You've probably already heard about some proposed legislation in Uganda that would make homosexuality illegal, punishable by a life sentence or death (for "serial" acts). Well, a new investigation found that at least a good part of that is the result of Evangelicals, including Christian charity work.
Atheists have been a bit annoyed at many Christian "charities" - while many of them do good, honest work, there are a large number that keep a lot of strings attached, like requiring beneficiaries to sit through a sermon, or espouse a "Christian lifestyle", and such (Mother Theresa notoriously refused to let someone see their ill father before he died, because they were "living in sin" - but Mother Theresa's a whole other story).
Anyway, it turns out that many of these charities run by evangelical Christians spread a lot of bigotry and misinformation to the Ugandan populace, with results that the entire world has noticed.
Link: Anti-gay laws in Africa are product of American religious exports, say activists
2010/05/21
Mojave Cross Monument Update: The Cross Mysteriously Reappears
I an update to the earlier post I made about the Mojave Cross Memorial, it seems the cross has reappeared out of nowhere.
Link: The Cross Appears
Link: The Cross Appears
2010/05/20
Draw Muhammed Day
I almost forgot what day it was. Well, I still made it, with 10 minutes to go!
Link: http://www.drawmuhammadday.com/
EDIT: Forgot to post this other link. Why I Support Drawing Muhammed
2010/05/14
Catholic Church Owns Up to Sex Abuse (Finally)
The Pope finally admitted that "The greatest persecution of the church doesn't come from enemies on the outside but is born from the sins within the church," in reference to the ongoing scandal of sexual abuse by priests and nuns that has been covered up for decades by the Catholic Church.
For years, the Pope has been arguing that these priests were homosexuals (which isn't the case), that they were temporary lapses of self-control (which they weren't), or that it was all a big conspiracy by anti-Catholic forces to make the Church look bad (I won't even comment on that one) - all of which completely misses the point that it's not the pedophilia, per se, that's the problem - it's the way the Catholic Church hid the abuse, threatened the victims to keep them quiet, has withheld information from the police because their institution apparently has gaudier goals than protecting children from rape, and moved priests from congregation to congregation with the intent of covering up the abuse, but in fact only exposed more and more children to sexual predation. The most incriminating recent news is that the Pope himself, when he was a cardinal, reallocated priests and participated in the cover-up.
Finally, however, instead of blaming it all on liberals and homosexuals, the Pope seems to actually be taking responsibility for his actions and the actions of his church, and has even fired at least some of the priests involved in the abuse. Whether the Church will accept any kind of legal responsibility has yet to be seen - though I'm not holding my breath.
Of course, for atheists, the question is "Would any secular organization be able to avoid prosecution for massive child rape? If this were the public school system, say, would teachers and principals be able to avoid jail time for this sort of activity?" Obviously not, but then again, religious organizations are rarely held to the same standards as every other organization.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/11/pope-benedict-child-abuse-portugal
For years, the Pope has been arguing that these priests were homosexuals (which isn't the case), that they were temporary lapses of self-control (which they weren't), or that it was all a big conspiracy by anti-Catholic forces to make the Church look bad (I won't even comment on that one) - all of which completely misses the point that it's not the pedophilia, per se, that's the problem - it's the way the Catholic Church hid the abuse, threatened the victims to keep them quiet, has withheld information from the police because their institution apparently has gaudier goals than protecting children from rape, and moved priests from congregation to congregation with the intent of covering up the abuse, but in fact only exposed more and more children to sexual predation. The most incriminating recent news is that the Pope himself, when he was a cardinal, reallocated priests and participated in the cover-up.
Finally, however, instead of blaming it all on liberals and homosexuals, the Pope seems to actually be taking responsibility for his actions and the actions of his church, and has even fired at least some of the priests involved in the abuse. Whether the Church will accept any kind of legal responsibility has yet to be seen - though I'm not holding my breath.
Of course, for atheists, the question is "Would any secular organization be able to avoid prosecution for massive child rape? If this were the public school system, say, would teachers and principals be able to avoid jail time for this sort of activity?" Obviously not, but then again, religious organizations are rarely held to the same standards as every other organization.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/11/pope-benedict-child-abuse-portugal
Mojave Cross Memorial Vandalized; Atheists Offer $5,000 for Alternative Memorial
The Mojave Cross Memorial has been one of those mostly symbolic issues that really, really annoys a lot of atheists. In what is a fairly common story across the U.S., a Christian veteran's group decided to place a Christian cross on public land as a memorial to dead veterans. First, they were told that this was illegal (and, atheists note, not really a memorial for "veterans", but for "Christian veterans" - very pertinent to this discussion is the fact that yes, atheists really can be found in foxholes, and in fact are slightly over-represented in the armed services), so they talked to their buddies in the legislature which held a public auction for, coincidentally, the same few square yards of land as this group wanted, and that, coincidentally, no other group was told about. I guess it was one of those private public auctions?
Now, for any non-atheist that's reading, the reason why atheists get upset about this is because 1) we get told pretty constantly that we deserve to be tortured for all eternity for daring to reach our own conclusions about the divine; 2) that this is a Christian nation (unlike what the Founding Fathers said), and if we don't like that, then we should leave the country; 3) most of us that de-converted from religion have lost friends and/or family members as a result; 4) many atheists have to worry about losing their jobs if anyone finds out we're atheists, and (I realize this is anecdotal) most atheists I've talked to know other atheists that already have lost their jobs; and 5) there are an endless number of blue laws, or likewise barely legal laws made purely for the benefit of Christians, or to promote Christianity, or to make everyone in the country practice Christian rules which have zero evidence of doing anything productive, but that Christians assert will save people's souls, whether they want to be saved or not (or need to be saved, rather) - the point being that when most atheists look at a Christian cross, we don't see a happy, loving symbol of tolerance, what we see are the threats, the bigotry, the intolerance, and the use of force to get us to practice a religion we don't believe in, all being sanctioned by a government whose members are almost exclusively Christian.
So, even though the Mojave Cross Memorial is still basically symbolic, it's a really raw reminder that the law just doesn't seem to apply to Christians the way that it applies to atheists, and as a result there have been a lot of efforts by some atheists to have Christian symbols like these removed from public property. Very frustratingly for atheists, whenever we say we don't like Christmas for some reason, Christians cry that there's a war on Christmas, that the country is anti-Christian, and how dare we assault a Christian holiday, and the like - but when we say we don't like a Christian cross on public land, suddenly the Christian cross is not so Christian, in fact it's a "secular symbol of death" - and the courts tend to agree, so the crosses stay.
Unfortunately, the Mojave Cross Memorial was recently torn down, illegally. The perpetrator has yet to be found, so we don't technically know who did it, but while some atheists like to think that it was a Christian trying to make atheists look bad (this would not be the first time this has happened), I think that in this case there's a good chance it actually was an atheist. Now, I think the cross should never have been there, that it was only barely legal in the first place, and that any reasonable judge would see how the spirit of the law has been totally ignored, but none of that justifies vandalism. We all have a responsibility to follow the law, even if we're the only ones doing it.
However, in one final twist in the story, the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) has put up $5,000 dollars for a new memorial, albeit with the caveat that it be a symbol inclusive of all war veterans, not just the Christian ones. We'll have to wait and see how this one pans out - technically, the land is still owned by that Christian veteran's organization, I believe, but on the other hand its legality was justified by the grandfather clause (that is, it had just been there so long that the Justice Department wasn't going to do anything about it). Since the grandfather clause only applies to old monuments, would it justify a new monument? And would the organization that owns the land accept an inclusive symbol? It's tough to say what will happen. We'll just have to wait and see.
Link: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8947-LA-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m5d14-Atheists-offer-5000-towards-alternative-to-Mojave-Cross-memorial#
Now, for any non-atheist that's reading, the reason why atheists get upset about this is because 1) we get told pretty constantly that we deserve to be tortured for all eternity for daring to reach our own conclusions about the divine; 2) that this is a Christian nation (unlike what the Founding Fathers said), and if we don't like that, then we should leave the country; 3) most of us that de-converted from religion have lost friends and/or family members as a result; 4) many atheists have to worry about losing their jobs if anyone finds out we're atheists, and (I realize this is anecdotal) most atheists I've talked to know other atheists that already have lost their jobs; and 5) there are an endless number of blue laws, or likewise barely legal laws made purely for the benefit of Christians, or to promote Christianity, or to make everyone in the country practice Christian rules which have zero evidence of doing anything productive, but that Christians assert will save people's souls, whether they want to be saved or not (or need to be saved, rather) - the point being that when most atheists look at a Christian cross, we don't see a happy, loving symbol of tolerance, what we see are the threats, the bigotry, the intolerance, and the use of force to get us to practice a religion we don't believe in, all being sanctioned by a government whose members are almost exclusively Christian.
So, even though the Mojave Cross Memorial is still basically symbolic, it's a really raw reminder that the law just doesn't seem to apply to Christians the way that it applies to atheists, and as a result there have been a lot of efforts by some atheists to have Christian symbols like these removed from public property. Very frustratingly for atheists, whenever we say we don't like Christmas for some reason, Christians cry that there's a war on Christmas, that the country is anti-Christian, and how dare we assault a Christian holiday, and the like - but when we say we don't like a Christian cross on public land, suddenly the Christian cross is not so Christian, in fact it's a "secular symbol of death" - and the courts tend to agree, so the crosses stay.
Unfortunately, the Mojave Cross Memorial was recently torn down, illegally. The perpetrator has yet to be found, so we don't technically know who did it, but while some atheists like to think that it was a Christian trying to make atheists look bad (this would not be the first time this has happened), I think that in this case there's a good chance it actually was an atheist. Now, I think the cross should never have been there, that it was only barely legal in the first place, and that any reasonable judge would see how the spirit of the law has been totally ignored, but none of that justifies vandalism. We all have a responsibility to follow the law, even if we're the only ones doing it.
However, in one final twist in the story, the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) has put up $5,000 dollars for a new memorial, albeit with the caveat that it be a symbol inclusive of all war veterans, not just the Christian ones. We'll have to wait and see how this one pans out - technically, the land is still owned by that Christian veteran's organization, I believe, but on the other hand its legality was justified by the grandfather clause (that is, it had just been there so long that the Justice Department wasn't going to do anything about it). Since the grandfather clause only applies to old monuments, would it justify a new monument? And would the organization that owns the land accept an inclusive symbol? It's tough to say what will happen. We'll just have to wait and see.
Link: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8947-LA-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m5d14-Atheists-offer-5000-towards-alternative-to-Mojave-Cross-memorial#
2010/05/12
Some Things Don't Change, Like Feminism
This is an article about the Titanic, written shortly after the incident itself. The main issue was the presence of chivalry (namely "Women and Children First") during its sinking.
SUFFRAGETTES DENY CHIVALRY ON TITANIC, which may be a partly misleading title, shows the diversity of opinion within contemporary feminism: while you did have some honorable feminists noting the heroism of the men who sacrificed their lives without applauding the institution itself, the rest either tried to concoct rationalizations as to why such a double standard ought to exist, or even to equate the death of the men with the suffering the women went through having to watch their husbands drown.
It's interesting to note that chivalry hasn't changed much in the past century, though there's been improvement. Men are still frequently expected to be the ones to ask a woman on a date, to pay for the date, to open doors for women, to carry their things around, and so forth. On the other hand, there certainly has been a lot of change in women's favor since then, so what's the difference? The main issue seems to be that there's no cohesive men's movement along with feminism.
Feminism, from the beginning, has done more than its share to keep men out of the gender debate, with the end result that most modern commentary comes from women's perspective, and there's very little political pressure to further issues pertinent to men. Feminism has operated as, for the most part, a women's interest group - which is all well and good, since women most certainly have important interests that need to be advocated. The problem is when feminists pretend this is about equality, not women's interests. This is not equality, or men would have been granted equal representation in feminist organizations, at least to provide some counter-bias. Equality this is not, and until men create our own organizations (or, even better, organizations that are truly egalitarian), the gender debate will continue to be dominated by one gender to the detriment of all others.
One final link: Top Ten Feminist Myths
SUFFRAGETTES DENY CHIVALRY ON TITANIC, which may be a partly misleading title, shows the diversity of opinion within contemporary feminism: while you did have some honorable feminists noting the heroism of the men who sacrificed their lives without applauding the institution itself, the rest either tried to concoct rationalizations as to why such a double standard ought to exist, or even to equate the death of the men with the suffering the women went through having to watch their husbands drown.
It's interesting to note that chivalry hasn't changed much in the past century, though there's been improvement. Men are still frequently expected to be the ones to ask a woman on a date, to pay for the date, to open doors for women, to carry their things around, and so forth. On the other hand, there certainly has been a lot of change in women's favor since then, so what's the difference? The main issue seems to be that there's no cohesive men's movement along with feminism.
Feminism, from the beginning, has done more than its share to keep men out of the gender debate, with the end result that most modern commentary comes from women's perspective, and there's very little political pressure to further issues pertinent to men. Feminism has operated as, for the most part, a women's interest group - which is all well and good, since women most certainly have important interests that need to be advocated. The problem is when feminists pretend this is about equality, not women's interests. This is not equality, or men would have been granted equal representation in feminist organizations, at least to provide some counter-bias. Equality this is not, and until men create our own organizations (or, even better, organizations that are truly egalitarian), the gender debate will continue to be dominated by one gender to the detriment of all others.
One final link: Top Ten Feminist Myths
2010/05/08
This is the War on Drugs
Several police officers in body armor with an eight-day-old search warrant broke into a family's home at 2 A.M., fired seven shots at their two pet dogs, killing one, and walked out with some marijuana residue and a pipe. Then the parents were sued for child endangerment.
Seriously, WTF? Is this what we want our cops doing, instead of catching rapists and murderers?
Link: Youtube: Columbia Mo SWAT Raid 2/11/2010. Cops Shoot Pets With Children Present
Seriously, WTF? Is this what we want our cops doing, instead of catching rapists and murderers?
Link: Youtube: Columbia Mo SWAT Raid 2/11/2010. Cops Shoot Pets With Children Present
Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
I'm posting another informative link. I hadn't realized just how significant the Bush tax cuts were - it caught me a bit off-guard.
However, to summarize, the economic downturn, Bush-era tax cuts, and (to a lesser extent) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are what are producing the vast majority of the USA's current fiscal deficit - not TARP, as many conservatives seem to believe.
It's unfortunate that many average conservatives are apparently unaware of the actual numbers behind these two programs - there's a lot of populist anger about TARP, but most conservatives I talk to are strongly in favor of the tax cuts. The irony here is that TARP's cost is minuscule compared to the tax cuts, and the people who need tax relief the most barely got any. TARP, on the other hand, kept the economy running enough that fewer average Americans lost their jobs, which obviously affects the middle and lower classes the most strongly.
Link: Where Today's Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
However, to summarize, the economic downturn, Bush-era tax cuts, and (to a lesser extent) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are what are producing the vast majority of the USA's current fiscal deficit - not TARP, as many conservatives seem to believe.
It's unfortunate that many average conservatives are apparently unaware of the actual numbers behind these two programs - there's a lot of populist anger about TARP, but most conservatives I talk to are strongly in favor of the tax cuts. The irony here is that TARP's cost is minuscule compared to the tax cuts, and the people who need tax relief the most barely got any. TARP, on the other hand, kept the economy running enough that fewer average Americans lost their jobs, which obviously affects the middle and lower classes the most strongly.
Link: Where Today's Large Deficits Come From: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
Federal Spending in the USA since WWII
There's an interesting page on Wikipedia that illustrates the federal spending, debt, and GDP for Democratic vs. Republican Presidents. I doubt it's shocking news to anyone, but it's still nice to see the actual numbers.
A couple quickies to point out: 1) Federal debt is the highest it's been since WWII, and 2) between 1978-2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9%, increased the federal debt by 4.2%, and increased the GDP by 12.6%; Republican presidents, on the other hand, increased spending by 12.1%, increased federal debt by 36.4% (!), and increased the GDP by 10.7%.
As kind of a side note, while GDP is a nice, easy-to-measure benchmark, what I'd really like to see is how American's mean wages shifted, depending on the party of the President.
One note - I'm aware that the President isn't dictator (as much as some Republicans have argued it should be :P), but, as the Wiki article points out, it's very rare for any congress to pass a budget that's more than what the President asks for.
Link: National debt by U.S. presidential terms
A couple quickies to point out: 1) Federal debt is the highest it's been since WWII, and 2) between 1978-2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9%, increased the federal debt by 4.2%, and increased the GDP by 12.6%; Republican presidents, on the other hand, increased spending by 12.1%, increased federal debt by 36.4% (!), and increased the GDP by 10.7%.
As kind of a side note, while GDP is a nice, easy-to-measure benchmark, what I'd really like to see is how American's mean wages shifted, depending on the party of the President.
One note - I'm aware that the President isn't dictator (as much as some Republicans have argued it should be :P), but, as the Wiki article points out, it's very rare for any congress to pass a budget that's more than what the President asks for.
Link: National debt by U.S. presidential terms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
