planethumanism.com

1. Name: jeff bob | E-mail: joshy793@aol.com | IP: 71.252.132.111 | Date: May 13, 2008

   Al gore is a hoax. All he did was restate an opinion. Global warming is a HOAX. If you are a christian and you believe in global warming you are a hypocrite. The global warming theory is that the earth will flood because of the ice caps melting, well in the bible it clearly states that the earth will be engulfed with flames. Another thing god promised that there wouldn’t be another flood as big as the one with Noah because of the rainbow was a symbol meaning that. So for all you liberals, tree huggers (pussies), and Obama supporters your believing a lie all the media is trying to do is make you buy stuff that doesn’t do anything, but the American consumer is too stupid to realize this.

   Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later

2. Name: jeff bob | E-mail: joshy793@aol.com | IP: 71.252.132.111 | Date: May 13, 2008

   And another thing Bush put us in the war to fight against terrorism and if you don’t support the war then you basically support terrorism. Give the guy a break he is doing the best he can

   Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later

3. Name: jeff bob | E-mail: joshy793@aol.com | IP: 71.252.132.111 | Date: May 13, 2008

   Al gore didn’t do jack

   Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later

4. Name: jeff bob | E-mail: joshy793@aol.com | IP: 71.252.132.111 | Date: May 13, 2008

   GOD IS REAL RETARDS there is too many signs that proves that he is real. Ok take a computer. Pretty complicated thing right. Did it just pop out of no where. NO! Well take a human most complex organism on the earth how could it just pop out of no where without a creator. THERE IS A CREATOR RETARDS. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   Edit | View Post | Delete just this comment | Bulk action: Approve Spam Delete Defer until later

This just emphasizes my new favorite quote:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
- William G. McAdoo

Therefore, consider it a reiteration of why I have comment moderation in place. I’ll not subject my readers to such absurdity–except to roundly mock it. Also a warning to all religious trolls: I have no qualms whatsoever about publishing your email and IP addresses.

This also brings up another point. Many religious people are embarrassed by comments like jeff bob’s. They use such egregious examples of insanity as a way to make themselves appear "reasonable" in comparison to the ranting raving extremist. But actually, jeff bob is more a more typical example of the believer mindset than most would like to admit. Once a believer has thrown the need for evidence to the winds, and is willing to go along with groupthink of any sort–in the words of Matt Taibbi–he or she is "thinking with muscles, not neurons."

For a good belly laugh, here’s the entire Taibbi quote:

By the end of the weekend I realized how quaint was the mere suggestion that Christians of this type should learn to "be rational" or "set aside your religion" about such things as the Iraq war or other policy matters. Once you’ve made a journey like this–once you’ve gone this far–you are beyond suggestible. It’s not merely the informational indoctrination, the constant belittling of homosexuals and atheists and Muslims and pacifists, etc., that’s the issue. It’s that once you’ve gotten to this place, you’ve left behind the mental process that a person would need to form an independent opinion about such things. You make this journey precisely to experience the ecstasy of beating to the same big gristly heart with a roomful of like-minded folks. Once you reach that place with them, you’re thinking with muscles, not neurons.

So can we finally just please agree that the phrase "rational Christian" is an oxymoron?

Share This

Although my actual deconversion several years ago was a rather thoughtful and deliberate process, there was a memorable day approximately eight years ago when I seriously considered becoming an atheist in the matter of a single day. It was the summer after I graduated from high school and I was working at a supermarket as bagger. I remember that I had recently had conversations with a couple of friends who were atheists in which they had refuted the apologetic arguments that I had presented to them, even though I didn't really recognize the validity of their responses at the time. As I carried the groceries out of the store to the customers' cars and brought back the shopping carts, I imagined how it would feel to be an atheist. I can't seem to recall the particular issues that I was pondering, but I do recall the surge of emotion that I felt, a mixture of excitement and fear. At home at the end of the day, I decided that I couldn't ignore the arguments from miracles and the peacefulness of the religious, though it was certainly the fear of hell which provided the greatest motivation to remain a believer. It seems truly strange that I almost rejected a lifetime of belief with hardly any thought and I wonder what could have happened if I had deconverted that day. If it had stuck, I might have saved myself from a lot of grief that I was to experience in later years, but if it hadn't, then I might have ended up worse than I actually did.

One of those friends correctly predicted that I would eventually become an atheist because, in his opinion, I was too smart to remain a believer. I haven't seen him since high school and I have occasionally wondered whether he would even remember his remark and whether he would be pleased to learn that he was right. If I ever talk to him, I will be sure to ask and probably report on it here.

Given the ever-increasing milquetoast flavor of each successive presidential campaign, I had pretty much decided that in my lifetime I would never see a contender who preferred to be genuine rather than safe.

By "safe," I mean the nauseating backpedaling politicians have been practicing since many of us were toddling around in training pants.

I didn’t want to admit it at first, but Barack Obama has done it. And he has done it beautifully.

This year, I have been an obstinate Hillary supporter, having made my choice based on my admiration of both Clintons for their record of service. At first, I thought Obama’s speeches sounded clichéd. I didn’t feel that I was witnessing a grand orator in the tradition of John F. Kennedy, as many around me proclaimed.

That all changed in March, when Obama stepped to the podium to address certain incendiary statements by his then-pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I sat at my computer mesmerized, not wanting to admit that his speech was one of the coolest things I had ever heard (that was not in a movie.)

He was not willing to lie to distance himself from Wright. How many times have I wanted a politician to clearly and truthfully explain the reasoning behind some flip flop, or some scandal, which would have earned him so many more points than he got by deliberately using cloudy, noncommittal language?

In his speech, Obama said: "I can no more disown him (Rev. Wright) than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Thank you, Obama, for finding a way to explain the road we must take, and for knowing that there is a way to reach us.

Ever since that speech, Obama has continued to take the high road. When was the last time we saw a leader refrain from negative campaign ads?

I had to go back to all of the reasons I thought Obama was wrong, and think about why I thought them. I used to say Obama didn’t have enough of a record to be president. Now, I say Obama’s ability to raise more money than any other Democratic candidate—without taking money from lobbyists—is more than enough evidence of his coalition-building skills.

If Obama can assemble such an effective fundraising team, he can certainly assemble the best and the brightest foreign policy team to get us out of the downward spiral we’ve been in for eight years.

People are still criticizing Obama for having a pastor who could say such "anti-American" things.

I guess Bill Clinton should be criticized for inviting Jeremiah Wright and other clergy to come pray with him at the White House during the Lewinsky scandal.

Another complaint I used to have was that Obama’s call for change sounded repetitive. But I have to ask myself: when was the last time we actually had change? And I can’t think of another point in my lifetime when we so sorely needed it.

Share This

So, a couple of days ago, vjack the Atheist Revolutionary wrote a post about how much evangelists annoy him.

As I write, the comment thread on vjack’s post has 81 comments - 32 of which were written by one Christian who is sharing his sure-fire, awesomely true, must-be-experienced-to-be-believed brand of Christianity with vjack and his godless readers. Too fucking funny! After all, it’s obvious that vjack and his heathen band have never heard the One True Gospel. They’ve never had the scriptures and the right theological interpretation thereof explained to them properly - until now. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Of all the hundreds of posts that vjack has written over the years, this True Christian hijacks the comments of the Evangelism post. My irony meter just busted and my sides are splitting with laughter.

– the chaplain

From The State

GREENVILLE, S.C. --
Greenville Sen. Mike Fair has introduced a bill to allow teachers to discuss alternative theories to evolution, a bill he concedes has no chance of passage this year.

The Republican told The Greenville News the bill would not advocate teaching any point of view. Fair says children at being "spoon-fed" theories as facts.

Lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn for the year June 5, meaning there is no time for the bill to pass this year. Fair says he hopes to start a debate on the idea and will introduce the bill again next year.

Education Department spokesman Jim Foster says the bill is unnecessary. Foster says teachers already are free to discuss science. He says the bill would only be needed if it was designed to introduce material that is not scientific.

Ok, one more time Mr. Fair.

From Stephen J Gould.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

I'm glad they included the bit from Education Department spokesman Jim Foster. He is 100% correct.Spewings from a half literate Atheist, drunk, food whore with a penchant for obnoxious ranting and the occasional bit of music info.

Lots of people are harping on this completely stupid statement by our fucking asshole of a president, and I think they should.

But this leads me to another question

Did Cheney give up shooting his friends in the face for the same reason?




*yes I stole itSpewings from a half literate Atheist, drunk, food whore with a penchant for obnoxious ranting and the occasional bit of music info.

One possibly unconsidered consequence of Mayor Bozza's attention-grabbing ban on drinking on the Tube will mean the end of the great Circle Line Party . (For those of you who don't know this involves commandeering a carriage or several on a Circle Line train and holding a party, as the train chunters round and round). There will be a final send off this Saturday, all you need is an oyster card, natty threads and a flask:
Here's the blurb:
"A dapperly dressed, terribly civilised, gin-soaked drinks party on the Circle Line, before BoJo bans us from drinking on public transport. Let's demonstrate how civilised and social drinking really is."
Boo to Boris, say I.

I guess It shouldn't surprise me with all the rash of these "Academic Freedom" bills being pushed across the country that we here in SC would see it soon. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that Mike Fair is behind it.

A BILL

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-29-240 SO AS TO ALLOW TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THEORIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. The General Assembly finds:

(A) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens.

(B) The teaching of biological and chemical evolution can cause controversy, and some teachers may be uncertain of administrative expectations concerning the presentation of material on these scientific topics.

(C) It is important to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

(D) Public school educators must be supported in finding effective ways to present controversial science curriculum and must be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of theories of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner.

SECTION 2. Article 1, Chapter 29, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-29-240. The State Board of Education, superintendents of public school districts, and public school administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a public school of this State from helping his students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner. This act does not condone the promotion of religious or nonreligious doctrine, the promotion of discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonreligious beliefs, or the promotion of discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. By no later than September 1, 2008, the State Department of Education shall notify district superintendents of the provisions of this act, and each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his district a copy of the provisions of this act."

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

This is the same language used in other states where the Creationists are trying to push their religious agenda into the science curriculum of the school system. I'm not going to dwell on this but I do have a few points.

First: This is stupid

SO AS TO ALLOW TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THEORIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER.

Science already does this, all the time, every day, with every scientific theory. That is how science works. It is about testing, experimentation and results. The ToE has been through the ringer for nearly 150 years and it has stood up to the tests. Why is evolution singled out here? Why not the Theory of Gravity? Germ Theory? It's singled out because it's not about "Academic Freedom", it's about religion.

Second: High school biology classes are not where science is tested. Yes, it is where students learn about experiments and do tests but it is not the place where new science is sussed out. That is the realm of researchers who are vastly more experienced and schooled in the relevant subject matter. High School is where the best science of the day is disseminated as education. I'm sure there are exceptions to this where some bright student has come across something new in science, but that is not what high school education is about. The goal is to begin to give students a base that they can build on so that when they get to a University they are prepared for classes of higher learning. You don't see historical revisionists getting their play in High School history classes? "Next lesson class is on why there never was a Holocaust." It's not about Academic freedom. It's about teaching the science that is being used by actual scientists to the students. the ToE is the prevailing explanation for biodiversity in the scientific world and that is why it is taught to students.

Third: Renaming their goal to replace good evidence based science with mystical ID Creationism does not change their goal. We know that this is the goal. It has not changed. It will not change.

Fourth: Science is not a democracy. You don't go with the answer that the majority likes just because they vote on it. The theories that are accepted by the majority in science are accepted because of the science, not because of popularity. When ID Creationism can come up with the evidence, research and results that contradict the ToE then they will be taken seriously. TO date this has not happened.

Hopefully this bill will die like many of the others have.
God Damn it I'm riled up.

hat tip to Rodney. He's always on top of this stuff.Spewings from a half literate Atheist, drunk, food whore with a penchant for obnoxious ranting and the occasional bit of music info.

Thanks to a letter sent to the National Secular Society, I’ve been made aware of BBC (i.e. taxpayer) provided webcams at the creationist Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm near Bristol.

Obviously, the BBC has moved on from the need to report on reality, and can now comfortably spend the licence fee on supporting the unverifed (and unverifiable) claims of special interest groups.

Oddly enough, these webcams are still advertised within the “nature features” part of the BBC Bristol web site. I guess they haven’t got around to re-organising the web site since the supernatural became a part of everyday existence.

Oh, the zoo farm also kindly offers educational resources, in topics like evolution, geology, solar astronomy and history.

Japanese Apricot blossoms:

– the chaplain

New Kids on the Block comeback tour.

Fear it people. Fear the end of everything you know, because this is for sure a sign that the end is near.Spewings from a half literate Atheist, drunk, food whore with a penchant for obnoxious ranting and the occasional bit of music info.

Natural Disasters are sure to follow. I predict earthquakes and wildfires at some point in the future as God is surely angry.

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) — California's Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

The ruling added that all California couples had a "basic civil right" to marry "without regard to their sexual orientation."

Spewings from a half literate Atheist, drunk, food whore with a penchant for obnoxious ranting and the occasional bit of music info.

Sometimes Chris Matthews just rocks. Video is a little long but the money shot is near the end.


A question of appeasement?Spewings from a half literate Atheist, drunk, food whore with a penchant for obnoxious ranting and the occasional bit of music info.

In America, apparently, many people say they want it but can’t get it, and in the UK many don’t want it, but can’t get rid of it - god in school, that is.

As a school pupil I had to endure it every day - the compulsory hymn and routine prayers. Just imagine it, 600 teenage boys with their mind focused on one thing (and believe me, it wasn’t god or their Latin homework), growling the hymn as quietly and as nonchalantly as possible (you could get punished for not singing), then standing and trying to provoke other people to laugh during the troubled stillness of the prayers being monotonously intoned by the headteacher. It was a ‘really meaningful’ religious act.

The Roman Catholics were excused, of course. As I remember it, we didn’t persecute them or try to burn them in the school yard at break-times. They were held in awe for having the mysterious secret that enabled them to avoid the daily assembly torture as well as escape the compulsory Religious Education lessons where we quizzed the aging teachers about sex (again, and again, and again, and again).

By the time I became a teacher the hymns had gone, but in the schools I worked in, there had to be an inspiring little homily, usually on a religious theme, and there were still prayers. Although at the time I was a Christian, even I could see the pointlessness of it.

The staff would be betting on how often the headteacher would repeat the same story. When he was often called away at the last minute, the deputy headteacher, knowing I was ‘one of them’, would often grab me with a look of horror as he was about to walk on the stage and say: “You couldn’t just go and do something religious could you?” I was happy to oblige, 1) because helping out the senior management wouldn’t harm my career, and 2) because I worked in church youth groups in my spare time I had a fund of ready made bible stories I could quickly adapt. Staff colleagues seemed to be mystified by the fact that I could pray in public without reading anything from a book, but the teenagers did what all teenagers do during prayers in school - they tried to provoke other people to laugh during the troubled stillness. I could see that it was really far from being a meaningful religious act.

Religious communities have their own schools outside of the state system and have been debating the precise purpose of those schools. For example, in 2001 the Church of England issued a report, “The way ahead: Church of England schools in the new millennium,” which marked a radical shift in its position. The report called, in effect, for a subordination of the service to the nurture function. C of E schools, it announced, should be more “distinctively Christian,” with a mission to “nourish those of the faith; encourage those of other faiths; challenge those who have no faith… religious education and collective worship should be seen as an integrated experience, with collective worship acting as an expression of what is taught in many RE lessons.”

Despite what is happening in the religious schools, the state sector has never seen its role as being overtly evangelical. However, there is an understandable argument that the function of schools is to produce educated, model citizens, and there seems to be this lingering view amongst some in the establishment that one of the best ways of doing this is to give them a forced daily dose of exposure to Christian ritual. (Perhaps with Anglican Bishops still in the House of Lords, and the monarch still as head of the Church, that is not surprising.) Like cod liver oil, a forced daily dose of exposure to Christian ritual may be revolting to take, but it does you good.

It is also worth remembering that this belief in the daily dosage in schools is taking place against a background of predictions that the Church of England, at least, is facing a serious crisis about its survival. The authors of the annual book of church statistics Religious Trends which is produced by Christian statisticians argued that the fall in attendance is so precipitous, the Church will soon become financially unsustainable. As congregations age and die, there will be no money from collection plates to support the Church’s infrastructure and keep on paying the pensions of retired vicars and bishops.

The really good news is that some people are beginning to question whether forcing children to endure exposure to religion is against their human rights. As a recent e-bulletin from the British Humanist Association points out:

A report from Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (13 May, 2008 ) calls for any child of ‘sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding’ to be given the right to withdraw from compulsory religious worship in schools. Currently, only sixth form students have the right to withdraw themselves, and other children can only be withdrawn at the request of their parents, but the Human Rights Committee have said that this violates children’s rights to freedom of belief and conscience. Writing in support of the Committee’s report to Minister for Schools and Learners, Jim Knight MP, the BHA said, ‘We agree with the JCHR that the law is clearly inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and that children of ‘sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding’ should be permitted to withdraw themselves from prayer and other worship.’

If there has to be compulsion for school assemblies, god has to go. As Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, commented:

‘The best situation would be the replacement of the law requiring religious worship with a law requiring inclusive assemblies that would be suitable for all children. For as long as the current law remains, however, children must be allowed to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate. To compel them to pray, or worship in other ways, is a clear interference with their right to freedom of belief – one of the most important rights that we enjoy.’

And of course, if I were god, I would want to stop being forced into schools. I would gain no pleasure in gaining worship by compulsion, whether it be from torture or the threat of a school detention. If I were god, I could read hearts and could recognize a sham when I saw one.

There is some most excellent news out of California today for those who believe in equal rights under the law for everyone. The California Supreme Court struck down a law banning gay marriage in the state, meaning that same sex couples are now free to marry as they please with full recognition under the law. The coasts tend to work as trendsetters for the rest of the country, California especially so thanks to the profound influence of the movie industry on middle America, and if this decision stands then it could truly be a landmark moment towards equality for homosexuals.

Of course it isn’t going to be easy. Project Marriage, a Christian organization touting itself as a “loose alliance of pro-family and church organizations” (which is press release code for “fundamentalist bigots”) has gotten over 1 million signatures on a proposal to amend the California constitution to ban gay marriage, thus invalidating today’s supreme court decision.

On the positive side, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has publicly stated that he will “always be there to fight against” this group and their efforts. The bad news is that the proposed constitutional amendment will go on the November ballot for a vote no matter what the governator says as long as they have enough valid signatures.

So we have a Christian group that is trying to pass legislation that will make their religious beliefs part of the secular constitution of their state. I don’t know about everyone else, but this boldfaced attempt by religion to hijack what should be a secular decision seriously pisses me off.

I’d just like to say that this is ridiculous. As Dan Savage is fond of pointing out, heterosexuals have proven with the divorce rate that they don’t give a rat’s ass about the sanctity of marriage, so that argument in favor of keeping gays from marrying falls flat. Leviticus has a pretty strong condemnation of homosexuality if you’re reading the right translation with the right interpretation, but Christians conveniently and consistently ignore Bible passages condemning divorce, adultery, and sacrificing a goat every time a woman is menstruating. Obviously they’re willing to overlook Bible passages when it makes their life more convenient, so there’s no reason why they can’t just agree to consign the anti-gay passages to the dustbin of religious history. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for all of this anti-gay sentiment amongst Christians. Even Jesus seemed like a live and let live kinda guy, not counting his cameo in Revelation.

The truth is that homosexuals provide a convenient “other” for conservative groups and conservative politicians to demonize for their own gain. Conservatives have discovered that nothing gets their fundamentalist religious base out of the church and into the voting booth better than the idea that somewhere two women or two men might be having sex with each other with the blessing of the state. And if they happen to vote anti-gay posturing politicians into office while they’re in that voting booth rallying against the perceived evils of homosexuality then that’s all the better for these Machiavellian bigots. Perhaps if conservatives ever pulled themselves away from the withered teats of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity long enough to think an independent thought then they would be appalled at how easily they as a group are manipulated and herded, but that’s about as likely as Rush and Hannity taking advantage of the new pro-gay atmosphere in California to finally consummate their forbidden love.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike need to fight for the basic human rights of the homosexual community. Any society that is willing to marginalize one group could just as easily marginalize everyone else, and America is better than this. If you’d like to help out then you can start by checking out the ACLU’s Get Busy Get Equal campaign. I enjoy the legal protections of marriage, and I’m sure there are many others reading this who are married themselves. It’s time that we make sure our gay friends, relatives, and neighbors enjoy those same protections. And most importantly, it’s time that we send a message to the religious right that they can’t hijack the legal process to try and legislate their religious beliefs into law.

America is not a theocracy, and we need to make sure it stays that way.

Technorati Tags: gay marriage, California supreme court, California gay marriage, Project Marriage, religious right, theocracy, religious law

Anti-evolution madness has migrated north for the summer. I initially read about this latest school board fiasco, which is unfolding in Maine, here. John Pieret followed up on it here and the Associated Press has picked up on it:

WATERVILLE (AP) — The decades-old controversy over the teaching of evolution in public schools is resurfacing in Somerset County.

A director of SAD 59 in the Madison area is urging the board to drop evolution from high school science curriculums on grounds that it’s an unprovable theory that shouldn’t be taught as fact.

Matthew Linkletter of Athens says neither evolution nor creationism belongs in a science curriculum.

David Connerty-Marin of the state Department of Education disagrees, saying that evolution is based on proven science and its teaching in science classes is mandated by the Maine Learning Results program.

SAD 59 directors will take up Linkletter’s arguments when they meet May 19.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Is anyone else getting as weary as I am of this continual bickering over evolution? It’s bad enough that it goes on in churches, town halls and movie theatres; it’s worse when it keeps popping up in our schools.

Do the people who sit on these school boards live in caves and get all of their education from Archie Comics? Probably not: Archie is too recent a vintage for them. When I read stuff like this, again and again and again, I feel like I’m trapped in a nasty reincarnation of Groundhog Day! The Scopes trial occurred over 80 years ago, people. Get over it!

If I were a thoroughly selfish creep (which, according to cretinists and IDiots, I should be), I might say something like, “Let them teach their kids rubbish. My kids will be better educated than theirs and, consequently, get better jobs. Tough luck, suckers! Thanks for playing the Game of Life!” But, I’m neither completely selfish nor totally creepy, so I actually care that all children should have access to good education. Obviously, they benefit from those opportunities and, as they contribute to society, the rest of us benefit too. That’s why stories like this are so infuriating. Bad education hurts everybody.

Another Maine newspaper offers this account:

MADISON — Neither creationism nor evolution belongs in a high-school science curriculum, a School Administrative District 59 director believes.

Matthew Linkletter of Athens says that both are merely theories that represent “personal beliefs and world views,” rather than proven science. Linkletter suggested during last week’s SAD 59 board meeting that the board discuss evolution, the “Big Bang Theory” and other studies he believes should be deleted from the curriculum.

The school board tabled action on the science curriculum at the April 28 meeting, and will reconsider the issue when it meets at 7 p.m. May 19.

Linkletter, a Christian, said there is no way to prove either evolution or creationism.

“You can’t show, observe or prove it,” Linkletter said of the belief systems. “It’s something you have to believe by faith. It doesn’t meet the criteria of science.

“If it’s not scientifically verifiable, then maybe we should leave it out of the science classes. When you make a statement that’s not backed by facts and just represents a world view, then it has no place.”

Linkletter said he wants the best science for SAD 59 students, who should “be armed with the truth.” They should be able to explain the origins of life according to evolution if it is taught in the schools, he said.

“Nobody has the answer to the origins of life. It’s a philosophical question.”

High-school science teacher Jessica Ward disagrees.

“The empirical proof of evolution is in the study of genetics and how genes relate between organisms,” said Ward, who teaches advanced-placement senior biology, senior anatomy/physiology and 10th-grade biology. She said evolution is proven, as an empirical matter of science, through studies of the human genome.

“My personal, as well as the National Science Teachers position, is that you can’t teach genetics or ecology without evolution.

“The basis for it is the theory of evolution.”

Ward noted that the Maine Learning Results mandates instruction in the theory of evolution. Schools would not be accredited without it, she said.

An effort to remove the theory of evolution from a high-school curriculum actually won temporary approval from the Kansas Board of Education, Ward noted.

In 2005, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Two years later, however, the Kansas board repealed the ruling.

SAD 59 Board Chairman Norman Luce said that a high-school science curriculum might not be the correct forum for the study of evolution.

A philosophy class might be a better fit, the Starks resident said.

“It’s OK to have it somewhere, but it depends on how much time they’re spending on it in the sciences curriculum,” Luce said. “I don’t care if everybody else in the country uses it. Science is about proving things. (Linkletter) has a good point.”

Luce added that he is not necessarily opposed to the study of evolution, but is not sure how much time should be devoted to it.

Why in the world do Matthew Linkletter and Norman Luce believe that they are even minimally qualified to sit on a school board? It’s painfully obvious that neither of them knows anything at all about either science or philosophy! Furthermore, it’s utterly foolish to contemplate defying the state curriculum standards. If they push forward with this foolhardy idea, the children will pay dearly for the stupidity of the parents (well, that’s biblical anyway, so, in a sad sort of way, they may gain some affirmation of their faith). The fact that Linkletter and Luce are both (presumably) high school graduates (at least) may say all that needs to be said about the state of American education.

I can only hope that the majority of residents in Somerset County disagree with Luce and Linkletter. Therefore, I’ll close with a few words of advice for them: unless you want to become the next Dover, you’d better storm next week’s school board meeting and kill this idea dead in its tracks. If you don’t, you and your children will be paying for it for years to come.

UPDATE: I neglected mentioning that Spanish Inquisitor also wrote a post about this situation. Sorry for the oversight, SI.

– the chaplain

We Americans often pride ourselves in being a fairly tolerant bunch. However, the often cited University of Minnesota study of Americans' attitudes toward various religious groups casts serious doubt on the accuracy of our common self-perception. Even in 2008, being an atheist in America is no picnic. This should give every American cause to examine his or her own tolerance.

Equality gaps certainly remain, but most would agree that women and persons of color have made significant progress over the last few decades. Even the GLBT community has made great strides, much to the dismay of the Christian extremists among us. And yet, the picture is far less positive for American atheists.

Writing in The Tahoe Daily Tribune, Damian Sowers reports on the American Mosaic Project, which used telephone surveys of over 2,000 Americans to study attitudes toward religion. According to the authors, their study showed that "Americans draw symbolic boundaries that clearly and sharply exclude atheists in both private and public life." Moreover, "From a list of groups that also includes Muslims, recent immigrants, and homosexuals, Americans name atheists as those least likely to share their vision of American society."

If, as the authors suggest, public attitudes toward atheists can be used as an indicator of socio-political tolerance, the results of the study are unfortunate. While tolerance for various religions appears to have increased over the past 40 years, no such trend was observed for atheists. According to researcher Penny Edgell, "it is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as a basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in our collective imagination."

Damian Sowers, himself an atheist, writes:

The very fact that atheists are distrusted by the masses is not very surprising, but I never fully recognized how feared and hated we truly are. For instance, the authors found that rejection of atheists is even higher than anti-Muslim sentiment in the post-9/11 era, and "Americans construct the atheist as the symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."

Sowers argues that continued prejudice against atheists in America is most likely attributable to the presumed link between religion and morality. I agree completely. To the degree that atheism is construed as synonymous with immorality (or even evil), atheists will be feared and despised. Sowers is also correct to point out that the erroneous but popular efforts to link science and secularism with the Holocaust simply strengthen anti-atheist bigotry. This is why it is important to discuss Expelled.

So what does this study tell us about the underlying nature of American culture? Equality is supposed to be a staple of the modern era, but it seems that American prejudices don't ever diminish; instead, they merely drift from one marginalized clique to another, following the capricious tides of mob-sanctioned intolerance. As of now, slandering atheists has not yet been labeled politically incorrect, and many people, including priests and rabbis, have taken full advantage of this impunity.

We atheists have a clear stake in helping to define anti-atheist bigotry as an unacceptable form of intolerance. To date, our organization and our outrage have been insufficient to make much progress toward this goal. It is up to us now. Are we serious about pursuing equality?

Tags: America, intolerance, atheism, atheist, tolerance, equality, American Mosaic Project, prejudice, bigotry, anti-atheist bigotry, religion, morality

I attended a funeral today for a great great aunt who was a devoted churchgoer for all of her 96 years.  As a result the ceremony was highly religious with lots of pauses for prayer.

When they asked for people to bow their heads in prayer I simply assumed my non-theist prayer stance: hands clasped and head up with eyes open, no amens or mumbled agreements with the pastor for every Jesus this and Jesus that.  I’ve found it’s a nice non-confrontational way to abstain in social situations where prayer is obviously going to be called for.

The interesting thing  was a great uncle at the funeral.  Everyone else bowed their heads and closed their eyes with hands clasped firmly in front of them, but he stood there with his eyes open looking ahead in much the same stance as me.  We looked at each other, shared a brief nod of understanding, and went back to looking ahead, this time smiling at the irony of ferreting out a fellow non-believer in a moment of prayer.

Technorati Tags: prayer, atheist etiquette, prayer etiquette, atheism

Green is the new black…..

“Eco-clothing, fair and far from square” (The Times)

The Guardian has a whole Eco-store

The Independent has an eco-living section in its store

And so on. Some of these products would save energy. Some are made out of natural products by hand…. Some of these products are complete crap. They are all basically spreading the message- spend more, buy more goods to save the environment.

A graphic on the BBC that shows how much space there is for everyone on the planet. There were 8.91 hectares for each person on the planet in 1900. There are 1.83 now. This, in itself suggests a species that’s too successful for its own ecosystem so is well on its way to extinction.

Being humans rather than pond snails, we aren’t just passive victims - we could solve many of the resulting problems. We all have to consume things to survive. But is ever-more fashionably “green” consumption really the direction we should be going in?

It’s a “guilt-trip you, then offer you a way to buy your way out of the guilt, then sell you something” solution.

Which is pretty much a solution that meets the needs of manufacturers to get customers, but I have to admit to extreme scepticism about its value to the environment.

Though even “green” consumerism has an edge over the general direction of government environmental policy which seems to be based on the counter-intuitive idea that the rich don’t cause ecological problems. Because - when they don’t involve denying there are any problems - government policies on the environment usually consist of making people pay more for energy, fuel, water, sewage disposal, garbage collection and road use. (As well as building shiny new eco-friendly nuclear power stations, of course.)

My today’s-favourite piece of eco-*** comes from Nigel’s Friendly Eco-Store.

Life’s a Picnic - an eco bag and cutlery set, for an eco picnic and day out
This great eco friendly picnic set is great for spontaneous and carefree picnics with a conscience. Fitted into a jute bag with Life’s a Picnic print are plates, cups, glasses, cutlery and napkins - all fully biodegradable/compostable. …….
Every part of this eco picnic set comes from sustainable plant sources and is ethically produced. The plates, cups, glasses and cutlery can all be re-used several times, if gently washed and dried after use. Available for four or eight people

So, forgive me if I’m misunderstanding here - too busy counting all the “eco” words - this is a disposable paper picnic set? You can use it a few times if you are very careful. Wow. That’s so much more planet-friendly than that stuffy old earthenware or metal picnic set that you can re-use thousands of times…..