The Vatican has loosened the leashed on it's sad, ignorant flock today. For the first time, the Vatican has sanctioned the use of condoms, but so far, only as a means of combating HIV. Apparently, they believe that it is the lesser of two evils. I still don't see how the rubber shield is evil, but I suppose in the brainwashed mind of the Christian person, it makes perfect sense.
Huffington Post
All mocking aside, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the Vatican to the 20th century. Perhaps sometime soon they can join us in the 21st century, though I'm not holding my breath.
Common Sense
Showing posts with label Practice Non-Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Practice Non-Religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Religious Right: "It's more patriotic to kill the enemy than to save fellow soldiers"
Christian Right Activist Blasts Medal of Honor as 'Feminized'
Moral teachings from the Religious Right: We should only honor those soldiers who kill others, not those who save others.
Is there anything less Christian?
Common Sense
Friday, February 26, 2010
Practice Non-Religion: Non-Religious Generation
Here is an interesting, but overwhelmingly ignored poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. According to this new poll almost 80% of our generation do not actively practice religious observance. Most still believe in an afterlife (why wouldn't you? it's a safe assumption), but that doesn't translate into attendance at religious ceremony anymore.
My question is, why was it buried in a corner the Huffington Post? A dramatic shift like this should be front page news for weeks. What do we get instead? Tiger Woods and an angry Orca. Those are not useful topics of conversation. sad? yes. lessons to be learned? yes. useful to the general public? no.
What this article should spark is a debate on the nature and relevance of religion to public policy and the future of our nation. I would never deny the fact that our country is overwhelmingly religious (for the moment), and that religion is protected by the constitution (just as we should be protected from it). However, this poll should suggest that religion as a form of political power is a dying power, and will be irrelevant in the near future. It should also be a lesson to conservatives who like to hang their hat on the "religious nation" or "Christian nation" mantel. We may be a religious nation now, but that might change when millennials start to dominate public and private life.
I can only hope that this poll represents a permanent shift that signals the end of religious domination in our lives and our country. Too many wrong have been committed and too much progress halted because of religious intransigence. It is up to this non-religious generation, to make sure the future is a little bit brighter for all Americans, not just the faithful.
Common Sense
My question is, why was it buried in a corner the Huffington Post? A dramatic shift like this should be front page news for weeks. What do we get instead? Tiger Woods and an angry Orca. Those are not useful topics of conversation. sad? yes. lessons to be learned? yes. useful to the general public? no.
What this article should spark is a debate on the nature and relevance of religion to public policy and the future of our nation. I would never deny the fact that our country is overwhelmingly religious (for the moment), and that religion is protected by the constitution (just as we should be protected from it). However, this poll should suggest that religion as a form of political power is a dying power, and will be irrelevant in the near future. It should also be a lesson to conservatives who like to hang their hat on the "religious nation" or "Christian nation" mantel. We may be a religious nation now, but that might change when millennials start to dominate public and private life.
I can only hope that this poll represents a permanent shift that signals the end of religious domination in our lives and our country. Too many wrong have been committed and too much progress halted because of religious intransigence. It is up to this non-religious generation, to make sure the future is a little bit brighter for all Americans, not just the faithful.
Common Sense
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Practice Non-Religion: An Atheist World View?
I have found this wonderful website called "Evidence for God in Science." It's filled with the usual horse poop that one would expect from a website attempting to prove that God exists.
Here is an interesting problem that truly exemplifies the authors attempt to refute a definition he made up. The auther attempts to provide a three step process that provides answers for atheists. The problem is that he bases his argument on incorrect interpretations of what atheists actually believe.
He claims that atheists believe:
1) that all beliefs must be supported by observable evidence
2) that beliefs that contradict observable evidence cannot be tolerated
Talk about an over-simplified interpretation. Beliefs don't need to be based on observable evidence, they need to be based on provable evidence supported by process of observation or appropriate theoretically supported speculation. and when contradicted, yes, the theories must immediately be revisited and revised (not necessarily thrown out).
The author uses the example of the Big Bang. He argues that since the universe has a beginning, atheists have no answer for what came before because it is unobservable. Here, the author betrays his own bias, which is that he is overeager to give God credit for the unobservable. The critical misinterpretation here is that atheists believe all things are observable and that religious people believe that all unobservable things must be God. Both are seriously flawed because there are many things we cannot observe, but that we know exist. For instance we know "dark matter" exists, but we can't see it. We know that light exists as both a particle and a wave, but we cant necessarily explain it. And just because I can't explain it or that scientists can't explain it, doesn't mean that there is no explanation. It just means we haven't found it yet. This is the fundamental self-centeredness of the religious mind, to believe that anything YOU don't understand cannot be understood.
Further on the big bang question is the notion that anything with a beginning cannot be infinite and thus must have had a creator. This is not true because I have a beginning, but the molecules that make up my being are as old as time itself. There are a number of theories (conveniently omitted from the authors argument) that claim the universe expands and contract on a cycle, meaning that it could in fact have existed for eternity, and the big bang was simply one of many expansions. There is also the theory of multiverses, where our universe is one of many some older, some younger. it shows a serious lack of imagination and a pretty substantial self-centeredness to assume that the currently (and perhaps permanently) unexplainable through human observation can only be explained by God.
Common Sense
Here is an interesting problem that truly exemplifies the authors attempt to refute a definition he made up. The auther attempts to provide a three step process that provides answers for atheists. The problem is that he bases his argument on incorrect interpretations of what atheists actually believe.
He claims that atheists believe:
1) that all beliefs must be supported by observable evidence
2) that beliefs that contradict observable evidence cannot be tolerated
Talk about an over-simplified interpretation. Beliefs don't need to be based on observable evidence, they need to be based on provable evidence supported by process of observation or appropriate theoretically supported speculation. and when contradicted, yes, the theories must immediately be revisited and revised (not necessarily thrown out).
The author uses the example of the Big Bang. He argues that since the universe has a beginning, atheists have no answer for what came before because it is unobservable. Here, the author betrays his own bias, which is that he is overeager to give God credit for the unobservable. The critical misinterpretation here is that atheists believe all things are observable and that religious people believe that all unobservable things must be God. Both are seriously flawed because there are many things we cannot observe, but that we know exist. For instance we know "dark matter" exists, but we can't see it. We know that light exists as both a particle and a wave, but we cant necessarily explain it. And just because I can't explain it or that scientists can't explain it, doesn't mean that there is no explanation. It just means we haven't found it yet. This is the fundamental self-centeredness of the religious mind, to believe that anything YOU don't understand cannot be understood.
Further on the big bang question is the notion that anything with a beginning cannot be infinite and thus must have had a creator. This is not true because I have a beginning, but the molecules that make up my being are as old as time itself. There are a number of theories (conveniently omitted from the authors argument) that claim the universe expands and contract on a cycle, meaning that it could in fact have existed for eternity, and the big bang was simply one of many expansions. There is also the theory of multiverses, where our universe is one of many some older, some younger. it shows a serious lack of imagination and a pretty substantial self-centeredness to assume that the currently (and perhaps permanently) unexplainable through human observation can only be explained by God.
Common Sense
Practice Non-Religion: Is the Religious Indoctrination of Children a Form of Child Abuse?
After having ranted about this last night, I decided to dig a little and see what people were saying about this.
Richard Dawkins in writtings and in his book, The God Delusion, argues that it is a form of child abuse and his argument is persuasive. He reasons that because the teaching of religion is steeped in guilt, fear of real and perceived violence perpetrated against the individual (Hell), and threats of violence or harassment against those who question or believe differently, this type of indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse. To turn it around, wouldn't you have a problem with a parent who used beatings or fear of beatings as a means of disciplining their children? Couldn't it be child abuse to say "if you disobey your father, the government (representing God in this example) is going to throw you in jail where inmates (demons) will torture you for eternity?" As a society, would we not be appalled by a government that made this threat? so why aren't we equally appalled when religions do it?
Lets deal with reality for a moment. Religions are used to do horrible things. Almost every single war throughout history has been predicated by religion or supported by religious means. Even in those wars that people traditionally believe are based on nationalism (World War II) or economic theory (Cold War), leaders used religion as the mechanism for garnering public support for their efforts. In World War II, Hitler, a life long Christian, used religious language in his campaign to exterminate the jewish people, telling supporters that the jews killed the savior. In the Cold War, politicians in the United States used the national atheism of the Soviet Union to connect atheism to communism, and used that to push a religious agenda including the decision in the 1950s to add "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. Had the national character been based on intelligence and critical thought, it would not have been as easy to get support for such incredibly horrible atrocities as the extermination of the jews and McCarthyism.
These examples, along with the crusades, the recent rape cases, and the use of religion to subjugate minorities, women, and LGBT people, are extreme examples, so why is religion in moderation bad? Not all religious people are going to end up like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, right? Right, but the religious mainstream is what supports religious extremists. Without a strong foundation of silent religious indoctrination corrupting the minds of millions of Americans, Pat Robertson wouldn't exist. It is precisely because religious people have been indoctrinated that they think it is acceptable to hate the sin not the sinner, but also tolerate those who hate both.
Finally, religious indoctrination stifles creativity and permanently impairs the mind. Religion, by its very nature, requires people to be ignorant, because scientific inquiry has proven so much of the bible wrong. Without a literal interpretation of the bible, many of the dogmas relied upon by the church would become invalid or irrational. So the church continues it's war proper science in a vein attempt to keep the population ignorant. Education also invites critical thinking, and a critical mind questions everything. Higher education further reinforces this critical mindset which encourages creativity, exploration, expertise, and experimentation. All of these things are recognized characteristics of effective leadership. How can a person who shuns education gain these skills? religion teaches dogmatic reliance on priests for answers to big questions. That doesn't seem to help foster creativity, etc. By the time youths are old enough to truly begin to question, they have already been indoctrinated with a virus that will sap their potential for success in life.
So is religion a from child abuse?
If you raise your children through dogmatic religious indoctrination you are instilling fear of real and perceived violence, ignorance of both original and developing knowledge, reliance on outdated forms of morality without the critical intellect to compensate in today's society, and denying your child access to necessary skills and knowledge for their survival in the world (i.e. lack of knowledge about birth control). So my answer would be YES!
Some articles attempt to refute Dawkins, but do so in illogical and, frankly, stupid ways. Rich Deem from the website "Evidence for God" argues that because religiously inclined people show lower levels of behaviors society has deemed inappropriate, their religion could not have been abusive. He makes this arguement by relying on previous research that individuals who were abused in childhood show a greater likelihood for destructive, societally rejected behavior. It's pretty plain that this individual is not very smart (as one might expect from a religious extremist). He has made a pretty substantial logical mistep. His argument depends on the assumption that since child abuse is associated with negative behaviors, a person who does not exhibit those behaviors was not abused. Any person worth his salt can figure out why this is wrong. Primarily, the problem is that the connection is not ALL. If ALL abused people exhibited certain behaviors, then he would be correct, a lack of the exhibited behavior would indicate a lack of abuse. That is not the case. Second, the author uses a limited number of behaviors to refute Dawkins. What if Religion suppresses some behaviors, but exacerbates others? For instance, religious people might be less likely to steal, but they may also more likely to lie about it, since stealing is taboo and they wouldn't want others to know about it. The results of their abuse might also appear in other behaviors, such as violence against women, self, LGBT people, etc.
Religion may be a suppressant, but it suppresses more than just the "bad behaviors," it suppresses creativity and knowledge of what is good, fair, and morally right by replacing it with a morality of ignorance and dogma. Is it abuse, YES!
Common Sense
Richard Dawkins in writtings and in his book, The God Delusion, argues that it is a form of child abuse and his argument is persuasive. He reasons that because the teaching of religion is steeped in guilt, fear of real and perceived violence perpetrated against the individual (Hell), and threats of violence or harassment against those who question or believe differently, this type of indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse. To turn it around, wouldn't you have a problem with a parent who used beatings or fear of beatings as a means of disciplining their children? Couldn't it be child abuse to say "if you disobey your father, the government (representing God in this example) is going to throw you in jail where inmates (demons) will torture you for eternity?" As a society, would we not be appalled by a government that made this threat? so why aren't we equally appalled when religions do it?
Lets deal with reality for a moment. Religions are used to do horrible things. Almost every single war throughout history has been predicated by religion or supported by religious means. Even in those wars that people traditionally believe are based on nationalism (World War II) or economic theory (Cold War), leaders used religion as the mechanism for garnering public support for their efforts. In World War II, Hitler, a life long Christian, used religious language in his campaign to exterminate the jewish people, telling supporters that the jews killed the savior. In the Cold War, politicians in the United States used the national atheism of the Soviet Union to connect atheism to communism, and used that to push a religious agenda including the decision in the 1950s to add "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. Had the national character been based on intelligence and critical thought, it would not have been as easy to get support for such incredibly horrible atrocities as the extermination of the jews and McCarthyism.
These examples, along with the crusades, the recent rape cases, and the use of religion to subjugate minorities, women, and LGBT people, are extreme examples, so why is religion in moderation bad? Not all religious people are going to end up like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, right? Right, but the religious mainstream is what supports religious extremists. Without a strong foundation of silent religious indoctrination corrupting the minds of millions of Americans, Pat Robertson wouldn't exist. It is precisely because religious people have been indoctrinated that they think it is acceptable to hate the sin not the sinner, but also tolerate those who hate both.
Finally, religious indoctrination stifles creativity and permanently impairs the mind. Religion, by its very nature, requires people to be ignorant, because scientific inquiry has proven so much of the bible wrong. Without a literal interpretation of the bible, many of the dogmas relied upon by the church would become invalid or irrational. So the church continues it's war proper science in a vein attempt to keep the population ignorant. Education also invites critical thinking, and a critical mind questions everything. Higher education further reinforces this critical mindset which encourages creativity, exploration, expertise, and experimentation. All of these things are recognized characteristics of effective leadership. How can a person who shuns education gain these skills? religion teaches dogmatic reliance on priests for answers to big questions. That doesn't seem to help foster creativity, etc. By the time youths are old enough to truly begin to question, they have already been indoctrinated with a virus that will sap their potential for success in life.
So is religion a from child abuse?
If you raise your children through dogmatic religious indoctrination you are instilling fear of real and perceived violence, ignorance of both original and developing knowledge, reliance on outdated forms of morality without the critical intellect to compensate in today's society, and denying your child access to necessary skills and knowledge for their survival in the world (i.e. lack of knowledge about birth control). So my answer would be YES!
Some articles attempt to refute Dawkins, but do so in illogical and, frankly, stupid ways. Rich Deem from the website "Evidence for God" argues that because religiously inclined people show lower levels of behaviors society has deemed inappropriate, their religion could not have been abusive. He makes this arguement by relying on previous research that individuals who were abused in childhood show a greater likelihood for destructive, societally rejected behavior. It's pretty plain that this individual is not very smart (as one might expect from a religious extremist). He has made a pretty substantial logical mistep. His argument depends on the assumption that since child abuse is associated with negative behaviors, a person who does not exhibit those behaviors was not abused. Any person worth his salt can figure out why this is wrong. Primarily, the problem is that the connection is not ALL. If ALL abused people exhibited certain behaviors, then he would be correct, a lack of the exhibited behavior would indicate a lack of abuse. That is not the case. Second, the author uses a limited number of behaviors to refute Dawkins. What if Religion suppresses some behaviors, but exacerbates others? For instance, religious people might be less likely to steal, but they may also more likely to lie about it, since stealing is taboo and they wouldn't want others to know about it. The results of their abuse might also appear in other behaviors, such as violence against women, self, LGBT people, etc.
Religion may be a suppressant, but it suppresses more than just the "bad behaviors," it suppresses creativity and knowledge of what is good, fair, and morally right by replacing it with a morality of ignorance and dogma. Is it abuse, YES!
Common Sense
Monday, November 2, 2009
Neo-Con Agenda: The "Ship" of State and Anti-Christianity
Oh boy, here's a fun article written by Charles LiMandri (pictured left) from National Organization for Marriage. Before reading please take a moment to enjoy the flowery, over-the-top title.
The Ship of State is Being Steered Toward a Maelstrom of Anti-Christianity
How do these guys get their Law Degrees? Please take a moment to reflect on how he quotes a number of different people, but then doesn't really talk about why what they say is bad. I would assume he doesn't because he doesn't think he has to. Based on the simple-minded reliosity of his likely readers I'm guessing they don't need an explanation. For the rest of us, he is basically saying we should continue heterosexual indocrination, because he claims (but provides no justification) that it works...
I think it is somewhat amusing that the author quotes a person who debunks the "heterosexual indocrination" argument, and then goes on to endorse it as though he did not realize the person he quoted had debunked it.
Lets move beyond the whining about Obama actually doing something about discrimination in this country and get to the whole "extremist" argument he promotes. Is Obama extremist? Is he out of touch with the average person? THIS is a legitimate question and one which is worth exploring.
Here are some statistics:
Should homosexuality be accepted by society?
United States: Yes: 49%, No: 41% (Pew Global Attitudes Project)
Here's a couple things you can take away from this:
1) Obama is not only NOT extremist, he is actually in the majority
2) Charles LiMandri's view seems to be in the minority. If he would like to live in a place where Obama would be extremist he should move to Pelestinian Territories (Yes 9%, No 58%), Kuwait (Yes 6%, No 85%), Jordan (Yes 6%, No 89%), Egypt (1%, 95%), of an African nation.
Here is another study by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Of the general population (presumably heterosexual):
88% would accept a gay or lesbian family member or friend
88% believe that society should not restrict sexual activity between consenting adults
78% would be comfortable working with someone who is gay
76% support employment non-discrimination policies
74% support housing non-discrimination policies
73% support the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Hate Crime Legislation!
73% believe same sex partners should have inheritance rights
71% would send their children to a high school with a gay or lesbian teacher
70% believe same sex partners should have employer provided health insurance
68% believe same sex partners should have social security benefits
68% of youth believe that sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (61% of seniors)
68% of youth support same-sex unions (Yes 47%, No 46% in the general population)
66% believe that homosexual behavior is normal
61% would send their children to an elementary school with a gay or lesbian teacher
60% of youth support same sex marriage (39% in the general population)
60% would see a gay or lesbian doctor
58% would vote for a gay or lesbian political candidate
56% believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military
56% believe that gay couples can be good parents
55% of youth support adoption by gay and lesbian parents (46% in the general population)
47% support legal unions (42% oppose)
here is an interesting statistic I want to point out. 66% of people believe that homosexuality is natural, but 51% believe it is immoral. Which means there are people out there who truly believe a natural act is immoral... isn't the whole point of that natural law mentality that all those things that are natural are moral. or from the religious view, if god made something natural, than he wouldn't have made it immoral? it astounds me how rediculous people are sometimes.
so, based on all this information who is really out of touch and extremist? I think you know my answer to that question.
Common Sense
The Ship of State is Being Steered Toward a Maelstrom of Anti-Christianity
I think it is somewhat amusing that the author quotes a person who debunks the "heterosexual indocrination" argument, and then goes on to endorse it as though he did not realize the person he quoted had debunked it.
Lets move beyond the whining about Obama actually doing something about discrimination in this country and get to the whole "extremist" argument he promotes. Is Obama extremist? Is he out of touch with the average person? THIS is a legitimate question and one which is worth exploring.
Here are some statistics:
Should homosexuality be accepted by society?
United States: Yes: 49%, No: 41% (Pew Global Attitudes Project)
Here's a couple things you can take away from this:
1) Obama is not only NOT extremist, he is actually in the majority
2) Charles LiMandri's view seems to be in the minority. If he would like to live in a place where Obama would be extremist he should move to Pelestinian Territories (Yes 9%, No 58%), Kuwait (Yes 6%, No 85%), Jordan (Yes 6%, No 89%), Egypt (1%, 95%), of an African nation.
Here is another study by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Of the general population (presumably heterosexual):
88% would accept a gay or lesbian family member or friend
88% believe that society should not restrict sexual activity between consenting adults
78% would be comfortable working with someone who is gay
76% support employment non-discrimination policies
74% support housing non-discrimination policies
73% support the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Hate Crime Legislation!
73% believe same sex partners should have inheritance rights
71% would send their children to a high school with a gay or lesbian teacher
70% believe same sex partners should have employer provided health insurance
68% believe same sex partners should have social security benefits
68% of youth believe that sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (61% of seniors)
68% of youth support same-sex unions (Yes 47%, No 46% in the general population)
66% believe that homosexual behavior is normal
61% would send their children to an elementary school with a gay or lesbian teacher
60% of youth support same sex marriage (39% in the general population)
60% would see a gay or lesbian doctor
58% would vote for a gay or lesbian political candidate
56% believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military
56% believe that gay couples can be good parents
55% of youth support adoption by gay and lesbian parents (46% in the general population)
47% support legal unions (42% oppose)
here is an interesting statistic I want to point out. 66% of people believe that homosexuality is natural, but 51% believe it is immoral. Which means there are people out there who truly believe a natural act is immoral... isn't the whole point of that natural law mentality that all those things that are natural are moral. or from the religious view, if god made something natural, than he wouldn't have made it immoral? it astounds me how rediculous people are sometimes.
so, based on all this information who is really out of touch and extremist? I think you know my answer to that question.
Common Sense
Friday, October 30, 2009
Practice Non-Religion: Pat Robertson on Hate Crimes Bill
It's always fun to listen to the paranoid, fatalistic rantings of religious extremsists in America. Here is a particularly fun one by a personal favorite, Pat Robertson.
Robertson pulls out the usual slippery slope guns that he has used in the past claiming that protection of gay people will lead to legalization of pedophilia, beastiality, blah, blah, blah. I've already addressed why this is stupid so I wont re-address it here.
He also claimed that the Hate Crimes bill is all about denying christians their right to hate people. well I think I've already discussed why that is also stupid (no one cares what you say, this bill protects against religious people who act upon the venomous language Robertson spits out everyday).
So, anyway, feel free to watch what he says:
I wont go any further than to say, you should seriously question your life choices if you share a religion with this guy.
Common Sense
Robertson pulls out the usual slippery slope guns that he has used in the past claiming that protection of gay people will lead to legalization of pedophilia, beastiality, blah, blah, blah. I've already addressed why this is stupid so I wont re-address it here.
He also claimed that the Hate Crimes bill is all about denying christians their right to hate people. well I think I've already discussed why that is also stupid (no one cares what you say, this bill protects against religious people who act upon the venomous language Robertson spits out everyday).
So, anyway, feel free to watch what he says:
I wont go any further than to say, you should seriously question your life choices if you share a religion with this guy.
Common Sense
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Leave the Ivory Tower Alone: Religious Freedom on Campus
In this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, which I "borrowed" from my boss (hehe), I found a rather disturbing advertisement. Check it out:
So, basically, they are suggesting that speech codes protecting against hate speech, speech zones, student fees, and non-discrimination policies are unconstitutional. Ok, these people must be stupid. Let's find out!
I decided to visit the website, and guess what I discovered! It's a religious freedom website. Not just that it is a christian website. And who is sponsoring it? None other than the Alliance Defense Fund. Normally I would say, "whatever this is just another rediculous ploy by religious groups to get more special privileges that no one else gets, but what really bothered me is the scare tactics they used on the main page. Including an image of the Supreme Court house claiming that "Administrators are facing a sharp increase in costly constitutional litigation as students challenge unlawful policies."
The attorney in charge of this organization is David French (pictured right). David has been a practicing lawyer since graduating Harvard Law in 1994 and is the author of A Season for Justice: Defending the Rights of the Christian Home, Church, and School (2002). Clearly, a Harvard education does not guarantee intellectual ability. Or perhaps religion is to blame for corrupting what might otherwise have been a very sound mind. As if his book were not bad enough, Mr. French has also authored a number of reports for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a religious extremist group that advocates religious indoctrination in higher education. Take a moment to notice how both Mr. French's organization and FIRE attempt to cloud their true efforts under the disguise of protecting individual rights, when what they mean is individual rights for christians.
Now, since I'm thoroughly annoyed by this garabage, I'm going to take a moment to tell you why they are wrong.
1) Non-Discrimination Policies - Non-discrimination policies are the same as those found in legislation such as ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc. They protect individuals from discrimination, not speech. A religious nut can stand in the middle of the quad and say whatever he/she wants and no one is going to cite a non-discrimination policy. However, if a religious group rejects a person from membership, leadership, or some other activity, they have violated the terms of the university's non-discrimination policy and the law. So, it's not about speech at all, you are welcome to have your opinion, you are welcome to voice that opinion, and you are welcome to complain all you like, but you still have disciminate in your actions.
2) Speech Codes - these are a little more difficult to defend, and for the most part, the courts haven't really liked them. However, the problem is in the wording, not the concepts. Speech codes are meant to stop violence from breaking out on campus. Religious groups love using fighting words, probably even more so than any other group, and it's probably because religions are violent organizations. So, it is perfectly acceptable that campuses should want to prevent these groups from inciting massive riots or fights in the middle of campus. When a religious nut calls someone a "fag" that is NOT protected speech, and no sane person can argue that "fag" adds anything to the "market place of ideas" view of the educational setting. it is meant to incite conflict and that is NOT protected speech.
3) Student Fees - I'm curious what campuses are denying any group access to student activity fees. Again, religious groups should not have privileged access to funds, but nor should they be denied. It's not surprising though that these groups would want to get more than others and then claim they were getting less.
4) Speech Zones - This is where the religiously inclined kill their own arguement. 50 people screaming outside a classroom window adds nothing to the "marketplace of ideas" and would in fact distract from that mission. It seems like the obvious response by students who don't like religious groups would be to use this stuff against them, stand in their meetings yelling and screaming, or join their clubs and vote out their leaders. And according to them you'd have this right because of free speech. I think they might start singing a different tune.
Religious students on campus are given privileges far beyond those enshrined in the constitution. And considering religious belief is, by its very nature, anti-thetical to the intellectual and academic mission of the university to open the mind to critical thinking, I think they have enough privileges and don't deserve anymore.
Common Sense
So, basically, they are suggesting that speech codes protecting against hate speech, speech zones, student fees, and non-discrimination policies are unconstitutional. Ok, these people must be stupid. Let's find out!
Now, since I'm thoroughly annoyed by this garabage, I'm going to take a moment to tell you why they are wrong.
1) Non-Discrimination Policies - Non-discrimination policies are the same as those found in legislation such as ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc. They protect individuals from discrimination, not speech. A religious nut can stand in the middle of the quad and say whatever he/she wants and no one is going to cite a non-discrimination policy. However, if a religious group rejects a person from membership, leadership, or some other activity, they have violated the terms of the university's non-discrimination policy and the law. So, it's not about speech at all, you are welcome to have your opinion, you are welcome to voice that opinion, and you are welcome to complain all you like, but you still have disciminate in your actions.
2) Speech Codes - these are a little more difficult to defend, and for the most part, the courts haven't really liked them. However, the problem is in the wording, not the concepts. Speech codes are meant to stop violence from breaking out on campus. Religious groups love using fighting words, probably even more so than any other group, and it's probably because religions are violent organizations. So, it is perfectly acceptable that campuses should want to prevent these groups from inciting massive riots or fights in the middle of campus. When a religious nut calls someone a "fag" that is NOT protected speech, and no sane person can argue that "fag" adds anything to the "market place of ideas" view of the educational setting. it is meant to incite conflict and that is NOT protected speech.
3) Student Fees - I'm curious what campuses are denying any group access to student activity fees. Again, religious groups should not have privileged access to funds, but nor should they be denied. It's not surprising though that these groups would want to get more than others and then claim they were getting less.
4) Speech Zones - This is where the religiously inclined kill their own arguement. 50 people screaming outside a classroom window adds nothing to the "marketplace of ideas" and would in fact distract from that mission. It seems like the obvious response by students who don't like religious groups would be to use this stuff against them, stand in their meetings yelling and screaming, or join their clubs and vote out their leaders. And according to them you'd have this right because of free speech. I think they might start singing a different tune.
Religious students on campus are given privileges far beyond those enshrined in the constitution. And considering religious belief is, by its very nature, anti-thetical to the intellectual and academic mission of the university to open the mind to critical thinking, I think they have enough privileges and don't deserve anymore.
Common Sense
Monday, October 12, 2009
Practice Non-Religion: Conservative Bible Project
So, I've decided I'm an atheist. It took me a while to just come out and say it, but this next post pretty much just made it clear to me that religion is not a good thing. I also thoroughly enjoyed Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, so I figure, it's time to just come out with it. Rather than label these posts in a negative way like "Religion sucks" or "religiously wrong" I've decided a more positive tone. Instead I will simply advocate the "Practice of Non-Religion."
6) Hell is REAL! - Hell and the Devil are real and we need to say so.
7) Express Free-Market Parables - We need to connect the bible to free market principles. (Even though the church doesn't actually agree with this because capitalism and the free-market are built on the profit motive, i.e. greed *which is a sin if I remember correctly*)
8) Remove Liberal Passages - So, apparently that pesky story of the adulteress was really a liberal plot to make Jesus look like a good guy. (I guess he was actually a fire breathing dragon who was as spiteful as the ancient jewish god Yahweh)
9) Credit the Open-Mindedness of the Disciples - Supposedly they were very open-minded.
10) Use Concise Words Rather tha Liberal Wordiness - We are going to switch all references to "Yahweh," "Jahova," and "Lord God" to just plain old lord. Because it's weird talking about the "Lord" by all those other names that make him sound like a bad guy. you know, like when Yahweh said "Jews, I give you this land and you should go out and slaughter (murder) all these tribes in the area, then rape their women to their blood lines will die out (genocide), and then burn down their homes (arsen), then take all the gold and silver and put it in my churches (theft). Yeah I wouldn't want to be associated with that guy either.
Sometimes I wonder where it will end. These people are already so crazy that they SHOULD be completely ostrocized by society, yet we continue a policy of religious "tolerance" when that tolerance has lead to centuries of ignorance, violence, and hate. How insane must they become before someone steps up and says, enough is enough, go back to the caves. What if they tried to indoctrinate your children in schools you pay for? What if they tried to convert you? What if they tried to kill you? What if they flew planes into your office buildings? What if they took over your governments and used it to oppress you? What if they killed everyone like you?
Common Sense
*to all those who have a healthy relationship with "God," you have my respect and admiration for being able to maintain your faith despite all the people around you going crazy. I hope that you will continue to blaze your own personal relationships with whatever "God" you believe in and tune out the hate-mongers. I simply can't intellectually justify being a believer."
So the extremists of the religious right have set their sights on a new liberal icon. The bible. Wait, the BIBLE?! WTF? no, you heard me right, the wingnuts on the right have decided that the bible, the root of social conservatism and guidebook to all things illogical, was too liberal. They provide 10 goals (or reasons) for this re-write. They are as follows:
1) The Bible is Too Liberal - liberal bias has changed the "thoughts" in the text and we need to return to a "thought for thought" translation of the bible.
2) The Bible Should be Sexist! - liberals have translated the text using "gender neutral" statements, and it is up to the god-fearing conservatives to replace those with their original sexist meanings.
3) The Bible Should be More Complicated - Apparently the current bible is written at a 7th grade reading level and needs to be enhanced with the intellectual force and logic of Christianity. (Does it present a problem that christianity is based on people being too stupid to question and thus, if you made the bible more complicated, people would be too stupid to understand what they are not supposed to question?)
4) The Bible Needs to Include MORE Conservative Terms - Like "volunteer," "peace," and "miracle." (So, lets take out the liberal bias and introduce conservative bias, Yikes! and since when are those conservative terms? wouldn't conservative terms be selfishness, greed, war, and ignorance?)
5) Combat Harmful Addiction - use current political terminology to explain things like using "gambling" instead of "cast lots." (wait wait, so we are selectively correcting words back to their original meaning now? Sexism is ok, but heaven forbid we should call it "casting lots")6) Hell is REAL! - Hell and the Devil are real and we need to say so.
7) Express Free-Market Parables - We need to connect the bible to free market principles. (Even though the church doesn't actually agree with this because capitalism and the free-market are built on the profit motive, i.e. greed *which is a sin if I remember correctly*)9) Credit the Open-Mindedness of the Disciples - Supposedly they were very open-minded.
10) Use Concise Words Rather tha Liberal Wordiness - We are going to switch all references to "Yahweh," "Jahova," and "Lord God" to just plain old lord. Because it's weird talking about the "Lord" by all those other names that make him sound like a bad guy. you know, like when Yahweh said "Jews, I give you this land and you should go out and slaughter (murder) all these tribes in the area, then rape their women to their blood lines will die out (genocide), and then burn down their homes (arsen), then take all the gold and silver and put it in my churches (theft). Yeah I wouldn't want to be associated with that guy either.
Sometimes I wonder where it will end. These people are already so crazy that they SHOULD be completely ostrocized by society, yet we continue a policy of religious "tolerance" when that tolerance has lead to centuries of ignorance, violence, and hate. How insane must they become before someone steps up and says, enough is enough, go back to the caves. What if they tried to indoctrinate your children in schools you pay for? What if they tried to convert you? What if they tried to kill you? What if they flew planes into your office buildings? What if they took over your governments and used it to oppress you? What if they killed everyone like you?
Common Sense
*to all those who have a healthy relationship with "God," you have my respect and admiration for being able to maintain your faith despite all the people around you going crazy. I hope that you will continue to blaze your own personal relationships with whatever "God" you believe in and tune out the hate-mongers. I simply can't intellectually justify being a believer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
