shiitakes in half or quarters, depending the size. Toss in a bowl with a little olive oil and kosher salt and roast in the oven on about 425 F for 10-15 minutes or so. You really want them to caramelise and cook down a bit to release their juices.

Meanwhile, dice an onion and mince the garlic. Sauté in olive oil and butter adding a little kosher salt so that they sweat and release their juices (and don't burn). Also add in the fresh ground pepper. Add in the mushrooms and minced thyme leaves and cook down for about 10 minutes longer.

Add in the wine and reduce by at least 3/4. Then add in the vegetable (or chicken stock) and simmer for until reduced by half again. I try to find a vegetable broth that doesn't have a lot of tomato or carrot in it because they tend to overwhelm the dish. I like one that is mostly onion and celery flavoured. I also like to deglaze my mushroom roasting pan with a little wine or stock and add in this delicious liquid to my soup.

Blend this entire mixture until smooth in a blender or with an immersion blender - by now it will be pretty thick. Return to the pot and add in the cream. Turn to low and leave for a couple minutes then serve.

This can be garnished with toasted walnuts, chopped thyme and/or chopped parsley.

recipe of the week

2009-07-06T23:01:00.007-06:00

Roasted Curry Chicken

1 fresh 3-4 lb chicken

Paste:

2" piece of fresh ginger
5 scallions
2 garlic cloves
1 stalk celery
1/4 bunch cilantro
1 tsp sriracha thai hot sauce
3 T lime juice
1/4-1/2 C oil
2-3 T brown sugar
salt to taste

Spices:

2 parts of:
cinnamon
cumin
coriander
turmeric
fenugreek

1 part of:
dried thyme
fennel seed
celery seed
sesame seeds
black pepper

3 cloves

Rinse the outside and cavity of the chicken well with cold water. Pat completely dry with paper towels.

In a food processor, place the sauce ingredients, chopping the celery, onions, and ginger into large chunks. Add 1/4 C of the oil, reserving the rest.

In a small, totally dry sauté pan, toast your spices over medium-low heat until fragrant and warm. Mix frequently to avoid burning any part of the spices. I didn't put measurements for each spice, because depending on whether you've each spice ground or whole depends on how much you add. I put a little more cumin and coriander and less of the celery seeds, but you may adjust the amounts of each spice to your own taste.

Add the spice mixture to the paste and blend slowly, drizzling in more of the oil as needed until a thick paste forms.

As this paste is probably enough for two chickens, put about half of it in a small bowl so you don't contaminate the rest with raw chicken.

Gently massage the entire chicken with generous amounts of the paste, on the top, bottom, as well as inside the cavity. With your fingers, carefully separate the skin from the breast from the meat (don't tear it) and fill with some of the paste.

After you've thoroughly seasoned the bird, truss it with butcher's twice so it cooks evenly.

In the bottom of the pan put about 1/2-3/4 C of chicken broth and 3/4-1 C dry white wine. While the chicken roasts, its juices will combine with this to create a marvellous sauce.

Roast in a covered roasting pan in a 325 degree oven for 30 min per pound, or until the chicken is thoroughly cooked, the juices run clear and the joints are loose. The lower heat and longer time than normal will allow the connective tissues to break down further which results with a moister, better-tasting bird. Towards the last half hour or so of cooking, remove the lid and raise the temperature to 400 degrees to crisp up the skin and allow some of the moisture to evaporate. Keep in mind that these times and even temperatures are approximate, so do whatever works for you.

Serve with rice and naan or potatoes and yoghurt for dipping.

recipe of the week

2009-06-26T16:56:00.004-06:00

Lemony Chicken Pasta Salad

1 small chicken, roasted or from rotisserie
1 lb small pasta - mostaccioli/penne or small shells.
1 bunch scallions (about 6)
1/2 bunch Italian parsley
4-5 small centre stalks of celery with leaves
4-5 smallish ripe tomatoes
butter/boston lettuce
1/2 c coarsely chopped almonds

Dressing:
1 lemon
1/2 C mayonnaise
2-3 T good extra-virgin olive oil
1 1/2 t grainy Dijon mustard
salt and pepper

Boil the pasta in salted water for about 10 min. until al dente. You want the pasta to still have some nice bite to it - don't cook it all the way through. I bought a rotisserie chicken from the grocery store - they're extra juicy, but you can roast your own small chicken. Do it several hours or the day before so it's cold by the time you need it. Shred the chicken meat (breasts, thighs, legs) and reserve the carcass, wings, etc. for making soup/stocks. In a very large bowl, place the cold pasta and shredded chicken.

Wash and chop the celery. I like using the centre stalks for this because I like the flavour and yellowy colour of the celery leaves. You can also add in a large outside stalk. Wash and slice the scallions on a 30 degree bias, using all the white and green part. Give the parsley a medium chop and add all the veggies to the bowl.

Zest 1/2-3/4 of the lemon into a small bowl. Roll the lemon and juice it and add the juice to the zest. Add in the mustard, salt and pepper. Whisk briefly to combine. Next very slowly drizzle in the olive oil all the while whisking to emulsify the mixture. Then add in the mayonnaise and whisk until combined. To be honest, I didn't measure any of the dressing ingredients when I made it (I rarely do), so these are all approximate measurements. I didn't use just mayonnaise because I wanted a lighter, more flavourful dressing. You may use more or less of the ingredients, depending on the specific flavouring you want. I used the entire zest of the lemon, but I like mine extra super lemony.

Add the dressing to the salad and toss just until coated. Taste, and add more salt and pepper if needed.

Wash the lettuce, and wash and cut the tomatoes into wedges. Place several lettuce leaves on a salad place, top with the pasta salad, sprinkle with almonds and garnish with tomatoes and a couple whole parsley leaves. Drizzle a small amount of olive oil and grind a little bit of pepper over the top.

Now, EAT!

to think, or to obey, that is the question

2009-05-23T19:48:00.020-06:00

The LdS church-run Brigham Young University (the BYU) tends to be a fascinating microcosm of Mormon culture and ideas. Because it is not very prone to outside influences or pressure, it is inclined to intensify and more explicitly state those ideas to a degree that is greater than one might find in Mormon populations elsewhere (especially outside of Utah).

In my time at BYU as a student, I observed how the attitudes and ideas that growing up had previously been restricted to the home and the church were also very visible outside of those two areas, and in society at large. This being because the vast, vast majority of people (over 90%) were not only Mormon, but were also from a shared ethnic and often common socio-economic background. This transferred into an incredibly homogeneous culture that I found to be very uncomfortable and often disconcerting; where the authoritarian aspects of Mormonism fed off themselves and became an all-pervasive culture of absolutely obeying authority being seen as the greatest virtue.

That is probably the main cause of my discomfort while a student at BYU, as despite my very strict Mormon upbringing, I have always been very uncomfortable with any idea that limits free expression, free thought, free exchange of ideas, etc. There are far too many examples of this overarching, all-penetrating, and overwhelming (religious) authoritarianism to enumerate, but just three of them that have stuck out most in my mind are these:

1) Treating Students as Children

A then friend of mine was required to pay thousands a year for an on-campus meal-plan that wasn't redeemable at the on-campus grocery store because BYU had found that some freshmen lacked the skills to adequately feed themselves, and so decided to force all freshmen to eat at the cafeteria, including those that lived in the on-campus apartments that housed full kitchens. This despite the fact that she was 22, had attended several years of University in her home country of Germany, and wasn't a child. BYU thought it needed to play the role of parent to these students, instead of letting them learn to care for themselves and learn useful skills like self-sufficiency. Of course, the university's insistence in treating students as children means they often act as such. By taking away nearly any opportunity for a student to experience real independence, and by severely limiting what actions and experiences are available, they ensure the limited emotionally maturity of its graduates. While they learn in their respective majors useful life skills, they more importantly learn that obedience to authority is a virtue to be cultivated, and consequently are very poor independent thinkers.

2) The Honor Code

Every student, faculty member and employee is required to sign a sworn statement that they will follow the "Honor Code" which is an rather broad range of rules of external behaviour. Anything that is deemed a "sin" in Mormonism is also deemed to be against the Honor Code, but it certainly doesn't stop there. While it includes such "sins" as masturbation, pornography, and drinking, it also includes prohibitions against men growing facial hair or students of either gender wearing "immodest" clothing, not only on campus, or even during the semester, but even while at home during summer break/holidays! The rules against facial hair (excepting moustaches for some reason) and rules governing proper dress are probably the most disturbing.

Routinely in the student paper "The Daily Universe" students write opinion pieces about how disgusting and unattractive they find any sort of facial hair, and then often disparage the spiritual health and righteousness of any male individual who dares to grow facial hair, or who allows their hair to become "over-the-collar" or otherwise unkempt. They have been brainwashed to believe that facial hair is inherently unattractive because they believe it to be somehow "evil" - based on its forbidden status by the Honor Code, and because the Honor Code is virtuous and righteous and faultless. Also common is hearing the incredibly sexually repressed men (or even women) complain about the "immodest" dress of women who dare to show a little cleavage, or who walk around wearing a messenger bag whose strap goes between their breasts, separating and defining those dirty, naughty pillows of Satan!!! Because the students are so incredibly repressed sexually, not only do they often confess every instance of masturbation, but they get married more quickly, and have more children sooner than any other demographic I've ever witnessed.

All Mormons are required to attend church weekly, and non-Mormons their respective services as well. I've no idea what non-Mormon atheists/non-religious students are required to do - if indeed there are any. If students don't attend church, they can be punished with probation or expulsion.

If a student is caught viewing porn or engaged in an unapproved activity with another person (any activity besides kissing, or anything homosexual), the "Honor Code Office" often will require that student to attend therapy, and will, as a condition of their staying a student, require their therapist to breach confidentiality to the Honor Code Office, in order to check up on the student's "progress".

3) Academic Freedom

Students and faculty do not get to learn or teach in a true academically free environment. Along with the rules governing external behaviour and appearance, there are numerous banned books, topics, ideas, philosophies, political platforms, and even words (swearing).

For example, a person who express the (political) belief that gay (or in the preferred terminology "same-gender attracted") individuals ought to enjoy the full range of rights afforded to straight individuals is grounds for both ecclesiastical discipline and academic repercussions - expulsion if a student, firing if faculty. A faculty member can be prevented from teaching certain ideas or using certain books simply on the basis that a student may be offended and complain to the university. It is common for anything that causes a student to question their beliefs and biases to cause this. Of course, the main point of attending most universities is to have one's preconceptions challenged and learn new ways of thinking. This only applies at BYU if the thing being taught in no way intersects any church teaching or doctrine. Unfortunately, the church has doctrines and teachings about nearly everything, so it is almost impossible to have a truly open and unfiltered learning environment in any discipline.

A faculty member can be disciplined or fired for teaching, writing, or researching anything the university administration (under pressure from the church leadership in SLC) finds is incompatible with the doctrines of the church. Famously, professors have been fired for researching into church history and publishing unsavoury, but true aspects of the church's history; for espousing views, even scientifically supported ones, that "advocate" homosexuality or gay rights; and for being feminists.

The desire to control and proscribe every tiniest action a person is allowed to do is an attempt by the church (whether concious or not) to control the thoughts of its membership. Because they cannot directly monitor thought or internal belief, they measure everything on the externals. The social rules of Mormon society are so detailed that there is very little room for individuality. Indeed, it is better for the church if there is little-to-no individuality left in its members. The more a person adheres to the rules, the less likely they are to think for themselves.

The church sells a lifestyle where all of life's answers are available in a one-size-fits-all pre-packaged form. In order to fit into and be accepted by the community, you have to be just like everyone else. Even the most minor deviance - say drinking a cup of coffee - is punished. BYU takes this idea and runs with it as far as it can. Being a Democrat (let alone a liberal!), having sideburns that descend lower than the ear lobes, skipping Sunday School, buying groceries on Sunday, watching an "R-rated", or many PG-13 movies, arguing or questioning church doctrines while in in class during the week are all grounds for social ostracism.

Now it is true that there are pockets of more liberal and open people on campus, and a person can surround themselves with open-minded and reality-based people. However they must be very, very careful in what they say or do, even in private, lest they risk disciplinary action. No matter how well a person tries to insulate themselves from the authoritarian aspects of the university, they will be confronted with them daily, whether at church, whether from a authoritarian room-mate, classmate, or professor. There are campaigns that encourage students to tell on each other to the appropriate authority for any infraction against the social code. They sell this as necessary for keeping the righteous atmosphere of the Lord's University from being sullied by the wicked disobedient (liberals).

The Mormon idealisation and virtuisation of absolute obedience to authority is no where better experienced than at BYU - or perhaps even better at BYU-Idaho where even shorts and sandals are banned, where all students have a curfew, and where recently the student political clubs (Democrats and Republicans) were forcibly disbanded. I attended BYU for 8 semesters, and in that time I learnt that the most important virtue for Mormons isn't charity, or love, or compassion, or service, but obedience. Absolute obedience to authority is the key to being successful in Mormonism, and everything is secondary to obedience. Everything. A person may be convinced that supporting gay rights is logical, charitable, compassionate, nice, and even politically necessary, but they won't because they put obedience to authority as more important than any other consideration- even human rights. They do this because the authorities they obey receive their authority from God Himself, and despite reams of evidence to the contrary, will never lead the church or its members wrong.

My experience was Orwellian in many ways that almost defy explanation, and is probably hard for anyone who didn't experience it to understand. There are very few cultures in the US that are more authoritarian than Mormon universities, and even fewer that exhibit the extreme irony that is an authoritarian university.

and jesus said, "let the little children come unto me, that I may fuck them over"

2009-04-27T21:13:00.009-06:00

A couple days whilst driving through Salt Lake, I saw a billboard that was soliciting foster parents by displaying piteous images of parentless children.

I was immediately struck by how ridiculous and disgusting it is that Utah, as well as many other states, has decreed it illegal for (unmarried) cohabitating couples to adopt or foster. Other states like Arkansas have outlawed adoption or fostering by anyone except legally married couples. In Utah, this prohibits any gay (or unmarried straight) couple from adopting, while (surprisingly) still allowing single gay or straight people to foster or adopt. In Arkansas, you have to be married, straight, (and for all I know, evangelical Christian). And while it might be technically legal for a single gay person to foster/adopt, since there are no anti-discrimination laws in Utah protecting LGBT persons, the chance that the state would allow an openly gay/bi/trans person to adopt is negligible.

Can you imagine how terrible it would be for a child to not be allowed to be adopted by an aunt, uncle, sibling or other family member simply because that person is cohabitating or gay? Is it better to rip a child away from family and force them to live with strangers or no family at all just because their available family member is in an unapproved relationship or has an unapproved sexual orientation? Or consider the children who will never have parents or families because bigoted Utah legislators have decreed it better for a child to languish alone than to be cared for and loved by the wrong type of family.

The fact is, there simply aren't enough people anywhere who are willing to open their homes to these children. In order to legislate outdated religious mores, the bigots in charge of far too many state legislatures are willing to punish children in order to forcibly compel the queers and those oh so immoral unmarried straight couples to abide by conservative, religious, heteronormative doctrines.

It saddens me that so many Americans are so blinded by their religion, that they think it is somehow morally justifiable to not only force their religion on others, but to deprive hundreds of thousands of children of a loving family because it's not the one god-approved flavour. Can anyone really argue that it's better for a child to be raised in an orphanage or state care than to be loved, raised, and supported by gay, unmarried, or single parents?

Of all the bigoted anti-gay morality laws that states like Utah pass, this one is by far the most heinous and offensive.

And yet I know many people and family members who support such laws. I find myself wondering if it even worth the effort to work with people who would fuck over children just to satisfy selfish hatreds. I think more and more that there's no dealing with some people, and that, like with desegregation, the US needs to just tell the religious asshats that they can believe whatever the fuck they want, but they aren't allowed to discriminate outside of their ridiculous churches, and that they certainly aren't going to be allowed to codify their discrimination into laws and state constitutions.

I truly believe that the only way to bring full human rights equality is to force the bigots to accept legal equality, instead of waiting for them to catch up with civilised society. I'm tired of having to sweet-talk around morons whose delusions include thinking I'm possessed of the "devil" and other nonsense that would be classified as insanity if so many other people didn't share the same mass delusion.

A person who claims to be Jesus we say is insane. A person who claims Jesus told them to kill their children we say is insane. A person on the street corner who claims that Jesus talks to them we call insane if their unkempt, but revere them if they're at a pulpit. A person who claims Jesus told them it is immoral for gays and non-married straight people to adopt children we allow to make our laws. A person who claims Jesus told them to invade another country we allow to run the entire nation.

Why is it "normal" for Jesus to say one thing to a person, but it is "insane" for him to say another, rather similar thing to a different person?

Why don't more people see how fucked (not to mention unconstitutional) this is?

If we don't demand and end to the religious manipulation of government, no one will.

recipe of the week

2009-04-26T10:01:00.008-06:00

Craig's German-style Potato Salad

4 lbs small red and/or yellow potatoes, scrubbed

6-7 scallions, sliced on a bias
1/3-1/2 C chopped fresh dill
1/2-2/3 C flat-leaf parsley, chopped
1 1/4 C fresh green peas, blanched if raw, defrosted if frozen.

12 oz. regular bacon (not peppered or thick sliced)

1/3 C apple cider vinegar
3 T extra virgin olive oil (something quite grassy & fruity to match the fresh herbs if you have it. I like the Italian import Viola)
3 T canola oil
kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper to taste

Scrub the potatoes and cut them into about 1/2 inch cubes. Make sure you're using the smallest red potatoes (or yellow ones). I use 2-3" potatoes. The large brown (baking) ones are far too starchy for this, and have too substantial a skin. Boil them just until tender and the skin is still firmly attached, but aren't mushy, because that's bad for potato salad. Once they're boiled, drain them and rinse with very cold water until the potatoes are cold.

Wash the herbs, slice the scallions and chop the parsley and dill. If frozen, rinse the peas in warm water until thawed, and then rinse in cold water and let sit for 1/2 hour.

Lay about 4 pieces of bacon together in a pile, slice lengthwise twice, and then slice into very small squares. Continue with the rest of the bacon. Fry in a sauté pan until quite crisp, and then drain on paper towels. Reserve a little bit of the bacon grease to dress the potatoes with. Wait to mix the bacon with the salad until right before serving, else it will get soggy.

Dress the potatoes with the oil & vinegar, herbs, peas, salt and pepper. Add the bacon, mix well and serve.

teabag-obama-o-rama!!!

2009-04-12T15:10:00.002-06:00

We loves her. OMFG we loves her.

oh, bloody hell, not again

2009-04-10T00:22:00.003-06:00

I'm sure most of you have seen this video already, but I just had to post about it.

I mean, I know these kinds of conservatives are just plain insane and don't live in reality, but seriously, really? I mean, come on, REALLY?!

I would have thought that even these people would have learnt from Prop 8 (and its aftermath), that lying backfires on you. If CA were to vote right now, Prop 8 would fail, because people found out that everything they were told about the "dangers" of gay marriage was a lie.

So, despite everything, especially things like reality and common-sense, they repeat the exact same blatant and obvious lies in yet another ridiculous commercial because equal rights won out in Iowa and Vermont. (horror of horrors!)

I wasn't even all that offended by the video; it was so ridiculous I pretty much just laughed through the whole thing.

I also laughed at this, but that's because it's actually funny, and makes fun of wonky conservatives, which is one of my favourite hobbies.

yes, i am

sweet baby space jesus

what the fuck?

i has a food blog!

recipe of the week

just so you know

and it came to pass jesus did cum down and did most vigorously fuck mohammed in the ass, and god looked down and said, oh me that is so fucking hot.

i am rubber and you are glue

finally

*whacks head on desk*

under rug swept

liey mcliarson, or why conservative attacks on canadian health care are full of shit

faith vs. reason : the final countdown

eavesdropping in slc

the rest of the story

the blind following the blind

more mormon homophobia

Letter: Alternative compassion

crystal ball

recipe of the week

recipe of the week

recipe of the week

to think, or to obey, that is the question

and jesus said, "let the little children come unto me, that I may fuck them over"

recipe of the week

teabag-obama-o-rama!!!

oh, bloody hell, not again

whacks head on desk