The Icy Cold Hand of Evolution is Reaching For You

It's Darwin's 200th birthday and that is as good an excuse as any to engage in soap-boxery. Atheists are using this day to publicly make a spectacle. Though when it comes to making an ass of yourself in front of the media the Freedom From Religion Foundation just doesn't have the flair of PETA. If only there was some way to combine public nudity with atheism. We need to see some hot atheist ass. I am publicly calling for an "Emperor has no clothes" parade in Madison, WI. It will start at the capitol and end in my "evolution research lab."

I discussed previously that the public debate over Evolution does not actually regard any scientific discussion. The Christian zealots are using this as a way of publicly challenging the faith of other Christians out there basically saying you will go to hell if you believe in science. Using the fear they have used since the beginning for recruiting. Even the British cling to religious posturing in their ignorance rather than trust the people who dedicate their lives to careful study of the natural world. Which is exactly what this is about. Making highly educated people who have dedicated their lives to rigorous study into purveyors of a competing ideology. Reducing science to mere faith and turning scientists into servants of the devil. Christians know well how to turn mundane decisions into matters of eternal moral significance and normal people into sinners and the enemy. Creationism is an ideology of ignorance and hate.

The Friday Bacon

The image is of bacon grease filtering into the grease cup. I feel remiss for not posting this before the New York Times and Yahoo. But at least I got there before Ric Romero. If there isn't already a patron saint of bacon, Jason Day deserves that honor.

Evamaloutions

I think the real issue is not clearly explained in debates over creationism. In discussion over changes to curriculum it becomes apparent that what is being debated is the position of science in our society and the deference due to science in examination of nature. I don't think that the scriptural interpretive preference of an obnoxiously vocal minority should have any bearing on how we regard the statements of experts on matters of fact. The point is not that fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack our culture through the indoctrinating power of the already failing public school system, but that they intentionally avoid narrowing the issue or focusing on details because this is a discussion they loose as soon as rationality prevails.

In case you were wondering this post was not provoked by anything in particular but is tangentially related to the posts this week regarding stumbling upon websites anthropomorphizing of animals and showing that the efforts by religious fanatics to destroy science is not restricted to right wing Christian maniacs.

Posted from a Palm Treo mobile device.

Speaking of Religious Zealotry

Isn't there something in the Bible about graven images? One of those "commandment" thingys the fundamentalist religious fanatics keep trying to force onto public land?

I Know What You Mean

Here I was innocently looking for pictures of cute hippo babies and there is this story about a hippo that was separated from its mother by the tsunami and it started hanging around with a tortoise. Awww, cross species cuddling right? And, BAM! the author has to throw in some anthropomorphizing religious BS.

Honeycombs are perfect because..

I was reading an interesting article today about honeycomb. It was a story about a child talking to anthropomorphized bees, and 3/4 of the way through it starts talking about the Qua ran, and God's plan. And I wondered why, and why it was catered to children. It was part of an interesting BOOK SERIES in PDF format for your downloading pleasures.

Sex in Marriage? None For Me, Thanks.

Another study showing that high and mighty religious posturing about abstinence not only doesn't prevent premarital sex, it only increases the danger. Since abstinence only attitudes put the idea in the heads of these kids that prophylactics are witchcraft.

Gay Marriage In Connecticut

It should be obvious that anyone that is against gay marriage holds such an opinion because they don't like the idea of gay sex. Although we joke in popular culture that sex and marriage have nothing to do with each other, you won't see any significant principled division between the people who object to homosexuality and those who wish to deprive homosexuals of their civil rights.

Today Connecticut's supreme court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated that state's constitution. Effectively becoming the third state to allow homosexual marriage.

Something that is often glossed over in discussions of gay marriage is the issue of civil unions. These are often touted as being the same as marriage but with a different name. Gay rights groups often do a good job of pointing out that "separate is not equal," but it gets a bit more technical than that. There is a certain deference that is given to the status of marriage in American law that would not transfer over to any artificial legislative construction. You can make a statute that gives persons in a civil union the same tax benefits(penalties), the same visitation rights, and same property ownership as marriage and these are the rights typically cited by people discussing the issue, but there are a number of other rights that most people don't know come from marriage. You can have joint ownership of property but what about inheritance? What about the "Marital Privilege" where your spouse can not be forced to testify against you in court? There are a number of others but the point is that the status of marriage is so ingrained in our culture that a legislature would have to rewrite its entire civil code to create a substantially similar civil status to marriage.

Which still leaves the question of motive. Why would you go to all the effort to create something exactly like marriage just for the gays if not to keep them separate? I have yet to have heard a coherent explanation of why conservatives believe that it somehow harms their marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry. My wife and I may have had less sex, or poor communication on the week California first allowed gay marriage, but I guarantee you it was not the cause.

Life Lessons and Vice Presidential Candidates

As a child, I learned two lessons about the adult world almost as soon as I was able to tell right from wrong. That the authority granted to adults and supposed authority figures most often is not granted because they are moral or even responsible people and is usually a coincidence arising from their career, rather than given to them through any legitimate means. Second, I learned that most people are not deserving of respect (beyond that due every human) until they prove otherwise. Since I learned those lessons at Catholic school, it took me a while to separate my problem with authority from my perception of all Christians as hypocrites. If you have read some of my other posts on this blog you will notice that I still have that perception of Christians.

Christian hypocrisy is a good transition into discussing the issues surrounding the pregnancy of Sarah Palins unwed teenage daughter. Anti-abortion types will see this as not being hypocritical since Bristol, Palins daughter, will be keeping the child. This is itself a red herring and the hypocrisy I wish to discuss because it ignores the anti-contraception and anti-sexed positions that are associated with an anti-abortion and which Gov. Palin has herself expressed. A friend of mine observed today that you can't treat teen sex like the Easter bunny and decide not to believe in it because it does happen and has profound consequences. Many of those consequences will not be felt by Bristol and her child(eren) because of the financial status of her family. Sadly this is not the case for most unwed teenage mothers. Teen pregnancy is almost a guarantee that the mother and new child will live out their lives in poverty according to the CDC. It is easy to be anti-abortion when you have a safety net. Yet the Bush administration, right wing Christians, and other people with nothing personally at stake continue to push for abstinance only sex education, which has been shown to do nothing to reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy. At the same time, Jamie Lynn Spears is on a publicity romp, glorifying teen pregnancy. To get back to the accusations of hypocrisy, Sarah Palin has advocated abstinence only sex ed while claiming to be anti-abortion, which is consistent until you notice her unwed teenage daughters pregnancy and have to question Palins parenting.

So while she is telling the rest of the nations women what is right for them she is either not practicing what she preaches or she is ironically suffering the consequences of the polices she supports, but not really suffering from them the same way every one else will. At the same time the Republicans are decrying all the public attention this is getting because its prying into a personal family matter and shouldn't be public, which is hypocritical because of the way in which the very same Republicans dug into the personal sexual lives of the Clintons during the Monica Lewinski scandal.

I applaud Sarah Palin for supporting her daughters choice to become pregnant and to keep her child. (Remember there is always adoption.) I just hope it can be a learning experience for her about the failings of abstinence only sex education even though it will not open her eyes to the deep personal consequences it has for far too many American girls and the resulting social costs to U.S. taxpayers.

Free The West Memphis Three

This article doesn't really offer anything new other than dates for the new hearings. I admire the press for holding interest even with the gag order which prevents the attorneys from speaking with the media. But I find my distaste for them increased by their repeating that the three were accused of being satanist. This is untrue and merely sensationalizes the story and promotes ignorance.

Polygamy, Marriage, Religion, Freedom

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere
with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one
believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would
it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could
not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was
her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be
beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into
practice?

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (U.S. 1878) This quote does an excelent job of outlining the freedom of religion. What freedom it does guranty and what freedoms it does not. It is explained generally enough to cover almost any situation where someone tries to raise religious belief to justify some crime they have committed. More than that, it actually gives a moral outline so rare in the law. That a religious belief does not excuse a wrong act, is an excelent precept with which to weed out those that believe that God will excuse their sins if only they belive correctly.

The above quote also informs people where their right to believe as they please ends and the rights of others begins. You can believe abortion is wrong, but you cannot stop women from having them. You can believe vaccinations are against the commands of God but you cannot keep them from your children. You can believe creationism, but you cannot teach it in schools.

However that line of reasoning is used below to justify the government meddeling in marriage.

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time
in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society,
cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the
face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the
constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit
legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage,
while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most
civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it
society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations
and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required
to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed,
do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a
greater or less extent, rests. Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the
patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the
people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in
connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is qually
striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of
polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time
without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it;
but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of
HN21constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil
government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social
life under its dominion.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-166 (U.S. 1878) Why? Why does the government get to fuck around with my marriage? Why did I have to go pay some beureaucrat to file some paperwork so that I can go to a state approved church to solmenize the commitment I have made with my wife? Because marrage is the foundation of the state? Fuck you! All that is saying is that the state and all the members of the society demand a benefit from my love for my wife and that I pay for them to have the priviledge.

All that is said when someone says that marriage is the foundation of society is that they want the benefit of your children. The benefit that more productive members of society bring. Fuck you! You have no right to demand that my marriage be of any value to you. Even in a capatilist society where each of your fingers has a dollar value attached to it the value of my future children cannot be demanded by you for no compensation.

If you want control of marriage you owe me. You owe me for the increased efficiency of a two person household. You owe me at least the cost of producing the children you will benefit from. Not only that you owe me the value their future labors will bring to society and the taxes they will pay. The cost of raising a child to adulthood is huge but only a fraction of what that person puts back into society. That value is increased tremendously if that child moves on to higher education. You have no right to demand that value and the control over my life to get it.

You have no right to meddle in my spiritual ritual and put restrictions on whom I can have to officiate the ceremony of my marriage. Every person has the same connection to the devine as each other. We all had the breath of life put in us by the creator and none of us has any more or less than our neighbors. No schooling, licence, building, location, costume, or ritual can increase or decrease that, nothing. Yet there are judges that have invalidated peoples marriages because they did not like the manner in which the person officiating the ceremony obtained the title of "minister." This is just the state insuring the continued existance of the professional clergy.

I hate that there is legal effect to the state's yoke of control over love. I hate that I could not stand up for my beliefs and refuse to register my marriage because it would send a terrible message to my wife that there was something deficient about our love.

That said, I don't give two shits about polygamy or gay marriage.

Even if I agree with the Supreme Court's rationale that polygamy fosters patriarchy and totalitarianism, it does not justify the state sticking its fingers into the exercise of faith. Back to the thought I started with. There must be some limit to the distinction between belief and action because faith is meaningless if one cannot act on ones beliefs. Clearly there must be limits, but cutting off all action leaves faith as a mute quadrapalegic.

I don't know where I would place the marker. Ideally the law would reflect morality but it does not and not all things that are wrong are illegal and not all things that are illegal are wrong. As a libertarian I want to say that ones right to act on ones beliefs ends when they interfere with the rights of another but that can be a sticky area to hash out. Harm can be a good way to solve that problem. When an act of one person harms another can be a good place to say their rights have ended but that is still far too broad and vague. How do you define harm? And so forth. It might be glib to end this way, and all of this falls below the standard of legal reasoning, but it is pretty easy to detect the harm eminating from Warren Jeffs' brand of polygamy.

The Walk Of Shame

Bwa ha ha ha!

The worst part about this is the community that thinks these forced marriages are a great idea.

Money! Corrupting religion? Inconceveable!

Alleged police misconduct. To put it lightly.

Exxon.

The Walk of Shame

Thats right, two walk of shame columns in one weekend! By the decree of the Invisible pink unicorn. Another school board, motivated by the public opinion of ignorant savages, trys to plant the seed of doubt about evolution in the minds of the children they are supposed to be educating. Remember, the people pushing creationism on schools believe they are fighting a war. They may seem like crazy hillbillys to rational people, but they are willing to kill and die to spread their ignorance and hate.

This is more fuel for the argument that K-12 education is really just federally funded babysitting. Coupled with the blind hope that some of the little crotchfruits will be active participants and the society on the whole will reap the benefit of a few productive workers. I really wonder about what effect Ron Paul style, privitized education would have on America. Does anyone else hear Pink Floyd's "The Wall" playing?

Walk of Shame

As much of a dickhead as Bill Maher is occasionally, he sums up this year's biggest douchbags that should be filled with shame and remorse but are even more worthy of hate because they aren't asshamed.



X

Walk of Shame

http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/2007/12/in-support-of-i.html?cid=939948141

Licence To Carry Stops Shooting Spree

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html
This is exactly the kind of story that gun rights advocates have been wanting for so long. Someone with a right to carry permit stopped a mad gunman from causing a bloodbath in a church. This is exactly the kind of thing that will be pointed to in any debate about gun control when someone mentiones the Virginia Tech massacre.

I acknowledge that it is bad taste to capitalise on the suffering of others for political gain. I only wish I were eloquent enough to be sensitive while talking about the grisly events of the day. I think this event raises some serious issues that need to be discussed, but people died. And it dishoners the memories of the dead to wave this tragedy as a banner.

Also, my first reaction to hearing this hero speak on the air today was actually one of revulsion. Hearing Assam say that God was on her side made my stomach turn and I shouted, "But God wasn't on the side of those who died?" In retrospect I was probably being too harsh due to my inherant discust for outward religious posturing.

I want to extend my sympathies to this brave woman and the bereved families. As well as my sincerest wish that the courage she showed today stays with her. Shooting someone, even when justified, can't be an easy thing to deal with.

10 U.S. Flags not enough to make Romney a Christian

Its really easy to make the argument about tolerance Romney is making when you are in a minority religion, or are being discriminated against like Romney is. I wonder if he, or the conservative evangaliticals he is courting with this speech, would apply the same tolerance to Islam or Rastafarianism, or Wicca. Their behavior in the past does not fill me with confidence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_21;_ylt=AvNPAFj7ljheBLdNDxDl0MIE1vAI

This pretty much sums up the western perspective of the incident

Wisconsin finally getting some God damn respect

I hate how the old media always ignores that UW-Madison led the way in stem sell research like it has in biotechnology for over a hundred years. They prefer to mention California for some inexplicable reason. So California gave a grant to its researchers? I think its more noteworthy when a state that doesnt have an economy to rival Germany it means they care more to spend the few dollars they have.

The real issue that raises my ire is hidden on page 5 of the article. These rat bastards have been using foreskin. Skummy doctors are harvesting foreskin for research and mutilating poor defenceless childrens sex organs. They tack on an extra surgery to a healthy pregnancy to raise their profit margins like Best Buy tacks on the extended warrenty. What the hell is with the double standard in this country? We get outraged when some villagers in Egypt or Afganistan perform a cliterodectimy but expect a man in this country to have his sexual organs mutilated in an unnessary operation. No outrage, we fucking expect it as the norm. It makes me sick.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71441/page/1

Salvation for sale by the 12 pack

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is asking for the financial records of a number of the nations largest televangalitical organizations, because (GASP!) something might be amiss. Something seems askew. Something ain't quite right here. I cant quite put my finger on it but perhaps these fabulously wealthy organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status seem a bit odd when the "ministers" are making six(6) figure salaries and driving a Roles Royce. (quite the fine automobile)



Some of you might be wondering why they are scrambling to comply voluntarily. It seems to me that this sounds like a voluntary request at this point and if one were misappropriating money from a tax-exempt organization and inclined to commit further crime, one could alter ones records to appear less damning, and thusly seem to be in compliance in hopes of avoiding an investigation by the IRS who may be more inclined to use police authority and warrents to get the information they require. Not that any of these just crusaders for the glory of Christ would even misuse the money in the first place, let alone lie about it to a duely elected member of congress.



http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2007/11/george-osmond-patriarch-of-osm.php