Follow-up to Godless Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

I wanted to re-iterate something that I brought up in the church-state email I posted a few days ago about Article VI of the Constitution, and the "no religious test for office" clause, which was articulated very well by Susan Jacoby:

We have retired the gods from politics. We have found that man is the only source of political power, and that the governed should govern.
—Col. Robert Green Ingersoll, July 4, 1876

On the centennial anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Robert Ingersoll, the foremost champion of freethought and the most famous orator in late nineteenth-century America, paid tribute in his hometown of Peoria, Illinois, to the first secular government that was ever founded in this world. Also known as “the Great Agnostic”, Ingersoll praised the framers of the Constitution for deliberately omitting any mention of God from the nation's founding document and instead acknowledging “We the People” as the supreme governmental authority. This unprecedented decision, Ingersoll declared, “did away forever with the theological idea of government.”

The Great Agnostic spoke too soon. It is impossible to imagine such a forthright celebration of America's secularist heritage today, as the apostles of religious correctness attempt to infuse every public issue, from the quality of education to capital punishment, with their theological values. During the past two decades, cultural and religious conservatives have worked ceaselessly to delegitimize American secularism and relegate its heroes to a kook’s corner of American history. In the eighteenth century, Enlightenment secularists of the revolutionary generation were stigmatized by the guardians of religious orthodoxy as infidels and atheists. Today, the new pejorative “elitist” has replaced the old “infidel” in the litany of slurs aimed at defenders of secular values.

Now, on the retard side of the fence, you have an example of stupidity like this one, wherein our author declaims,

"We are all entitled to our beliefs, but I am curious as to how one can swear to uphold the Constitution and not believe in God. After all, it was enacted in the 1787th 'year of our Lord.'?"

My jaw seriously dropped when I read this. I mean most religious right loons will use the Declaration of Independence, or some state constitution, to try to point out how "godly our heritage is..." to argue that atheists can't be patriots, or serve as officials in government, in the vein of frauds like David Barton. But by acknowledging the conventional dating scheme, the FF implied you had to believe in God to uphold the Constitution???? How fu*%ing stupid can wingnuts get? Actually...don't answer that.

See here for some more thoughts along Constitutional lines and how it bears on Stark. Hemant brings us the WaPo ad put out by the AHA to support Stark:


See the .pdf here, and the .jpg here.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Politics

Congratulations to Godless Rep. Pete Stark

The first person in Congress to "come out" as a nontheist is...

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).

See his Congressional page here. See his biography here. The man got an engineering degree from MIT and an MBA from Berkeley, and he served in the Air Force. He has seven children and eight grandchildren. I can't wait to see the vipers from the RR try to tear down his distinguished record, because I'm quite willing to bet they'll be made to look very foolish, indeed.

A senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, he is currently the Chairman of its Health Subcommittee. Stark previously served as the subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member from 1995 to 2006 and as its Chairman from 1985 to 1994.

I'm glad for him, but I hope that this is just the start. We all know that there are a hell of a lot more than one or two atheists and agnostics in Congress, but we all know that it isn't terribly popular to be a nontheist and try to get re-elected. And the only way that will change is as more people are open about it and lay down a strong record to silence ignorant bigots.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Politics

Another "Christian Nation" Email Sent to Me

Ed wrote a while back about an email floating around that had a bunch of misinformation in it. Well, here it is, almost 3.5 years later, and the same claptrap is being spammed around by the same clueless dolts. I received the following email the other day from some theocratic Christians [graphics omitted]:

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington , D.C.

DID YOU KNOW? James Madison , the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW? Patrick Henry , that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW? Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW? Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW? Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay , said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and Be Quiet!!!

Nice, huh? Not only full of bullshit, but ending with an incite to rule via mob mentality. The kicker, to me, was the subject line, "Agree or delete the Constitution of the U.S.!"

Here is my response:

The following is a well-thought-out and well-documented response to the email you forwarded me, and whomever else, which is appended below. My point is to completely demolish the illogical claims and outright falsehoods in that email, and to ask you to send these corrections to everyone else you sent the original, fatuous email to. It's your choice, of course, but at least now you know you sent things out which were inaccurate, and so it's on you to decide whether or not you're morally culpable.

Section 1: Madison Quote
Section 2: John Jay
Section 3: Jefferson
Section 4: Removing generic "God" references from buildings, etc.

• Section 1: Madison Quote

Regarding the quote you sent, I think it is you that must "delete the constitution" -- considering that the author of the First Amendment, which guarantees separation of church and state, James Madison, never said that. You've been duped:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

The person who alleges that he did is David Barton, who makes money by selling the myth of the "Christian Nation" to gullible people who do not wish to go and check their historical sources. You'll notice that no citation is provided to this quote, and the reason is simple: it is a bald-faced fabrication.

I have downloaded three pages from a scholarly journal of law published by William and Mary which documents the falsity of this quote, and points to David Barton's general sliminess and complete lack of integrity. You can download them here: page 1, page 2, page 3. The citation of the article I've provided is: "Public Education and the Public Good", Robert S. Alley, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995. pp 316-318.

If you should see this quote, or any of the following others, from now on you ought to immediately ask the person to cite you the source of the quotation (source):

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!
-- Patrick Henry (no source ever found)

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
-- George Washington (no source ever found)

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
-- Holy Trinity v. U.S. [Supreme Court] (LIE, original quote distorted)

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
-- James Madison (LIE, original quote distorted)

Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.
-- Benjamin Franklin (no source ever found)

The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.
-- Noah Webster (no source ever found)

There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet.
-- Noah Webster (no source ever found)

The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.
-- Abe Lincoln (no source ever found)

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
-- Abe Lincoln (no source ever found)

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader.
-- Samuel Adams (no source ever found)
[Barton cites Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124]

I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.
-- Thomas Jefferson (no source ever found)

America is great because she is good. and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.
-- Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book; perhaps in other more obscure writings; questionable)

I will bet you $50 that all of the above, when told to you, come from Barton's BS book. Will you ever find it in a real historical text? No. Can anyone produce an original text showing this from the hand of the person it is attributed to? No. The man peddles BS, because people want to buy it -- they want to believe these things are true, and are not intellectually honest enough to do their homework. All of this has been well-documented for over a decade, but because of the wishful thinking of religious extremists, the lies get passed around with no guilt or remorse. And it isn't like people really want to find out that they're wrong. Will you continue to pass on this tripe? Or, like me, will you do your research and document your sources?

Some of the documentation of Barton's general historical revisionism and lies can be found by the Baptist Joint Commission for Religious Liberty, or in this, and this, among many other sources to document his falsehoods.

• Section 2: John Jay

John Jay was the first Chief Justice, but most people don't know that he resigned after only four years, in 1793. Regarding the quote:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

John Jay did indeed say that. He said many things that the Religious Right today agrees with. He was also an anti-Catholic bigot who passed a resolution in the state of NY, in February 1788. The New York legislature, under Jay's governance, approved an act requiring officeholders to renounce all foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil," an explicitly "anti-Catholic" act designed to bar Catholics from holding public offices. This is a historical fact beyond doubt.

The funny/sad thing here is that Jay, by saying that people should only elect Christians, is directly contradicting Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

And, he violates this even further by trying to exclude Catholics from office.

This is the sort of person you hold up to the light? Bad idea.

In his defense, this was before the 14th Amendment provided incorporation of the states under all Constitutional law (consider the Civil War, wink wink). Would you ever have done the research to find that out? No. Would most people? No. They don't want to know what a bigot the man was, only that he believed what they do and wanted to enforce it as public policy...just like they do. They also don't want to know how many of the Barton quotes are false.

These are the same people pushing for an anti-gay-marriage amendment, and who would probably like to increase the discrimination of the Constitution by also adding an anti-atheist amendment as well -- barring nonbelievers from holding office. Basically, you and your ilk ignore Article VI and the wisdom behind it.

I find it humorous that you use a quote from him directly before talking about the "tyranny of the courts" that Jefferson was afraid of. The reason it's humorous is that only those completely ignorant of history would juxtapose John Jay against such an idea. He literally set the precedent of the Supreme Court of the US such that the Constitution had complete sovereignty over the states -- which would later be modified by the 11th and 14th Amendments. The case was Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793.

Jay was an architect of Federalism. And it is only in Federalism that "the tyranny of the courts" could work, as concerns a federal Constitution being "enforced" against the "will of the people" in some particular state or township. Patrick Henry, whose quote you mangled, was staunchly opposed to Federalism. John Jay was a perfect example of someone who would, indeed, be today's Religious Right leader. He was a theocratic fascist to the core. He would use the court's power in any way he could to push his vision of the "ideal society" on others -- a society in which Catholics cannot hold office, and non-Christians couldn't even be elected. Of course, this contradicts Article of the Constitution, which prohibits the test of faith as a prerequisite of candidacy...but don't let the Constitution get in the way of an ideology.

In the end, John Jay's opinions are just that -- opinions. They aren't law, they came from one of the least important Chief Justices of all time (despite being the very first one) and they don't really mean squat anymore.

• Section 3: Jefferson

You wrote:

"Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy -- the rule of few over many."

Yes, he did. But, they also worried about the rule of many over few, at the expense of their "inalienable rights." In the end, the Constitutional Convention overruled his opinion regarding judges and courts, because they saw how important it was to keep a system of checks and balances in effect: to prevent the President, Congress and states from passing laws which violate the Constitution itself. I would have to say that this balance/check on authority is the most important in the courts. They don't make law -- they can't make you do anything. All they do is decide whether laws that are passed are able to be enforced, and decide whether particular cases are violations of particular laws.

Jefferson also worried that the church would become intertwined in the government. Fortunately, his first opinion was overridden -- the Constitution enables the Supreme Court as a system of checks and balances; unfortunately, his worry about the second issue we can see still has major ramifications today, and by emails like yours. It is the height of hilarity that you put this fear of rule by few over many directly before the endorsement at the end of your email:

"It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and Be Quiet!!!"

The idea of "rule of the majority" didn't sit well with our Constitutional architects -- that's why they wrote laws to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's what the Constitution is -- it doesn't matter what 86% of people want, if it's unconstitutional. And there is a process by which the Constitution can be amended. However, as of now, thankfully, the religious right doesn't have the clout to actually amend it to say something about our "Christian Nation," or to undo Article VI, or any other such nonsense, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. Which leads to the next question, and it is a good question -- "what constitutes a violation of the First Amendment?" And that is the topic of the next section:

• Section 4: Removing generic "God" references from buildings, etc.

The question at hand here is a very good one, and a very important one:

• What sorts of things violate the First Amendment? How does the government "establish" religion, when the Constitution forbids Congress to use its power to establish religion?

For the past 40 years, SCOTUS has fairly consistently used one metric in hearing establishment-related cases -- the Lemon Test. The Establishment Clause is understood by the application of its three "prongs" to any particular action by the government:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.

In the recent example of the Dixie County 10 C debacle of which I was involved, we see a good specific case for the courts to examine and ask if the law is being violated. Allow me to quote from remarks I made concerning that case, which are germane to this discussion:

The DCBOC's action fails the test on obvious grounds, and by recent precedents in Alabama, Kentucky and Texas. Those who disagree typically cite some aspect of "legitimate secular purpose" (1) such as history and/or the "legal basis" of the 10C, which they then argue mitigates (2) and (3) as well. Admittedly, the Court left these rules broad and not narrow, for good reason. However, if we find that some case X was decided in high appellate court to fail the Lemon Test, it is logically straightforward that any case with circumstances identical to, or nearly identical to, that of X would fail the test as well.

Since the Roy Moore case occurred under in the same district as ours (the 11th Federal Circuit), it is quite humorous to believe that the ruling in this case would be qualitatively different. U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the monument created, "a religious sanctuary within the walls of a courthouse". I fail to see why creating that same atmosphere just beside the front door [in the DCBOC case] is legally significant. See the original complaint against Moore et al., and read Judge Henderson's affirmation of the lower court's ruling. SCOTUS denied to stay the case.

For more background, see AL, KY and TX. For some good commentary related to the KY and TX SCOTUS rulings, and their impingement on future actions, see here, here and here.

The "historic/legal value" argument is fallacious along many grounds: i) The laws of the Hebrews were co-opted from the laws of various pre-Hebraic peoples, including the Sumerians and Egyptians; ii) the first four of the 10C have absolutely no basis in American law, aside from antiquated "Blue Laws" relating to the 4C; iii) any argument that presupposes the historicity of the story in the Bible is begging the question and contradicts mountains of solid archeological and literary scholarship, which indicate the mythical status of the Exodus and Moses.

As such, given (i), should we post Hammurabi's codes? Should we post the dictates of the Pharoahs? Since the ancient Hebrews had a theocracy and we have a Constitutional Republic, should we not post Plato's Republic? What about the Roman laws that originated then and there, and find themselves still existing unmodified now and here?

• What sort of metric do we use to determine the causal efficacy of some historic influence or event, in order to objectively argue that it is sufficient to post a monument about it on government property, irrespective of religious (or irreligious) context?

For more legal and philosophical arguments against the 10C on government property, see here and here.

Now, moving to the question of generic "God" references, allow me to quote what I said in (12):

I have no legal standing, nor real problem with generic "God" references, and while I wish the government would stay completely God-neutral, I would happily settle for it being religion-neutral. I would never bring a suit to remove "In God We Trust" or "Under God", although I disagree with the motives of putting them on our currency after the Civil War, and in our pledge during the Red Scare, respectively. Our Founders chose a secular motto for a good reason -- e pluribus unum.

Given everything I've outlined above, what I would argue is that current high court precedents concerning Establishmen Clause-related cases renders posting new 10C monuments unconstitutional. That said, challenging the status of old monuments, and challenging the status of religious references in old documents and inscribed on old buildings, is a precarious situation, and one with little or no high appellate court precendent(s).

Sometimes the argument is advanced (as you have tried to do here) that if we oppose new encroachments on the 1st Amendment, that we must go after all old ones. It is often invoked that on SCOTUS' own East Pediment is inscribed a figure of Moses, although he stands beside Solon and Confucius. This sort of setting is obviously pluralistic, and revolves around the history of law and civilization (with the men themselves focused on as lawgivers, which renders it directly secular) -- the commandments themselves are not visible. Therefore, it is a particularly bad, though oft-cited, attempt to find a link between church and state that could be challenged on Establishment Clause grounds. However, there are other, not-so-secular displays, and usages in historic documents, which could fail the Lemon Test, if applied. State governments are especially likely to contain explicit references to Christianity.

One of the reasons I find it humorous that you cite the US Supreme Court building is that you must fail to take notice that the commandments themselves are not visible -- only the tablets and only Moses (and Solon, and Confucius, and a hundred other things which make the reference proper and historical). Not all references to religion are improper -- only those which represent an endorsement -- this is how the Supreme Court interprets the 1st Amendment. Endorsement of religion is unconstitutional, not any historical mention or context. The obvious context here is of law-making, and early/ancient figures in the establishment of laws. Can you read the commandments from any of the tablet pictures you sent me? No. One of the 10C carvings only bears the Roman numerals, "I, II, III...etc."

Hannity started down this road that you've paved, on TV, asking me if I wanted to take all references of God from all government and public media and property. In order to avoid getting bogged down in the details, which are critical to give this matter the attention it deserves, I simply retorted, "No." What Hannity was leading to was exactly where Lander took it, when he swallowed Hannity's bait and declaimed, "It’s an aspect of trying to remove God from our lives altogether."

Is that, indeed the case?

While this red herring serves to light a fire under the ass of drooling sycophants of theocratic arguments, like yourself, it carries little weight in either logic or law. If God in your life = God on a building, then your god is pretty sad. If the freedom of religion, and religious expression, granted to individuals = the "right" of government officials to put expressly endorsement-type religious icons on buildings, then that is a little non sequitur, is it not?

Do you not see the distinction between practicing your own religion in your own way, using your own private property and resources, versus allowing the government to tell us what religion it endorses, using government property and money?

What I also find humorous is that so few people have the 10 Commandments in their own homes, even though they want them placed on government property, and would never dream of putting a huge chunk of granite in their front yard with the 10C on it, just on the yard of government property. It's easy to push such measures when it doesn't involve your own property, isn't it? Your own Bible tells you to put them in your house, tie them to your hand, and put them on your forehead. Are you obeying? No. Instead, you're violating the 2nd commandment by making a graven image. Go read Deut. 6:6-9 here, and go read what a rational man, D.L. Moody, once wrote about posting the 10C: here.

First, I would argue that the sort of "ceremonial Deistic" invocations of "God", including that on our coins and pledge, do not establish religion, per se, although they certainly are biased towards religion over non-religion, theism over atheism. Ergo, I think that these cases are legally weak, as well as generally unimportant. While I would love to see the Pledge restored to its pre-1954 status, and the motto returned to e pluribus unum, I think that additional law needs to be passed by Congress to clarify the tenuous boundary along Establishment lines. With historical context in mind, the state constitutions that so often bear references to God and Christianity can be understood very well in the federalist sense. Until the 14th Amendment, consolidation and incorporation of the states under the Constitution was not clearly explicated. Further, many of the states had simply revised earlier versions of documents that far pre-dated the 1st Amendment.

Second, I would argue that we need to pick our battles. What people did 200 or even 50 years ago has little bearing on the current direction of the courts and politics. I think it vital to keep our country moving in the direction of religious freedom for citizens, and religious neutrality for their government. To do this will require lots of attention to lots of broaches of the wall of separation: current, ongoing sorts of cases. Why focus our attention and energies towards broaches that are decades or centuries old?

Third, it was Congress that changed the pledge, and the national motto. It should be Congress (rather than the Court) that revises them again. Try not to laugh. I know, I know, it won't happen anytime soon, and perhaps not even within my own lifetime. But recognize that "the only constant is change," and that the people who founded our country didn't foresee their motto being switched out for another. In the same way, I can guarantee you that the future holds change for the current revisions. Hopefully, the new edits will be in the direction of religious freedom and neutrality, and not against them. If you are aware of statistical data, most of the young adults in our country are quite different in their perspective on freedom of religion than their "Red Scare"-infected parents and grandparents. As I pointed out before, Christians have been wringing their hands over the "loss" of the new generation from the Church. I think that's a trend that's unlikely to reverse anytime soon.

And I think that bodes well for freedom of religion, and bodes ill for the Religious Right and their theocratic policies.

Thank "god" for that.

It got a little long, unfortunately, but I think it is necessary, given the penchant of these dishonest people to ignore corrections and refutations so that they can continue to peddle what they want to be true.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

Counterbalance Proposed in 10C Monument in ND

While I understand their motives, I'm not sure this is a good policy to start implementing: just trying to counter upheld 10C monuments with those that establish the secular nature of our government and Constitution. Honestly, since the monument had been there since 1958, I doubt the tactics of trying to get it removed will be successful, as I elaborated on at some length here.

You can always count on this argument to come out:

I don't like the idea of having another monument that would distract me from the LORD's Law. I think that the Free thinkers are selfish, they don't want anyone to worship the LORD God. I do feel sorry for them. The LORD God will come back to judge on the last day and they will realize too late that he is real. David B. 3/10 5:38 p.m.

I wonder if David feels "distracted" by the TV in his own home so much that he doesn't own one, and instead, hangs the 10C in the living room to meditate on? Wanna bet on it? I mean, after all, he would only be paying attention to the 10C monument, what, once a week, at most? For 10 minutes? So he must put them in his house, right? Since the Bible says to, and all...Go read Deut. 6:6-9 HERE, and go read what a rational man, D.L. Moody, once wrote about posting the 10C: HERE.

Next?

Freethinkers aren't free - they're bound by their own prejudice, fear(of God having one over them somehow) and self importance. It's all about them! For Christians - it's all about God! The commandments ought to stand alone, unless they are flanked by our country's other national icons such as the constitution or declaration. Annie 5:38 p.m.

First, to address this classic logical fallacy that Christians just can't seem to ever get through their thick dense skulls: admitting that a God exists does not logically entail the 10 Commandments, or any presupposed commandments that we must obey. In other words, I could believe that a God exists, without believing that your book of fables and myths is the Word of that God. And so, this idea of fear is completely stupid -- there is absolutely no reason to suppose that your God is the God that might exist, or that your book is that God's book. Non sequitur...go look it up. Therefore, there is no logical argument that any theist can make which is based on that idea that atheists just don't want to admit God exists, because then they'd have to serve God. Not until they can prove that a God = their God + their Book + their commandments + their interpretation of all the above. And don't hold your breath waiting on that one...it's not like most of these characters get the subtlety of such arguments.

Second, flanking the 10C with those two founding documents would provide for a stark contrast. It may, in fact, look quite ridiculous to try to tie those three things together in any rational manner.

Finally, Annie, it's simply not your right to use the government as a tool to enforce your religious creeds, and certainly not your business to tell me which God exists, or how it wants to live over me. What purpose does it serve there? Your own Bible tells you to put them in your house, tie them to your hand, and put them on your forehead. Are you obeying? No. Instead, you're violating the 2nd commandment by making a graven image. Hilarious. And instead of listening to your Bible tell you where to put them, you want to put them in public.

More of the same theocratic illogic...day after day. (HT: Religion Clause)
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

American Atheists Scholarship Runner-up

I didn't win, but I got runner-up...I guess I don't get $2000, but I should still be happy about having some recognition, right? I'm going to go drink a few beers and mope.

You can view the essay and materials I sent in for the contest here.

This was the 2nd atheist org I've tried to win a prize from, and failed.
________________
Technorati tags: Atheism

Tabash Debate Update

I just wanted to drop a quick note to let you all know that I am working on things with respect to the debate.

1. Co-VPs Brandon and Ryan are graciously working on our advertising flyers
2. Paul Manata, mentioned in an earlier post as a possible debate opponent, will not be able to come on March 25th; however, he will indeed be debating Eddie nonetheless -- here at UF this fall. Details will come soon.
3. I've spoken with a lot of people (at least 10) who held a lot of potential, but for one reason or another couldn't make it as an opponent. I have about five outstanding invites that I am awaiting response on that are integral to the ability to make this a debate: Richard Horner, Todd Friel (Eddie's debate opponent the next day in Daytona; trying to see if he can work it out to come a day early), George Bowes, and a few people from the Dept. of Religion I wrote.
4. I submitted a request to add our event to the Gator Times, Reitz Union Stuff to Do and UF's Calendar (I emailed calndar@nersp.osg.ufl.edu for that last one).
   
5. I downloaded the form to use the Residential TV ad program (Ch. 68), and I'll be turning it in asap; props to Jessica for that
6. I wrote Prof. Witmer about helping us procure the A/V equipment we need, I've yet to hear back from him, but I'll keep you posted

I'll keep you posted as details develop. I'm excited and I hope you are too. All info will be tagged "tabash", and you can access it here.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Gingrich Admits Affairs, Denies Hypocrisy

The face of "family values" for a time in the 90s, Gingrich went after Clinton's affair with a vengence. Problem is, Newt was having one of his own at the time, and the man is now in his third marriage. From the WaPo:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Bill Clinton over the Monica S. Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is 'Yes,' " Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson to be aired today, according to a transcript. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Why do mindless drooling sycophants rant about the "decline of our nation's family" while refusing to pin blame where it belongs? And why do they listen to anything that people like Gingrich or Coulter have to say? The former with affairs and 3 marriages, the latter with zero marriages and multiple broken engagements. Tell me, again, where the "leaders" are on morality in the GOP? The administration behind an unjust war based on distortions of intelligence? Jerry Falwell, the fat bigot from Lynchburg running a "university" which declares the Flintstones to be historically accurate? Pat Robertson, the whacko failed psychic who advocates assassinations as a part of our foreign policy? Ted Haggard, the meth-snorting pastor who went after the right of gay people to marry while going to the biggest manliest man he could find to take it up the ass?

These people make me want to vomit. Nov. 2008 couldn't come fast enough for me, and for millions more.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Politics