How did it come to this?

Our country is in danger of continued religious bullshit oozing from the White House, into the Supreme Court, and what's left of our personal freedoms. I thought we'd had enough of this already.   

This Week on Chapterhouse

You know, atheists really are in the last closet.

Rep. Monique Davis of Illinois, a (say it isn't so!) Democrat,* opines that atheism is dangerous, so dangerous that children shouldn't even know it exists. This YouTube clip starts with Keith Olbermann's Worst Person of the World segment, followed by Rob Sherman's comments, and concludes with the audio of Rep. Davis's tirade.



"Get out of that seat!" she yells at Rob Sherman, an atheist activist, actually ordering him to stop testifying. Can you imagine the outcry if she had said the same thing to a Baptist preacher? A Rabbi? A Muslim?


(click to embiggen)

*it's even more disappointing to hear such bigotry coming from a Black woman.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Speaking of race, Stuff White People Like is one of the funniest (and most uncomfy) sites I've ever run across!

I mean, how white can you get:

“Wil Shipley, a Seattle software developer, uses his iPhone at the Whole Foods fish counter to check websites for updates on which seafood is the most environmentally correct to purchase. He quizzes the staff on where and how a fish was caught. Because he carries the Internet with him, “I can be super-picky,” he said.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fellow Anglophiles Pooks and Grace, the artist, were over yesterday to watch The Barchester Chronicles DVD Tomcat gave me for my birthday in January. Just look at the young Alan Rickman, here in his breakthrough role as "the odious Obadiah Slope."



Isn't he hawt? (not, of course, that that was the reason we wanted to see this.) As Pooks would say, "Squee!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This week's gifts:

For Dan:



Check out Disapproving Rabbits!

And for Garnie (Abbey), because she needs a new calendar she'll pay attention to!



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The writers' meeting this week was excellent. We have two great new members (from Pooks' class-always the best source). Both are writing Sci-Fi novels. One of the original members started a new project, an erotic techno-thriller. I don't think attendance will be a problem.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Until next week! (((HUGS)))

Kitchen Sink

People, I spend so much time surfing the tubes and stuff that I'm not getting much writing done. Something has to give. So, I've decided to post a bloggie of my own and catch up on your bloggies once a week.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's another gem from Russell's Teapot:




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This just in from Richard Dawkins:

"Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India's most "powerful" tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the "ultimate destruction ceremony" on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

"Everything started, when Uma Bharati (former chief minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh) accused her political opponents in a public statement of using tantrik powers to inflict damage upon her. In fact, within a few days, the unlucky lady had lost her favorite uncle, hit the door of her car against her head and found her legs covered with wounds and blisters.

"India TV, one of India's major Hindi channels with national outreach, invited Sanal Edamaruku for a discussion on "Tantrik power versus Science". Pandit Surinder Sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his TV shows, represented the other side. During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

"The tantrik tried. He chanted his mantras (magic words): "Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili…." But his efforts did not show any impact on Sanal – not after three minutes, and not after five. The time was extended and extended again. The original discussion program should have ended here, but the "breaking news" of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules.

"Now the tantrik changed his technique. He started sprinkling water on Sanal and brandishing a knife in front of him. Sometimes he moved the blade all over his body. Sanal did not flinch. Then he touched Sanal's head with his hand, rubbing and rumpling up his hair, pressing his forehead, laying his hand over his eyes, pressing his fingers against his temples. When he pressed harder and harder, Sanal reminded him that he was supposed to use black magic only, not forceful attacks to bring him down. The tantrik took a new run: water, knife, fingers, mantras. But Sanal kept looking very healthy and even amused.

"After nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik's failure. The tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom Sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. "No, I am an atheist," said Sanal Edamaruku. Finally, the disgraced tantrik tried to save his face by claiming that there was a never-failing special black magic for ultimate destruction, which could, however, only been done at night. Bad luck again, he did not get away with this, but was challenged to prove his claim this very night in another "breaking news" live program.

"During the next three hours, India TV ran announcements for The Great Tantra Challenge that called several hundred million people to their TV sets.

"The encounter took place under the open night sky. The tantrik and his two assistants were kindling a fire and staring into the flames. Sanal was in good humour. Once the ultimate magic was invoked, there wouldn't be any way back, the tantrik warned. Within two minutes, Sanal would get crazy, and one minute later he would scream in pain and die. Didn't he want to save his life before it was too late? Sanal laughed, and the countdown begun. The tantriks chanted their "Om lingalingalingalinga, kilikilikili…." followed by ever changing cascades of strange words and sounds. The speed increased hysterically. They threw all kinds of magic ingredients into the flames that produced changing colours, crackling and fizzling sounds and white smoke. While chanting, the tantrik came close to Sanal, moved his hands in front of him and touched him, but was called back by the anchor. After the earlier covert attempts of the tantrik to use force against Sanal, he was warned to keep distance and avoid touching Sanal. But the tantrik "forgot" this rule again and again.

"Now the tantrik wrote Sanal's name on a sheet of paper, tore it into small pieces, dipped them into a pot with boiling butter oil and threw them dramatically into the flames. Nothing happened. Singing and singing, he sprinkled water on Sanal, mopped a bunch of peacock feathers over his head, threw mustard seed into the fire and other outlandish things more. Sanal smiled, nothing happened, and time was running out. Only seven more minutes before midnight, the tantrik decided to use his ultimate weapon: the clod of wheat flour dough. He kneaded it and powdered it with mysterious ingredients, then asked Sanal to touch it. Sanal did so, and the grand magic finale begun. The tantrik pierced blunt nails on the dough, then cut it wildly with a knife and threw them into the fire. That moment, Sanal should have broken down. But he did not. He laughed. Forty more seconds, counted the anchor, twenty, ten, five… it's over!


"Millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their TVs. Sanal was very much alive. Tantra power had miserably failed. Tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. It needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one's life at risk, he said. By doing so, Sanal Edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph.

"In this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in India suffered a severe blow.

"The whole program is video-recorded and is available. If you want a copy, please contact: info_desk@rationalistinternational.net"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And finally, this is for Randal:


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll be back too - next week!
((((HUGS))))

A different perspective

Enough of politics for a while! How about we change the subject to something less controversial - like religion? :)

This from Atheist Eve:
(click to enlarge)



I confess I had to read through this twice before I got it.

Metaphorical Sunday

Post post

I love the responses from everyone to the last post - thank you! I'll respond here instead of in Comments.

Mary Ellen raises the point that Jesus, like George Washington, was a real historical person, and not an invention. Of course that's right, and I'm sorry for not being more clear. I did not mean to imply that historical persons were inventions, only the theology that surrounds them. Was Jesus the Son of God? Was Buddha The Enlightened One? Was Mohammad God's Holy Prophet? These are theological questions. (The "Big Hairy Thunderer," along with Zeus and Oden, for example, are inventions, however.) The theology that is connected to deity(ies) is the part that is man-made. I am sensitive to the fact that people who are devoted to any one of these are sincere and fervent in their belief that, for example, Jesus is the Messiah. That is a matter of faith, and it is quite profound and very personal. (I know; I've been there.) It is faith, not fact. You could not prove it to a Muslim any more than a Muslim could prove to you that Jesus was not divine, but only a minor prophet. If any of this could be proved, we wouldn't have had all these wars over it. What I want to point out is that the theology that surrounds religious figures was invented. For example, it wasn't until almost 400 years after the death of Jesus that the church fathers sat down and decided which books to include, and to exclude, in a bible. Over the centuries since that time, people kept killing each other over the contents of that book, a book which was put together by committee.

Dan wondered if my post was saying that religion serves no real purpose to humanity. Tom Harper mentioned the question over whether or not religion is "hard-wired" into us. Garnie says now she wants to go read more Joseph Campbell. Randal says this (religion) is a way of explaining things. I think all of these comments are tied together. We don't know yet if humanity is hard-wired for religion. What seems evident is that intelligent beings want to explain things - they are intelligent enough to ask questions and speculate about the answers. As Niose's article pointed out, there is evidence that even Neanderthals had religion. Joseph Campbell's outstanding work examines man's quest for purpose and meaning.

I think there is a real need inside of us to know "Who's in charge." Going off on my own tangent now about this, I think this need is one of survival. We are primates, and we live in tribes. We call them countries now, but essentially, we are tribal. Tribes have social structure, and must have leaders. It's a matter of survival to know exactly who is in charge, because if we don't, we run the terrible risk of accidentally pissing that person off. The penalty could be severe - anything from death to being ostracized. Therefore, as a matter of survival, we must know who's in charge. Not only that, we must know what the rules are.

Imagine that you are the leader of a primitive tribe. You got there by being the strongest. You kept your power because you are savvy. Like all tribal groups, you, as leader, have a few select lieutenants around you to enforce your wishes. They've got your back. Now say that there's a great thunderstorm and everyone is afraid (including yourself, but you don't show that because it's a sign of unacceptable weakness in a leader.) Lightening strikes the tree that one of the tribe members is sitting in, and he is killed. Everyone wants to know why - why was Ernie struck down, and not Joe? Everyone is frightened, traumatized. They come to you demanding an answer. What are you going to tell them? Either you or one of your homeboys had better come up with something. It's easy to see how the theology of a Big Hairy Thunderer is born. Even the leader needs to have a Leader. He can promote one of his lieutenants to priest (shaman, medicine man, etc.) to intervene with the BHT, and the priest - usually with the assistance of some magic herbal sacrament - tells everyone what the rules are. It was the BHT's will that Ernie be struck down by a mighty lightening bolt, as punishment for some infraction - did not everyone see Ernie hoarding food last week? Well, there ya go... Hey, someone points out, Joe did stuff even worse than Ernie, yet he lives - what about that? Oh, well - the BHT works in mysterious ways, and in fact, now that you've questioned Him, you'd better look out the next time He brings a storm. In fact, why don't you all STFU and we, the Church, will tell you, the ignorant masses, what to believe. And so on.

The point of Niose's article was that we no longer need to rely on theology to explain what we don't understand. To go back to the epilepsy example in the previous post, it must have been scary to watch people having seizures, and because we are such a curious species, we needed to know why. Demonic possession seemed to fit the bill, until - centuries later - we discovered that epilepsy is a disease, just as plague is a disease, not a divine scourge. This is the progress spoken of, the freedom to discover what is, as opposed to what has been conjured.

These subjects fascinate me. I know there's lots more to discuss, and I appreciate everyone's viewpoints. It's great to be able to discuss this stuff in a non-hostile manner. I hope we don't get a troll.

Speaking of trolls, and to address the question of how atheists are perceived in this society, take a look at this letter to the editor that I Stumbled upon. (I also ran across a poll somewhere stating that most Americans would rather have a (gasp!) homosexual president than an atheist president. Atheists are in the last closet.)

The Post-Theological Era

Have you ever struggled to find just the right word to express a concept? Of course you have, and writers, especially, are familiar with that thrilling eureka! moment when The Precise Word presents Itself. (Oh yes, writers have thrilling moments, too.)

I've had a concept rattling around the dusty floor of my brain for at least a year now that I just couldn't adequately express. It concerns my atheism. Now see, right there? That word, "atheism?" It means "without theism," and that was the word I used for myself because it was the only one I knew. But it wasn't quite right. I toyed with "nontheist" for a while, but that didn't exactly fit the concept, either.

When you say you're an atheist, people immediately want to argue the existence/non-existence of deity(ies.) That always set off my unnamed concept. It would shake off the dust rhinos clinging to it and start rattling around rather loudly. "No, no , no!" it insisted. "Look at the big picture, look beyond the deity bit because that's only a small part of my conceptness." So, I would try to tell the theist, "Step way back and look at this whole dang thing in a larger context." I would say, "Look up." Meaning, realize that this planet is only one of billions of other waterworlds out there with sapient beings on it. Do you suppose they are all actually arguing over whether females can be in the clergy, or if it's okay to be gay? Don't waste your life on this crap. Broaden your outlook for ricecakes! At which point, I only annoyed the theist and got myself all worked up because I couldn't express my concept properly.

Until now. I may still annoy the theists, but at least I can clearly express my concept and move beyond the existence/non-existence thingy. I subscribe to The Humanist magazine, and in an article in the latest issue (Jan.-Feb. 2008) I found The Precise Word to express the concept. Okay, okay - it's two words, but it's hyphenated, so it's permitted, gimme a break.

The article is The Post-Theological Umbrella, by David Niose, board member and treasurer of the American Humanist Association. Niose's article focuses on the poor image we atheists have and how it adversely affects the advancement of humanism. At a recent conference, he met a woman who said, "When people ask me about atheism, I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."

Post-Theological. Eureka! [imagine my joy] Niose points out that (according to a 2001 survey) "over 13 percent of the population identifies as secular/nonreligious, but only 1 percent identify as atheist, agnostic, or humanist." It seems to be a question of labels, so if we put all of the labels under one umbrella, then probably more people would feel comfortable identifying themselves as post-theological.

My concept wasn't concerned so much with labels, though, but with how to say, "Let's move on to the big picture." The "big picture" is this:

The period before humans became intelligent enough to ask, "Why are we here, and Who's in charge?" might be called the "pre-theological" stage.

When we advanced enough to ask those questions, we began to speculate on the answers. Thus, the theology of The Big Hairy Thunderer evolved, as well as many, many others over time. This might be called the "theological stage." (The more knowledge we gained, the more our theology had to be altered. For example, we discovered that epilepsy is a disease, not a manifestation of demonic possession.)

Now, we are entering (just barely) the post-theological stage of our development. "By calling herself post-theological," Niose says about the woman he met at the conference, "she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality." This expresses that concept I had rattling around in my head perfectly. I am post-theological.

It is interesting to read about the various theologies that mankind has come up with over the eons. Interesting from a historical perspective, but not relevant because each theology was invented. Once we let go of our emotional attachment to whatever variety of Thunderer we believed in, we are truly free to look beyond what we have conjured and see what we can discover about what is. Now we are in the realm of science. We are free to look up, without bias, preconceived notions, or (if in a fully post-theological world), persecution. (As Niose suggests, "Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts.")

I'll be writing more about this from time to time. I think it's important, especially now that it looks like another Fundie nutjob is going to be the Republican front-runner. We simply must move beyond the theological stage if we're going to survive as a species (it may already be too late.)

I leave you with this latest gem from Fundies Say the Darndest Things:

[> Right. We spend a few years growing a tree and all the Christians can
> think of is killing the tree, dragging it inside, covering it with
> unsafe electrical wiring, and then throwing it away after about a
> month. If I had my way, I would correct such ecologically incorrect
> bad habits and make Christians plant trees instead of killing them. ]

You didn't grow the tree. Show me a Jew that is anywhere near a
Christmas tree farm and I will show you a Jew masquerading as a
Christian.

In any case, your interference with our rights is why you all ought to
be either deported back to Jewistan or sent up the smokestacks.

Kitchen Sink

Ooh! Tomcat's parents gave us iPods for Christmas! The first thing I downloaded? LIVE AT LEEDS, Deluxe Edition. Best live album ever. Definitive My Generation. Serious Magic Bus. Shakin' All Over. Young Man Blues. Raw, pure, back when Keith Moon and John "Thunderfingers" Entwhistle were still alive. Great banter between Pete and Keith. Deluxe edition includes the "new" rock opera, Tommy. Best ever "Sparks."

Check it out, here , also here (for a bit about the follow-up Live at Leeds II).

---------------------------------------------------

A man ahead of his time: J. Edgar (Who needs habeas corpus?) Hoover, who wanted to round up 12,000 Americans shortly after the Korean War began.
Check it out, here.


---------------------------------------------------

From the Fundies Say the Darndest Things department, we learn:

There are four main religions in this country that are engaged in a holy war against Christianity. The number one religion, The Abortion Charismatics.The abortion religion in truth has as its foundation the worshipping of anti-submission to men. These death Stalinists use accusations of oppression as their guardian while marching on, putting the sword to the enemy, the trespassing fetus. Conversly, The Bible advises us to choose life and states that those who side with death are with the devil.

Religion number two, The Orthodox Homosexuals. The homosexual hit squad, they worship immoral sex and preach its acceptance with a formidable vigor. The religion of orgasms, just as long as you partake with someone of the same gender.

Religion number three, The Pentecostal Environmentalists. They worship myths and have as their god mother nature. This includes the global warming cash cow. They worship animals, the same animals God instructed us to subdue in Genesis. They worship the earth, the same earth God advises us in the Bible not to love due to the fact that it is fallen and ruled by Satan.

And the forth religion, The United Church of Envy. The religion of envy has as its decree welfare, social programs of all kinds, and higher taxes. It wishes to crucify anyone who is successful. The wealth of others is condemned. They fiercely seek conversion, not conversion of souls...conversion of other people?s money - to themselves. This faction is represented by Poverty Pastors from all status levels in society.

The Mega Church of Liberalism houses all these religions. They are extremely tolerant of any religion so long as its not that of the true God. Their enemy is not Satan as in Christianity, but their common enemy is in fact Christ. Hence the unity among the various religions.Their strategy is to incrementally replace Christianity with their false gods and religions of idolatry. At the same time they are attempting to diminish the credibility of God of the Bible and of Christianity.

---------------------------------------------------

And finally, here's "my" Cranberry Chutney recipe, from Cooking Light Magazine:

Cranberry Chutney

Ingredients

1 cup chopped Granny Smith apple
1 cup raisins
1 cup chopped onion
1 cup sugar
1 cup white vinegar
3/4 cup chopped celery
3/4 cup water
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 1/2 teaspoons ground ginger
1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
1 (12-ounce) bag fresh or frozen cranberries

Preparation

Combine all ingredients in a large saucepan; bring to a boil. Reduce heat, and simmer, uncovered, 30 minutes or until slightly thick, stirring occasionally. Serve with turkey, chicken, roast pork, or ham.

Note: Refrigerate remaining chutney.

Yield

4 cups (serving size: 1/4 cup)

------------------------------------------------

More idiocy from the TEA

In a previous previous post, here, there was the story about the Texas Education Agency forcing the resignation of its Science Curriculum Director, Christine Comer, because she might have suggested a bias toward science. Yes, you read that right - a bias toward science.

Now read this, reported in The New York Times:

Green Light for Institute on Creation in Texas

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

Published: December 19, 2007

HOUSTON — A Texas higher education panel has recommended allowing a Bible-based group called the Institute for Creation Research to offer online master’s degrees in science education.

The action comes weeks after the Texas Education Agency’s director of science, Christine Castillo Comer, lost her job after superiors accused her of displaying bias against creationism and failing to be “neutral” over the teaching of evolution.

The state’s commissioner of higher education, Raymund A. Paredes, said late Monday that he was aware of the institute’s opposition to evolution but was withholding judgment until the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board meets Jan. 24 to rule on the recommendation, made last Friday, by the board’s certification advisory council.

Henry Morris III, the chief executive of the Institute for Creation Research, said Tuesday that the proposed curriculum, taught in California, used faculty and textbooks “from all the top schools” along with, he said, the “value added” of challenges to standard teachings of evolution.

“Where the difference is, we provide both sides of the story,” Mr. Morris said. On its Web site, the institute declares, “All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week” and says it “equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.”

It also says “the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality and many others) are evident all around us.”

Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr. Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at the University of California, said, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.”

He said he had no ready explanation for the panel’s recommendation. “I asked about the decision,” Dr. Paredes said Monday in a phone interview from Austin. “I got a three-inch-thick folder an hour ago. We’re going to give it a full review.” But, he said, “If it’s approved, we’ll make sure it’s of high quality.”

Approval would allow the institute, which moved to Dallas this year from near San Diego, to offer the online graduate program almost immediately while seeking accreditation from national academic authorities like the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges within two years.

In California, the only other state where Mr. Morris said the institute was offering degrees, it won recognition from the state superintendent of public instruction in 1981 but was denied license renewal in 1988. The institute sued and in 1992 won a $225,000 settlement that allowed it to continue offering degrees; it now operates under the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Dr. Morris said his program was accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which is not recognized by Texas.

Last month, in a sign that Texas was being drawn deeper into creationism controversy, Ms. Comer, 57, was put under pressure to resign as science director after forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a creationism critic, Barbara Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana State University.

Lizzette Reynolds, a deputy commissioner who called for Ms. Comer’s dismissal, later told The Austin American-Statesman she was surprised she resigned. Ms. Reynolds did not respond to a message left at her office.

The Texas Education commissioner, Robert Scott, told The Dallas Morning News that Ms. Comer was not forced out over the message, adding, “You can be in favor of science without bashing people’s faith.” He did not return phone calls to his office.

Ms. Comer said the commissioner should show her where she was bashing anyone’s faith. “He just doesn’t get it,” she said.

The Texas State Science Curriculum Director, Chris Comer, resigned - well, more correctly, she was forced out - because she may have, possibly, you know, implied that the Texas Education Agency might have a slight bias against "intelligent design" by forwarding an email "announcing a presentation being given by Barbara Forrest, author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse, a book that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools .... Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities, saying, 'FYI.' " Well Jeebus Gawd, we can't have the Science Director for the entire State of Texas' public schools even suggesting that she is, like, pro-science, now can we? How dare she forward such an email, and put "FYI" on it!

The email upset TEA senior adviser Lizzette Reynolds, formerly deputy legislative director for then Governor Dumbya, that she immediately sent a memo to Comer's bosses. Ms. Reynolds felt this was so important that she sent it from her sickbed less than two hours after someone sent it to her at home. "This is highly inappropriate," Reynolds said in an e-mail to Comer's supervisors. "I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities. This is something that the State Board, the Governor's Office and members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this [science?] is a subject that the agency supports."

They've forced Comer out just months before a scheduled comprehensive review of the Agency's curriculum. Coinkydink? I think not.

The article goes on to state:

State science curriculum director resigns
copyright By Laura Heinauer
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, November 29, 2007

***

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which sent the original e-mail to Comer announcing the event, said Comer's situation seems to be a warning to agency employees.

"This just underscores the politicization of science education in Texas," Scott said. "In most states, the department of education takes a leadership role in fostering sound science education. Apparently TEA employees are supposed to be kept in the closet and only let out to do the bidding of the board."

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group that monitors state textbook content, said the group wants to know more about the case. The network has raised questions about past comments made by State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy about teaching creationism.

"It's important to know whether politics and ideology are standing in the way of Texas kids getting a 21st century science education," Miller said. "We've already seen a faction of the State Board of Education try to politicize and censor what our schoolchildren learn. It would be even more alarming if the same thing is now happening inside TEA itself."

---------------------------------------------------

Speaking of Christo-fascism, did you see the latest about Mike Huckabee? 'Seems back in 1992, as a candidate for the Senate, he wanted people with AIDS to be rounded up and quarantined.

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

"Plague?"

He also said back then that there was too much money going to find a cure for AIDS, and that if people like Elizabeth Taylor and Madonna wanted to do something about it, fine - let them donate from their own funds.

Now, however, as a Presidential candidate, Huckabee says he's in favor of funding through the NIH. On his website, he says:

"My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals."

(I shudder to think what he really means by "our goals.")

Read the full article here.
----------------------------------------------------

Get ready for a rough ride in '08, America.
-----------------------------------------------------

Color me gobsmacked

Finally, a presidential candidate said what needed to be said when it comes to politics and religion. The fact that this came from a Republican candidate, and MITT ROMNEY, of all people, leaves me gobsmacked.

Some quotes:

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."

"No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." [Okay, I have no idea what he thinks he means here, but it's poetic and doesn't seem to be harmful, IMO]

"Like him [John F. Kennedy], I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

Well hallelujah! Of course, this speech of his will likely cost him the Fundies' vote (what? tolerance?), but I've got to give Romney credit for being the voice of reason on this issue.

GO COWBOYS!

WHO'S IT GONNA BE?

Packers-Cowboys Series History
By The Associated Press
November 28, 2007

Cowboys lead series 14-12
(Home Team in CAPS)
REGULAR SEASON
2004-- PACKERS 41, Cowboys 20
1999-- COWBOYS 27, Packers 13
1997-- PACKERS 45, Cowboys 17
1996-- COWBOYS 21, Packers 6
1995-- COWBOYS 34, Packers 24
1994-- COWBOYS 42, Packers 31
1993-- COWBOYS 36, Packers 14
1991-- Cowboys 20, PACKERS 17-x
1989-- Packers 20, COWBOYS 10
1989-- PACKERS 31, Cowboys 13
1984-- COWBOYS 20, Packers 6
1980-- Cowboys 28, Packers 7-x
1978-- Cowboys 42, PACKERS 14-x
1975-- Packers 19, COWBOYS 17
1972-- PACKERS 16, Cowboys 13-x
1970-- COWBOYS 16, Packers 3
1968-- Packers 28, COWBOYS 17
1965-- PACKERS 13, Cowboys 3-x
1964-- Packers 45, COWBOYS 21
1960-- PACKERS 41, Cowboys 7
PLAYOFFS
1995-- COWBOYS 38, Packers 27 NFC Championship
1994-- COWBOYS 35, Packers 9 NFC Divisional
1993-- COWBOYS 27, Packers 17 NFC Divisional
1982-- COWBOYS 37, Packers 26 NFC Second Round
1967-- PACKERS 21, Cowboys 17 NFL Championship
1966-- Packers 34, COWBOYS 27 NFL Championship
x-At Milwaukee

Okay, Randal, Game Day is here! When the Cowboys win, you have to (prominently) display the Dallas Cowboys logo on your blog for a week, and vice versa for me if the Packers win.

UPDATE: COWBOYS 37, Packers 27

HOW 'BOUT THEM COWBOYS !!!
----------------------------------------------

You're Doing It Wrong

Enjoy the moundyness here: Creation Museum Report
______________________________

Weird-ass Wednesday

Well here's some good news

After my rather grim post the other day, here's a little ray of sunshine for you (who luvs ya, Baby?):

A Crisis of Political Faith for Evangelicals

By Shawn Zeller Mon Sep 17, 9:40 AM ET

GOP hopefuls will get no free passes this time from a religious base angered by tepid progress on its agenda

In almost every presidential election of the past three decades, social conservative and evangelical voters didn’t need anything like their own debates or special summit meetings with the candidates. That’s because their choices were so obvious early on: In 1980 there was Ronald Reagan, who coyly told the members of the evangelical Religious Roundtable that, while he understood its membership was barred from endorsing him, he felt free to endorse them. In the past two elections there was George W. Bush, who describes himself as a born-again Christian and won his second term with the support of four out of five evangelicals.

So far in the 2008 campaign, though, evangelical conservatives have been facing a very different prospect: No obviously viable candidate to rally behind and an increasingly restive mood in their ranks.

So political leaders of the religious right are stepping up efforts to find a consensus choice, starting this week by staging the first-ever Values Voter Presidential Debate for the Republican candidates. The debate, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., will be moderated by Joseph Farah, who edits the conservative online news site WorldNetDaily, and the questioners will include such old lions of the movement as Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

And next month, the Family Research Council, one of the most influential conservative advocacy groups in Washington, will hold a Values Voters Summit that at least four GOP aspirants — former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado — have pledged to attend. Afterward, the 2,000 or so council members who are expected to attend will be asked to participate in the group’s first straw poll.

But at the moment, the council’s president, Tony Perkins, says it’s shaping up to be a rather dour political season for the evangelical right. “Clearly, there is disappointment” in the movement’s ranks, he said.

With the GOP having controlled the White House and the House for the previous six years — and the Senate for the previous four — social conservatives expected much more progress on their agenda in Washington. Although they are happy that Bush has used his veto power to stop an expansion of federal stem cell research, signed a law banning the procedure opponents call “partial birth” abortion and won confirmation of two solid conservatives to the Supreme Court, the Christian right’s rank and file say they’re frustrated that Washington has not pushed for more-sweeping restrictions on abortion and gay rights.

Meanwhile, the president’s support for granting a path to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally has further strained the GOP’s relations with the evangelical base — a voting bloc Perkins estimates as one-third of voters in the GOP primaries, enough to make or break any candidate. And the past year’s trio of Republican A-congressional sexual scandals — centered on Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho — has only fed the climate of disillusion. “Certainly,” Perkins said, “there is reason to be concerned about the future of the relationship” between social conservatives and the Republican Party.

And that has led Perkins and other religious leaders to push for the closer-than-usual examination of the GOP aspirants. “What I hear and see is that if you were a Republican candidate in the past, you got a pass on close scrutiny on key issues,” Perkins said. “I don’t think that’s going to be the case anymore. They are going to have to verify their credentials in order to gain the support of social conservatives.”

While these leaders hope that a consensus candidate will emerge, they are also openly concerned that evangelicals are now in danger of fragmenting at various points on the political spectrum. That’s because more than the composition of the Republican field has changed; evangelical voters are changing as well. Some, while still traditionally conservative in their beliefs, are weary of what they see as a pattern of disrespectful treatment from GOP candidates: lip service during campaigns followed by a dim interest in their agenda once in power. But other religious voters are embracing causes not traditionally identified with American conservatism, such as global warming, human rights and poverty relief.

‘A New Guard’

This new, more tentative phase of evangelical activism also coincides with something of a leadership vacuum. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the iconic Moral Majority, died in May, and onetime presidential hopeful Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, has lost almost all his political clout. Other figures are vying for a more influential voice on a bigger national stage. Among them are Perkins, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.

But none of these figures is likely to emerge as a singular leader in the mode of Falwell, for the simple reason that the future evangelical movement will probably be less unified than its predecessors. As a result, political strategists may soon have to stop thinking of “the evangelical voter” as a shorthand term for a right-leaning voting bloc. “I’m sensing the emergence of an old guard and a new guard,” said Amy E. Black, a political scientist at Wheaton College, an evangelical school in Illinois.

While the break is not exclusively along generational lines, Black says, many of her students — the school is among the most culturally conservative in the country — are more likely than their elders to question the GOP line on issues such as climate change and human rights. Many have also begun to pull away from their elders’ support for the Iraq War — and to distance themselves from President Bush as a result.

At the same time, a number of prominent evangelical leaders have successfully wedded a more liberal outlook to their religious message. Jim Wallis, the self-styled evangelical progressive who founded and edits Sojourners magazine, is a familiar leader in this leftward faction. Richard Cizik, the Washington director of the National Association of Evangelicals, has launched a high-profile initiative to publicize the importance of global warming and other environmental causes for Christian believers — provoking Perkins and other evangelical leaders to press unsuccessfully for his ouster earlier this year. More-centrist figures, such as the popular baby boomer minister Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” have staked out high-profile “social justice” mission projects. Warren has embarked on an aid initiative to transform the war-ravaged African nation of Rwanda into a “purpose-driven nation” and drew harsh criticism from religious conservatives for inviting Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, to speak at an AIDS conference at his Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif.

A Buyer’s Market

Even movement leaders say the upcoming flurry of candidate forums points up how the playing field has changed from the days when Reagan was the only GOP presidential candidate to court Southern Baptists — or when the 2000 campaign of Sen. John McCain of Arizona collapsed after he ran afoul of Christian conservatives.

“In Washington and outside the Beltway, it’s really a buyer’s market,” said Bob Knight, who is scheduled to speak at the council’s summit and who serves as director of the Culture and Media Institute, a socially conservative media watchdog in Washington. “We’re waiting to hear a candidate convey our message. That hasn’t happened yet, and that’s why there’s no clear choice.”

It’s not for lack of trying on the candidates’ part. Leading GOP candidates such as Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee are actively vying for the evangelical vote. Even McCain, badly burned from his apostasy seven years ago, has made pronounced overtures to Christian conservatives. Still, most leading candidates have had to explain away evidence in their records suggesting that they may not, in fact, be true believers: Aside from being a Mormon, Romney was clear in his support of gay equality and abortion rights while running for governor of Massachusetts; Thompson, meanwhile, did legal work in the 1990s for an abortion rights lobbying group and has sent mixed messages regarding his views on amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Meanwhile, the early leader, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, has run openly — if respectfully — out of step on many of the evangelical right’s litmus-test issues. But he is polling well among them, at about 25 percent, according to a September Washington Post/ABC poll — although the same survey showed him losing support to the just-announced Thompson. Movement leaders A-attribute A-Giuliani’s level of support to a desire among religious voters to field the strongest possible GOP candidate, whatever his views, against the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. “There’s much more opposition to Sen. Clinton than there ever was to her husband” among evangelicals, said Land of the Southern Baptists. “Rudy Giuliani has going for him the fact that he continues to be either running ahead of her or even with her.”

Democratic Gains?

Of course, still relatively early in the campaign, some evangelicals may be picking Giuliani out of name recognition alone, or because they approve of his leadership after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and his success in helping reduce crime in New York. Perkins argues that most voters aren’t aware of his support for abortion and gay rights. But Land takes a more pessimistic view: that some in his traditional constituency are ready to set aside their strongly held views on social issues to support the most electable Republican.

Land is acutely aware of the long-term political costs of such a calculation. Giuliani as the nominee could crack the united front that backed Bush in 2004, he said, meaning that Clinton or any other Democratic nominee would then have “a license to go hunting for evangelical votes.”

That may appear to be a lost cause, given that all the Democratic contenders support, for example, abortion rights and expanded civil rights for gays and lesbians. But Black of Wheaton College says that even if evangelicals aren’t going to vote Democratic for president next year, they may still come out to vote for the socially conservative congressional candidates the party has been recruiting for swing seats.

But the bigger setback for the GOP nationally could be a replay of what happened last year, when Republicans did not give social conservatives a strong reason to turn out. “We may be at one of those crossroads where people who feel disaffected with the Republican Party are beginning to take a step back,” Black says.

Bowing Out

One figure who advocates taking several steps back from the GOP is Richard Viguerie, the political direct-mail mogul who was an architect of the religious right’s initial surge into power with the election of Ronald Reagan. “Of all the problems that conservatives have had in the last 10 to 12 years, No. 1 has been that too many of our conservative leaders have gotten too close to the Republican Party,” he said.

In a dramatic departure from his past efforts, Viguerie now argues that social conservatives should bow out of presidential politics — at least until GOP leaders have more to offer them. Scanning the Republican presidential field, he says, “Not one of them was there for us” on the key issues to social conservatives: abortion and gay rights. True conservatives “should just sit on the sidelines” during the next election, he advised.

In lieu of electoral politics, Viguerie says evangelical leaders should set up faith-based groups and other socially conservative organizations, with membership that affiliates with both parties, to press their political causes.

Land and other leaders of the evangelical right urge caution in the face of such breakaway proposals — in part by contending that Bush has not neglected their issues as much as the rank and file laments.

Perkins of late has also touted the credentials of two second-tier GOP contenders, Brownback and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, telling readers of his daily Washington e-mail updates that they are the “most religious” candidates.

And both he and Land are downplaying concerns about the conservative bona fides of Thompson and Romney. Perkins says that although there is legitimate concern about the records of both, each is working hard to win over social conservatives. If Thompson and Romney “can show the potential to stand toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton, you’re going to see Giuliani’s numbers drop,” Land said.

But it’s unlikely that any of the Republicans will re-create the strong bond that united so many evangelicals behind the incumbent president. “George W. Bush was elected as one of us,” says Black.

This story originally appeared in CQ Weekly.

[emphases mine]

After reading this, I felt just like Jon Stewart did the night he reported on Dick Cheney shooting a friend in the face - remember that? Jon reached down behind his desk and retrieved a tray. The tray held a pot of hot water, a cup and saucer, and a tin of International Flavored Coffee. There may have been a crumpet or two on the tray, as well. Yes, folks, moments like these are to be savored. Enjoy.

God's Warriors

I hope everyone got a chance to see Christiane Amanpour's excellent three-part series on CNN, God's Warriors. If not, I'm sure they'll rerun it soon. You can watch the trailer for it here. (Click on the "Behind the Scenes" tab to find it.)

She examined the fundamentalist beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the increasing impact they're making on the world. Fundies have always been scary to me, and after watching three nights of her interviews of them, I'm even more appalled by the vehemence with which they vow never to give up their fight against secularism. It's some scary shit, people.

I recently ran across this website:

H.E.R.B. - - - Had Enough Religious Bullshit !!
A Collection of Articles, Quotations, and Cartoons For
Those Of Us Who Prefer Not To Live In A Theocracy.

and I have to agree with it's founder's statement:

The World is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe. In the end, Religion will kill us all. -- Ed Krebs

The site has a large collection of scary quotes from Fundies the world over. Here's just a small sample:

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933


Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
-- D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries and Bush advisor.

I couldn't agree more.

"Atheists' Worst Nightmare"

Here's the famous Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron video "disproving" evolution with um, a banana. This clip is augmented with commentary, including pics of how bananas have evolved. It's a scream. Enjoy. Oh, and enjoy this wonderful cartoon, too. :)

On Notice

You can create your own notice board here.

Reality check

I got a catalog from Mary Maxim Needlework and Crafts, touting Over 400 New Items! plus 21 Pages of Exciting Christmas Crafts! There was a time when this would have set my lil ole heart to pitt-a-patting, but today? Not so much. No, it isn't because I'm now an atheist and therefore the Christmas holiday hasn't the same meaning it once did. I still "do" the holidays. It's just that my interests are changing. No, no - that's not it, either. It's that ... I've had to narrow my interests down to what can actually be accomplished in Real Life. (Oh, and that reminds me of a great cartoon I recently StumbledUpon. This will only be funny if you've spent any time in VR... But I digress.)

I used to have a craft room full of stuff, with hundreds of projects tabbed and indexed in hanging files. I used to have boxes of patterns for clothes and drapes and Christmas projects. I used to have tons of fabric and yarn. I used to spend summers crafting everything from afghans to ornaments, from decoupaged footstools to clocks.

Then, several things happened. One, I started writing, and that took up a lot of my crafting time. Actually, now it's like everything takes up my writing time.

Another thing was a bit of arthritis in my hands, so I had to give up thread crochet - no more lacy bookmarks for friends at Christmas. Then I had to give up all but Q-hook crochet - that's the huge hook that can be held comfortably, but you can only make afghans with it, and after a while, meh.

Here's the thing. I'm getting older. Not old, mind you, because that doesn't happen to us Boomers. No, it doesn't. Stop laughing - it does not happen to us! See, I'm getting older ('course, not as old as Hoss), so I'm more aware of the fact that chances are, I'll never get around to doing those hundreds of craft projects. I didn't come to this realization just now - that was a year ago when we were going to sell Maxwell House and make our alleged move to North Carolina - hah!

It was back then when I realized that instead of packing all those nicely-indexed projects and craft supplies, I should face reality and only keep the things that I (1) enjoy doing the most (and can still do), and (2) that I might actually get around to finishing.

That left ... needlepoint.

And writing.

I and my creative muses will be perfectly happy concentrating on those two things. See, when you're young, you believe you really can do it all because you're not thinking about practical things like time. And maybe some of you overachievers (like my in-laws) out there actually do get it all done. I applaud you as I mutter under my breath.

So, the Mary Maxim catalog goes into the recycling pile, and until the day that I do the same, I'll be here happily writing and needlepointing (hmm, there might even be a way to do those at the same time...)

This shouldn't take very long...

This is another great Stumble find!

For the post that accompanies this picture, click this: Science Humor