Two more reasons to NOT vote for a Republican Congress

Reason One:

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

(skip a few paragraphs)

The detainee bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but it would grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

- Senate OKs detainee interrogation bill

Reason Two:

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.

Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

- House approves warrantless wiretap law

PERA-noia, PERA-noia, the ACLU is coming to get me…

Please excuse my awful pun of a title. It’s a pera-dy (see that was a worse pun! I bet you didn’t think it could get worse than the title!) of the first line of Harvey Danger’s Flag Pole Sitta. Their version was a bit more sing-able than mine.

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- After impassioned debate on the separation of church and state Sept. 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it harder to sue the government for violations of church-state separation.

House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.

The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.

Supporters contended that the bill would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion.

The ACLU is not abusing the system. The government, when it violates the establishment clause, is abusing the system. The House, when passing this bill, just abused the system. The ACLU helps police the system. See the difference?

"Too often today, overzealous courts have infringed an individual's right to worship," Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a supporter of the measure, said on the House floor. "These attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous."

No. The courts have maintained our right to not have our noses shoved in your religious whatever. They aren’t frivolous lawsuits. They’re lawsuits to defend the rights of religious and nonreligious minorities.

But opponents said it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

"Mr. Speaker, let's be clear -- there's nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the First Amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect the religious freedom of every American," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas).

Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.

Yes.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said some such groups file lawsuits and use the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to pressure municipalities and states into settling before the case reaches court.

"Without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say to the mayor…we're going to sue, we're going to win, and you're going to have to pay our attorneys' fees, these cases will go to court," Hostettler said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.

(rolls eyes) Yes, yes, let’s drag the ACLU into it. Everyone likes to bash the ACLU! A note: you only have to reimburse the legal fees if they show you’ve violated the establishment clause. Don’t violate it, and you’ll be fine.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked the bill's supporters if they would feel the same way about limiting attorneys' fees in such cases if government agencies were being sued for advancing other religions.

"Let's assume in some town Sunni Muslims became a majority. And let's assume that everyone in that town…was forced to recite 'There is but one God, and Allah is his name,'" he said, quoting Islam's most common affirmation of faith.

"They think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate the local government or any government. Maybe so, but the whole reason we have the First Amendment is because you can't be sure."

(nods) Yes. However, I don’t think that’s the main issue. The main issue (for me at least) is that it’s not fair to squish the rights of minorities even if you have the power to do so.

Although a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, that body is virtually certain not to address it before Congress ends its current term.
- House passes measure to chill establishment-clause lawsuits

I hope not, as I still have hope that Dem’s might gain a Senate majority for the next term. Either way, write to your Senators!

***


On the same topic, but from slightly less sane sources:

… all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.

Oh! Oh! Veterans cemeteries! Veterans cemeteries! Emotional, non-touchable patriotism-related issue!!!!! ACLU! BAD! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!! ALCU! BAD!!!

AHHHHHHH!!!!!

What a great choice of issue to exploit to scare people into supporting this bill. ACLU ATTACKING FALLEN VETERNS! It’s ridiculous propaganda.

As a clarification, I’m certainly not bashing veterans. I support our former troops… especially in bed. As a clarification of my clarification, I suppose I only actually support one of them in this manner. However, this seems like a contribution at least on par with buying a few plastic flags or patriotic bumper stickers or the like, yes? ;)

(shrugs) Anyway, let’s continue. So, why do these lovely people believe veterans cemeteries are under attack?

The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been “deemed” constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever “deemed” that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.

So, seeing as the ACLU feels these displays are constitutional, it has just declared that it doesn’t feel the need for litigation, correct?

Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.

The ACLU defined why it felt this was a different issue: family choice of personal expression of personal religion on a personal gravestone.

Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.

I can see a clear difference between freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols and gravestones bearing religious symbols. While it isn’t an issue of utmost concern to me, I think the random, non-person-or-people-specific religious memorials should probably be removed from public grounds if they are causing upset. The cemeteries would still be there.

Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.

Erm, the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach in France? Somehow, I can’t picture the ACLU suing over this.

Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

- ACLU’s Disinformation On Public Expression Of Religion Act Exposed

Yes, because clearly this is how Islamist fanatics spread their message. Many congratulations for managing to raise your propaganda level at least a few points with the inclusion of the phrase, “Islamist fanatics.” Your target audience is now at least 32.452% more likely to write a letter to his or her congressman.

To see the ACLU’s response to the House passing PERA, read their press release. And write to your Senators!

Expanding Values (yeah right)

Determined to break the links binding partisan politics and faith, growing numbers of religious moderates are uniting and organizing in an unprecedented bid to challenge the Christian right and broaden the values agenda beyond the issues of abortion and gay marriage.

(skip a paragraph)

This new coalition of moderate and progressive Christians underscored its intentions with a flurry of activity last week, as prominent conservative Christian leaders and politicians converged on Washington for the Family Research Council's first annual Values Voter Summit, which ends today.
- Moderates finding a voice

So, if these lovely, moderate people expanded the conversation beyond abortion and gay marriage, what did they talk about? Well, apparently gay marriage and abortion (see how different it is if you switch the order?):

The gathering, which concludes today, featured Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, and seeks to mobilize evangelical voters this fall by focusing on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Focus on the Family has started voter registration drives in eight states, according to its Web site.
- Baylor study debunks the ‘religious conservative’ and ‘secular liberal’ stereotypes

Bipartisan, huh? This all sounds like an awfully red shade of purple to me. “Oh, we’re bipartisan… there must be at least one Democrat here! Democrat? Where are you? Oh well, he must have wandered off for a moment.”

Speaking of “bipartisan”, at this same summit:

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

(skip a few paragraphs)

"He was calling Hillary Clinton a demonic figure and openly arguing that God is a Republican," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It's hard to know whether people thought he was joking or serious, but once you start using religious imagery and invoking a politician in this way, it's not funny."

An aide to Falwell said Saturday the Lucifer reference was an "off the cuff" comment and Falwell "had no intentions of demonizing her." In the past, Falwell has described Islam's prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and said abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians were to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Falwell's remarks about Clinton were part of a 40-minute address at a private breakfast that included assurances that God would preserve a Republican majority in Congress and that moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani cannot be allowed to win the GOP presidential nomination.

- Hillary Clinton could outdraw the devil, Falwell says

I must concede that Falwell is almost as much fun as Robertson. Then again, until Falwell claims to bench-press 2000 pounds, he’s still a second-rate crazy in my book. If the Democrats do obtain a Congressional majority in the November elections (as I hope they do), then did Falwell’s oh-so-Republican god fail?


At another recent “values” rally, in Pittsburg:

All the speakers said they wouldn't tell people how to vote.

But if a politician shares his principles on issues from judges to marriage "and is committed to the God of the universe, and from my perspective, Jesus Christ his only begotten son ... it would be a sin not to go to the polls and vote for him or her," Dobson said.

A sin! But we are not, of course, telling you how to vote.

Attendees were encouraged to "pray, prepare and participate" by, among other things, taking bulk packages of voter guides prepared by the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute to distribute at their churches and asking pastors to hold voter-registration drives.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Gay-marriage bans are on the ballot in eight states this year, including three with close Senate races: Arizona, Virginia and Tennessee.

"When you have a marriage amendment on the ballot, it makes it that much easier" to motivate conservative Christian voters, said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "And on balance, they'll vote for the Republican candidates in those states."
-
"Disappointed" activists pushing values buttons

Aww… how sweet. Let’s lure ‘em in with the discriminatory legislation and keep ‘em around to vote for the Republicans. Erm, the bipartisan Republicans, of course.

Dirty Words

Believers say atheism no longer a 'dirty word'

Well first, if they did say such, I suppose that’s very nice of them. In this spirit of random benevolence, I shall declare that cow, sheep, and ice cream are no longer dirty words either.

Second, I can’t find anywhere in the article where believers do say such. I see a quote where Ellen Johnson (clearly an atheist) discusses how atheism used to be a dirty word... but no believers absolving the word from its apparent former state of filthiness.

Further De-Closeting

As a follow-up to the newspaper article of a few weeks ago, I’m going to be part of a panel for presentations on Thursday and Friday of this week. Cassandra, of the newspaper article and the official "atheist-mama”, will participate as will four other members of my local humanist group.

Readers from central Ohio should certainly come to listen and cheer. Or interrogate us mercilessly. Or, if you are so inclined, I suppose you could come just to throw fruit at me… however, I’d request the fruit be relatively fresh and preferably of the berry variety. Blackberries, maybe? Other berries would be acceptable as well. Please hold the fruit until after the presentation itself, as I wouldn’t want any innocent panelists to be attacked by berries clearly meant for me.

Details (about the presentations, not the fruit) are available at the web sites of Students for Freethought (for Thursday) and the Humanist Community of Central Ohio (for Friday).

Multiple-Choice God

… the study went further by asking respondents what sort of God they believed in. The results put the perennial debate over the role of religion in public life in a new light.

The survey identifies four conceptions of God, which it labels A, B, C and D.

A is the Authoritarian God, worshiped by 31.4% of respondents. This deity is highly involved, responsible for Earthly events such as tsunamis or economic upturns and "capable of meting out punishment to those who are unfaithful or ungodly."

B is the Benevolent God, the choice of 23% of respondents. He also is involved in human affairs but isn't in the smiting business. This God is "mainly a force of positive influence in the world and is less willing to condemn or punish individuals."

C is the Critical God, who "really does not interact with the world." But believers in this God — 16% of the sample — still watch their Ps and Qs because God C "views the current state of the world unfavorably" and will punish evildoers "in another life."

Last but not least is D, the Distant God. Twenty-four percent of respondents endorsed — "embraced" is probably too strong a word — this version of the deity, "a cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion" but has no interest in human activities.

This puts the SAT in a new light. At least that’s just an unfair test to determine who gets into college. Multiple choice tests for eternal salvation, eh? I’d imagine there’s a guessing penalty.

Finally, there are the atheists, who accounted for 5.2% of respondents. (They aren't dignified with an abbreviation. F for faithless?

How about just E, none of the above?

All quotes are from Multiple-Choice God.

We don’t need metaphysics to mess with our minds; math works efficiently enough.

Ghost Whisperer Crystal Ball

Go play with the crystal ball and see if you can find the trick before you read any further...














Are you sure you want to know? It’s going to spoil the illusion…












… and illusions are fun!














The Spoiler:

If you add together any two digit number and subtract the results from the original number, you will always get a multiple of nine that is 81 or less. Always. Notice that 81, 72, 63, 54, 45, 36, 27, 18, and 9 are always the same symbol.

Cool stuff, eh?

On the down side, the game isn’t fun anymore after you find the trick. Such is the way with a variety of illusions. Oh well. I’d still rather have math than illusions.

Futher further "friendly" fire

**An addition to my post from this morning.... 'cause I just can't get enough of the pope.**


Or, from Pope stops short of apology to Muslims:

"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups. The message's authenticity could not be independently verified. The statement was addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

(coughs) Once again, we’re not violent! We just adore death!

As I’m continually mocking, I shall point out I do get that these messages/firebombs/etc. are being sent out by select groups of Muslims. I find the garden-variety Muslim no more irrational than the garden-variety Christian. The Muslim extremists just tend to be a lot noisier in today’s world.

He noted that earlier during his German trip, Benedict warned "secularized Western culture" against holding contempt for any religion or believers.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted the pope apologize to the Muslim world, saying he had spoken "not like a man of religion but like a usual politician."

Exactly like a politician! We’ll pander to various religious groups, but why bother worrying about whether or not we step on secular toes? Oh, and I’m not contemptuous of believers. I’m just contemptuous of many of their beliefs.

"We have to show the determination and care not to hurt one another and avoid situations where we may hurt each others' beliefs," the Istanbul-based Patriarchate said.

(rolls eyes) As already suggested, the pope is perhaps not the most convincing figure when it comes to pointing fingers at violent religions. However, I’m all for pointing at fundamentalism/ridiculousness and calling it by name. You can’t expect me to smile sweetly and accept whatever you want to believe when laws and actions based on these beliefs restrict the rights of others. Believe whatever you like, just keep it out of the lives of others. If you don’t, expect to be pointed at.

Further "Friendly" Fire

Further clarification on the pope’s remarks about atheists and Islam in Pope said to be upset Muslims offended:

"Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom,'" Bertone said, citing words from another speech that Benedict gave during the German trip.

Pfff! What would I do with my spare time if I had to guard against cynicism and mockery of the sacred? Secularism is more dangerous than religious fervor? Pffff! A note: I don’t have contempt for god (as I don't believe in him/her/it), but my contempt for the thoughts of the pope certainly continues to grow.

Two churches in the West Bank were hit by firebombs Saturday, and a group claiming responsibility said it was protesting Benedict's words.

Right. Secularism is a LOT more dangerous than religious fervor. Those were friendly firebombs!

Glass Houses & Charred Popes

Some updates on my thoughts about the pope’s recent speeches: apparently, I skipped right over the part that’s making the news. When quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the pope referred to Islam as a violent religion.

First, as was pointed out to me in an email this morning (thanks J!), it’s rather hard to claim you aren’t violent when your response to being called violent is to burn the pope in effigy. (shrugs) Perhaps it was a non-violent form of burning-in-effigy. The burning of the Danish embassy a while back? Done in the least violent way possible!

However, the pope may also not wish to throw stones while standing in his own glass house. Islam certainly isn’t the only violent religion out there... come on now, he was quoting from the era of the crusades. You can find many, many violent, awful quotes in both holy books. The level of violence among the followers depends largely on who’s doing the interpreting and in what socio-political conditions.

As for the anti-atheist and anti-science remarks for which I originally grumbled at the pope, I see absolutely no atheists rioting. Perhaps this is because atheism is not a religion and we thus manage to skip much of this irrational mob action each time someone pokes a stick at us? Oh sure, atheism doesn’t prevent people from being silly, mean, bigoted, angry, or even violent. However, there is no banner, symbol, or holy book of atheism we feel compelled to protect. We grumble. We type. Sometimes, we even throw a minor fit. However, in the end, our fits tend to be significantly easier to clean up after than those of offended religious groups.

Money & Politics (but not together)

Time Magazine’s cover story this week is “Does God Want You to be Rich?” It seems to be a toss up, with various preachers and biblical passages supporting various views. As has been covered many a times before- you can find support for pretty much anything in the Bible, as long as you’re willing to ignore similar passages that contradict the one you chose.

Blah, blah, blah. The Bible is confusing. Got it.

***

On a more amusing note, the following multiple choice question appeared on page 88.

Which of the following did not happen last week?
A) President Bush revealed plans to appoint Clay Aiken to his Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities
B) Former House majority leader Tom DeLay asked supporters to vote for country singer Sara Evans on Dancing with the Stars
C) Three Senators nominated Jerry Lewis to receive the Congressional Gold Medal
D) Congress pass an immigration bill

The correct answer is D.

This unfortunately underlines the major reason I shall never be able to run for any political office: I just don’t know enough (really, anything) about pop culture.

Mr. FTP god and his blatant misuse of ropes

I was at my friend K’s apartment last night when she mentioned that she’d been left an exciting, fun-to-mock religious pamphlet on her car windshield at work on Monday. My car is never papered with such pamphlets, likely because I work in a small, well-to-do town where we shoot pamphleteers on site. Okay, perhaps not. But we’d probably at least give them a hefty ticket and force them to plant flowers on Main St as punishment. Regardless, K had accidentally thrown away the pamphlet. Possibly due to my having consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, or possibly simply an indication of my innate lunacy, I suggested we go dig it out of her dumpster. We did and found it was defiled only by the tiniest piece of (holy?) mold.

The tract is entitled

“What If You Had Been Here?
September 11, 2001
A Day That Began
Like Any Other Day”

and features a picture of the world trade center with various computer added (I’m guessing- it looks fairly unrealistic) mounds of smoke.

Do I even have to add that I think it’s total crap to exploit the fear of terrorist attack for religious (or, for that matter political) purposes?

Regardless, without further ado, I bring to you the words of the Fellowship Tract League (FTP):

WHAT IF YOU had been in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? What would have happened to YOU? YOU could have died, and YOU would have had to face God.

ME? Not only me, but in CAPITALS? Oh my… this FTP god is one serious critter.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27

That actually makes more sense this morning, sans vodka. However, I’m still not sure that I’d qualify it as good writing. Lots of people, even nonreligious ones, like to point to the Bible as “great literature”. I’ve read the Bible. Parts of it are quite lovely and might qualify as “great literature”. However, other parts just make the writing-tutor in me want to cringe and yell, “keep it short and to the point! Short and to the point!”

Sin is breaking God’s law. It is doing something God said not to do, or not doing something God said to do.

(blinks)

I suppose that makes sense. However, if I take this literally, I fear I shall have to take up arms against opposing tribes or something of that nature. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve used a sword. I’m not sure I’m up for it.

Sin is an offense against God.

Well then, perhaps Mr. FTP god just needs to get over it. I find people using adjectives as adverbs terribly offensive. However, I have yet to suggest that all people who do so be stoned to death. (the population of Ohio would dwindle to nothing, I fear)

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is as much God as if He had never become man and as much man as if He had never been God.

(blinks)

Well, it’s beyond my comprehension, so it must be true, right?

A gift is free. Eternal life is not anything we can earn, it is something we accept. Romans 6:23 gives us two choices. We can pay for our sin ourselves by dying and going to Hell, or we can accept God’s gift of eternal life and go to Heaven when we die.

Apparently the FTL god has bad management skills. Let’s say you have a group of workers making widgets. I’d imagine the best way to motivate them would be to say, well, you can work as hard as you’d like to make as many widgets as you'd like… however, the only factor used to determine if you’ll get paid is whether or not you ask for your check. I’m sure absolutely everyone will jump at the chance to make widgets, even though it as no effect whatsoever on whether or not they are paid.

Frankly, if there must be religion, I’d rather people feel compelled to do nice things in exchange for salvation.

For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Does calling "upon the name of the Lord" in bed count? I might be saved and not even know it!

Anytime you start telling people, all you have to do is this one religious whatever, and you’ll go to heaven, you open the door to awful interpretations of what that one thing might be. Well, in my version, god wants me to run planes into buildings or well, in my version, god wants me to go kill infidels and take their land.

To be saved, a person must be saved from something. If you were drowning, and someone threw you a rope, you would say that he had saved you from drowning.

(tilts head to the side and stares at the strange analogy)

Sure. So, since there isn’t so much in the way of reasons to believe in hell, I’m not drowning and that rope could obviously be put to better uses.


Thanks K!

Compromises

An update on my Four Witnesses post of last week:

PLANS to reform controversial Islamic laws dealing with rape and adultery, which have attracted condemnation in the West, have been watered down by Pakistan’s Government in a compromise with fundamentalist mullahs.

(a few paragraphs down)

Supporters of the compromise say that when the law is passed rape victims will be able to choose between prosecuting suspects under the four-witness rule or under Pakistan’s civil penal code. “If a woman has four witnesses she can file a case under the Hudood law, or if she does not have witnesses she can file a case under the penal code,” said Mr Zafar.

Under another change made after pressure from the Islamic parties, a man and a woman would be charged with lewdness if they indulge in wilful sex, an offence punishable with five years imprisonment.

The Muttehida Qaumi Movement, a secular party, had threatened to quit the ruling coalition if the Government presented the amended Bill. “We cannot support an anti-women Bill,” said Farooq Sattar, one of its leaders.

- Musharraf retreats on rape law

So, Musharraf compromised. Where’s the harm in that? After all, compromise is such a pretty word, alluding to give and take, to sharing and love. Compromise is fair. Compromise is good. Compromise makes everyone happy, yes?

(shrugs)

Compromising when choosing a restaurant to dine at with your best friend? A brilliant idea. Compromising when amending ridiculous rape laws? Well, perhaps not so much so.

The fairest possible outcome isn’t always the median of all possible positions, and it’s certainly not necessarily best to settle on the muddled middle between right and wrong. Sometimes, the fairest outcome has nothing to do with compromise, but instead with evaluating the situation and possibly just choosing what makes the most sense.

In this particular case, if the women have a choice in the matter, why should I be making such a fuss? Certainly, all women will choose to be evaluated in the matter fairest to them, correct? I’m not so sure about that. If religious law is a government sponsored choice, I’d imagine women will continue to experience pressure from their families and communities to submit to it rather than the secular law. Even if not, offering this as a choice is, at the very least, an implied government sanction of discriminatory absurdity.

Giving the same weight to Islamic law as secular penal law isn’t a compromise, it’s just crap. In this case, it’s also coercion. Antiquated, discriminatory religious law has absolutely no place within governmental law. It doesn’t belong as a choice. It doesn’t belong at all.

Public Expression of Religion Act

The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its dismay as the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys' fees to those who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

"If PERA were to pass, Congress would isolate and discourage enforcement of a specific piece of our Bill of Rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "PERA advocates are seriously misguided in their claim of defending religious freedom. This legislation would in fact weaken the very freedom they claim to be protecting. We are deeply disappointed in the committee's decision to allow PERA to come to a vote."

- ACLU Condemns House Panel's Passage of "Public Expression of Religion Act," Calls Bill A Direct Attack on Freedom of Religion

Comments/reactions later.

My Mixed Feelings about the Pope

I have mixed feelings about the pope. I disagree with so very much of what he says and does. His books make me cringe. His speeches leave me shaking my head. On the other hand, his religion has sent me many delightful varieties of disillusioned Catholics to date*. Somehow, Protestantism just doesn’t seem to promote disillusionment quite as effectively as Catholicism. What would my sex life have been like without the pope?

Regardless, Mr. Head-Disillusionment-Causing himself spoke recently on the topics of algebra, atheists, and humanitarian aid. Okay, so he switches the "responsibly" phrase to mean conversion rather than aid at the end of his paragraph-- but they're the same thing, right? Anyway, without further speculation (well, at least not for another 5 lines)... the pope and his concerns with secularism!

....something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe.”

Math!

So, a + v + m + g = u?

One important note: if g equals 0, as I believe it does, then subtracting it from the left will have no effect on the equation.

The pope did not make direct reference to the age-old controversy between evolution and creation but noted that “we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless.

FALSE DICHOTOMY AND STRAW MAN!

(I’ve always wanted to just type fallacies in capital letters and leave it at that. It’s never seemed very nice in actual discussions. However, I highly doubt the pope is reading this, so I feel no guilt.)

Today, when we have learned to recognize the pathologies and the life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason...

I wanted to make some statement about how, with scientific knowledge, we no longer need a “god of the gaps” in areas such as “where did this plague come from?”. However, the pope's entire statement baffles me and I’m not sure I would be answering what he is saying. Are these pathologies and life-threatening diseases infecting religion and reason? Or, since they are merely associated, do they just see each other periodically among mutual acquaintances?

Only this can free us from being afraid of God - which is ultimately at the root of modern atheism. Only this God saves us from being afraid of the world and from anxiety before the emptiness of life.”

(SIGH)

I’m not scared of god. I just don’t believe in god. Atheism isn’t a tree we hide behind to avoid a father-figure coming after us with a lightening bolt. It’s more like standing in the middle of a field and stating calmly, “there isn't a deity to be afraid of.” As of yet, no lightening bolts have hit me while I’m standing in my field. (Then again, I go inside when it’s storming. I’m atheist, not a-lighting-bolt-hit-able.)

We are not meant to waste our lives, misuse them, or spend them selfishly. In the face of injustice we must not remain indifferent and thus end up as silent collaborators or outright accomplices. We need to recognize our mission in history and to strive to carry it out. What is needed is not fear, but responsibility - responsibility and concern for our own salvation, and for the salvation of the whole world.

Oooooh... you were doing so well! If you’d just take off that last appositive phrase, “responsibility and concern for our own salvation, and for the salvation of the whole world”, you’d have such a dandy, quotable paragraph.

At least in part, science has vainly sought to make God unnecessary in the universe and hence to man himself.

So, science makes god unnecessary, huh? Even though the rest of the speech seems rather silly to me, based on that one statement I fear I’m going to have to reconsider my previously supportive view of science. If science manages to make god unnecessary, will I eventually run out of disillusioned Catholics to prey (not pray) upon? The horror!



All of the above quotes are cherry picked from the Pope’s recent address explaining how science seeks vainly to make God unnecessary in the universe and our lives. If you want to be fair, you could go read the entire thing. However, it’s not that exciting, I promise.


* though, I most note, of all the types of dissilusioned Catholics I've encountered, my current variety of atheist-disillusioned-Catholic is certainly the best

Book Musings

Alternative titles for this post include:
- Poor Aviaa, Forced to Write About Books
- I’m Trite!
- A Careful Analysis of the Danger Posed by English Majors
- Aviaa’s Grand Rebellion!


Mr. Apostate over at Bibliography tagged me for this post. So, I reluctantly wrote about books. Poor, poor me. All of those who feel just awful that I was so targeted for such a terrible task can send donations of food, blankets, checks, and quirc... wait, I already tried that a few posts back. Never mind.

So, books!

I’m ignoring the singular implications of “a” and “one” in some answers. Ha!


1. A book that changed your life
All books change my life in one small way or another. Wasn’t that cute and trite? I’m actually not sure quite what to add to that to make it un-trite, however. It’s true. I’m trite. How annoying.


2. A book you’ve read more than once
Many of ‘em, though I “reread” more when I was in school than I do now, likely because I had more time to read back then. I read The True Confessions of Charlette Doyle more than twenty times before I left middle school (this was potentially a bit ridiculous). I’ve also reread all of Austin’s books and several of Montgomery and Wharton’s. I’m currently rereading, Lies my Teacher Told Me… I read it in high school, lost my old copy, and bought a new copy when I went to hear Loewn speak a few months back. I was properly outraged the first time I read it, but I think I’m getting more out of it this time around.


3. One book you’d want on a desert island
The Art of Pastry Making? Wait, desert, not dessert.

(ponders)

Actually, I’m going to forgo the oh-so-popular “survival guide” and say that I’d want a longish, well-written book that I could read over and over without getting terribly sick of it too soon. Anna Karenina, perhaps? It’s the only Tolstoy I’ve read, and I loved the compilation of various overlapping stories and lives. Not to mention that it certainly qualifies as longish.

When one has good literature, one doesn’t need food or shelter or any of that crap! (she types as she eats a burrito in her climate controlled office)


4. One book that made you giddy

Most recently, On Beauty by Zadie Smith. The book was layers of well-crafted metaphor combined with exquisite detail. I found myself wanting to swoon with readerly lust at several points during the book. Good political writing also frequently leaves me giddy. Actually, almost anything well-written makes me giddy. What can I say? I’m just that easy.

This is one of the reasons I can never date an English major... he or she could walk away with my money (not much), books (loads), and other random items (lots of those too) and I’d be left dazed and dazzled with only memories of onomatopoeic witty quips.


5. One book you wish that had been written

I don’t think I’ve ever come across a topic for a book that wasn’t written that I desperately wanted to read. There are so many books out there already! Or, perhaps I’m just being unoriginal again. (sighs despondently)


6. One book that made you sob

I don’t think a book has ever made me cry, though many have left me quite sad.

7. One book you wish had never been written

(shrugs) Whatever I put down here, I’d likely feel bad about writing it later. I'm not sure that the books are the problem. Don’t misuse ‘em, and I won’t feel the urge to wish them out of existence.


8. One book you’re currently reading

Lies My Teacher Told Me (for the second time), Global Ethics 101 (a compilation of interviews from guest lecturers at the Harvard class of that name– I’d highly recommend it!), and Apartment Therapy (bad non-fiction is my bad-TV substitute). I seem to be reading no fiction books currently, which is odd, as I’m usually in the middle of one.


9. One book you’ve been meaning to read

(coughs) Soooo many. I haven’t read about half of my collection (It’s not an insignificant collection, either. My books are lined in book-case fashion around my office where the floor meets the wall- they cover about 3/5 of the total perimeter. As you can tell by my highly creative method of describing my book quantity, I’m feeling a bit too lazy to count them), yet I continue to acquire more. Snoow and a tango-friend also both gave me lists of recommended books I still want to work though. Ah! So many books! Such awful pressure!

My next read is How We Believe by Michael Shermer.

****

I’m tagging snoow and Jess, two people with whom I love to discuss books. On the downside, snoow’s blog is written in French, so I can’t actually read it. On the bright side, his English writing skills are better than many native speakers’, so perhaps he’ll tell me what it all means. I’m tagging Ben and mesoforte as part of grand scheme to encourage/force them to update their blogs. I’m also going to tag... hey, where does it say we have to tag five? Everyone is tagging five! I’m going to be terribly unconventional and only tag four. So ha! (sticks out her tongue in a grand, highly-significant act of rebellion)

Four Witnesses

Under the current law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public.

A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery, punishable by death.

Maulana Fazalur Rahman, a leader of the Islamic coalition, said Tuesday that lawmakers in his group would vacate their seats in the National Assembly if the government tries to get the assembly's approval to change the law.
"We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah (traditional Islamic) laws," he said at a news conference.

However, the ruling Pakistan Muslim Party — which has a majority in the assembly — has praised Musharraf for taking steps to amend the law and end the four-witness requirement.
- Rape law rankles some Pakistan lawmakers

Victim: Would you mind dragging me out in front of at least four witnesses before you rape me?
Rapist: Oh, certainly. After all, I wouldn’t want you to be stoned to death for adultery should you become impregnated due to my act of violence against you.

Yeah right. Four witnesses. (shakes head)

Kudos to President Musharraf's party for challenging this ridiculous law.

(hums to self about the importance of the separation of religious law and government... not to mention Amnesty International, an organization that has been working for years to prevent stoning-women-because-they-were-raped-without-witness situations)

De-Closeting

I’m coming a bit further out of my non-theistic closet this Friday.

I was interviewed for an article about local atheists in the Faith and Values section of this Friday’s paper, along with four other members of my humanist group. At first, I was somewhat hesitant to be interviewed because I own and run a tutoring center. Had I a regular job, I’d merrily sue for wrongful termination should my funds for food, blankets and other necessary items cease to find their way into my bank account. It’s a bit harder to sue your clients when they stop handing you checks. However, I’m betting on the fact that both I and my clients can and shall handle the entire de-closeting situation with grace. I’m also betting a bit on the fact that many of my clients won’t even see the paper as it’s being released my “living area” local paper rather than my “working area” local paper.

The main reason I wanted to be a part of the article is this: too many people are scared of atheists. I’d speculate that this fear stems from a lack of knowledge; people don’t know atheists or, more likely, they don’t know that they know atheists. Like monsters under the bed, climbs to the top of really tall mountains, and family reunions, the unknown is often more scary than the reality of dust bunnies and spectacular views (I take back the speculations on family reunions- they are often really that scary and might remain best unknown). The more atheists who become living, breathing, normal (well, relatively normal) people in the minds of the general public, rather than just parts of a blob of unknown, the less we will be feared as a group.

I’m an okay specimen of a “normal” atheist. I’m clean-cut and college educated. I like dogs and children (though I’m entirely finished with dating men who act like dogs or children). I tip well and smile frequently. Several people actually like me! One or two like me especially particularly a lot. I’m normal… well… relatively normal (maybe). Either way, I certainly have the appearance of normalcy and that’s truly what matters, eh? Regardless, I consider myself more of a dust bunny than a family reunion; I might cause a sneeze or two at times, but I’m generally not feared and avoided once you’ve gotten to know me.

All the above is true. However, in the end, it wasn’t all some grand altruistic action. Had I not been interviewed, I’m sure there were plenty of others from the group who would have been willing to take my place. Part of my decision was quite self-motivated. I recently resolved to be less apologetic about my beliefs, choices, and self in general. So, partially, I wanted to be interviewed for me, so I can continue down a path where I’m okay with being myself and not afraid to share that self with others. Sounds pretty, eh? We’ll see how pretty it sounds to me in a few days.

Post interview and simply waiting for the article, I’m a bit nervous. I’d estimate that 12.32% of my family know I’m atheist. The rest finding out? Actually, not really a big deal. However, I’d also estimate that 0.00% of my clients know I’m atheist. The rest finding out? Potentially more of a big deal. However, it may be fairer to trust people to accept me as myself than it is to just assume that they won’t and that I should thus keep my beliefs hidden. So, I’m trusting because I already made the choice to trust and at this point all I can do is wait… and write nervous blog entries.

If all this backfires, I shall be accepting donations of food, blankets, checks, and quirky sex-toys (oh come on- I’ll need something to keep me busy when my business fails and I’m without work) at my home address.

!!!

For Americans, the issue is key: A survey released last month by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that more than 40 percent of respondents believe religion's influence on government is increasing - and most view that as a bad thing.

- Religion, legislation often hard to separate