BSA Lawyer Whines...

Misinformation, spin, lies, and whining from straight white men that they're the persecuted martyrs in an unfair attack on freedom. Yeah, right. Gimme a friggin' break.

The beginning of the puling is nothing more than the worst of veiled spin. Calling the court's ruling that the Boy Scouts are discriminatory is somehow discriminatory in itself? This makes no sense. The author of the article, a lawyer, sees the action in terms of the ACLU trying to shut down/kick out/squelch the BSA simply for their beliefs. But the problem is that the BSA is supposed to be a public entity (it is a Congressionally chartered organization that recieves subsidies from federal, state, and local governments in the form of financial and land grants) and as a public entity cannot legally discriminate. If the BSA wishes to go private and pay for the land it "leases" from the government, the problem of discriminating against gays and atheists goes away.

Other than a nondenominational grace before meals, a ritual as inoffensive as the reference to God on our currency, I witnessed nothing that week that any "reasonable observer" would characterize as "religious."

I guess that would make people like me "unreasonable" observers. A prayer to God isn't religious? What freakin' universe does this guy live in? Oh yeah, one were the dead rise from their graves and walk, where virgins give birth, where it's okay in some circumstances to rape and murder (but in others, it's not), where the entire universe can be created in seven days, is only a few thousand years old, and where the whole planet can be flooded. I could go on, but I think I've made the point that it's no wonder these people wouldn't characterize a prayer to a religious deity as religious. There aren't any ground rules for reality. It's anything goes, proof or no. And contradictions aren't really contradictions.

Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a "religious organization," and that by allowing the Scouts to lease city-owned land it is therefore "advancing religion" and "religious indoctrination."

Actually...the ruling doesn't rest on the Boy Scouts having a belief in God, it rests on the fact that they disallow anyone who doesn't believe in God or who is gay (a stance which is based purely on religious beliefs). That's what makes them a religious organization.

As the U.S. Department of Justice succinctly stated, "the Boy Scouts of America is not a church, and canoeing, kayaking and swimming are not religious activities."

True, but praying is a religious activity. And excluding those who don't profess a belief in God would seem to be a pretty religious act.

...the ACLU...is on a crusade against the Boy Scouts, solely because it professes a belief in God.

No, the ACLU has filed suit against the BSA because it, a public, government-chartered organization, discriminates against non-believers and homosexuals.

It frightens me that a lawyer misunderstands the intent of legal action so blindly. Once again, blind religious indoctrination trumps reason and intelligent understanding.

Another (perhaps voluntary) Ignorant Reich Winger

Leave 'under God' in...because we're the majority

This isn't really about the rights of Americans to believe or not to believe in God. It's about one man's vengeance in trying to stick it to his Christian ex-wife, who also happens to have custody of the child in question, and the legal right to make the final decisions about her religious training.

Forgive me a moment of snide commentary, but it just seems to easy, that this woman would see the rights of all citizens boiled down to a simple matter of "men are scum". Peddle your hang-ups elsewhere, honey.

The argument is being made once again that the Constitution prohibits the mention of God in any public venue.

Bzzdt. Wrong. Thank you for playing. That isn't the argument at all. Am I surprised that a Reich Wing shill doesn't understand? Not at all.

Our founding fathers were Christians...

Wrong again. Some were Christians. Most were Deists; an altogether different kind of animal from Christians. And some of those who were Deists were quite hostile toward the Christian myth.

Couldn't a case be made that Newdow is attempting to prohibit the other 30 children in his daughter's class from their inalienable right to recite the pledge, or to practice their own religions?

No, that case can not, in fact, be made. For one, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to recite the pledge. And second, Newdow is in now way infringing on the rights of children to practice their religion. He's not stopping them from believing, from praying, or from going to church. He's just following the intent of the Constitution and trying to ensure that the public classroom is an environment free from religious coercion.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Newdow. Perhaps if he is so intent on raising a healthy, whole child, he should focus on banning certain other words from her vocabulary and understanding. Words like "hate," "vindictiveness," "custody issues," and the ever-popular "divorce."

Yeah, because Christians have done such a good job of that. Because the phrase "under God" has gone so far to quell hate and vindictiveness and unite families. Gimme a friggin' break.

More Than One Way to Screw the Working Class

Is this what they think the working class wants? $100 gift certificates to evil incarnate WalMart? Red-headed Barbie dolls? A calculator to cipher out just how screwed you really are? No longer do companies employ the tried and true method of forced buy-in to the company's artificially inflated stock as part of their retirement package before the execs bail out and parachute safely away with the millions they've bilked from the working class. Now...they simply brutalize you with, not a slap to the face, but a friggin' brick to the face when they lay you off.

Company severance package

Feeling a Draft

Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said

Because the people who really need to bear the responsibility and pay the price are the Chickenhawks who got us into this mess. The Bush Crime Syndicate needs to pay the price, not American citizens who, for the most part, didn't want this war.

(Hagel argued) that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

Then send the Bush Administration. They're the ones who don't seem to understand the intensity and depth of "challenges" (in other words, the thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. troops who are dying) in Iraq.

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

Oh, he thinks so, does he? Is he proposing that all the loopholes that the Sons of Privelege used throughout Vietnam be outlawed? Because if not, all the draft will do is force more lower- and middle-class citizens into fighting a war that they don't want.

Meanwhile, witnesses at the hearing, including academics and former US officials, expressed concern about ongoing flareups of violence in Iraq this month -- the bloodiest yet for US troops.

So, this month is the bloodiest -- as was last month, and the month before, and the month before that. It just keeps getting worse.

Recognizing God?

Tennessee Senate Resolves to Officially Recognize God Oh, there you are Big Guy! Didn't recognize you in drag.

The resolution describes the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and adds, “ … historically, this nation has acknowledged God on our national currency, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in the national motto of ‘In God We Trust’, and in references to God appearing on the nation’s, and this state’s greatest monuments, memorials, and buildings, including the Ten Commandments, which are represented in the United States Supreme Court Building.”

Yeesh. So, apparently, "history" doesn't extend much beyond the past 50 years when the "acknowledgment" of God appeared on all currency (1957), in the national motto (1956), and the Pledge of Allegiance (1954). Furthermore, the above quote makes very little sense (to me). It states "...this nation has acknowledged God...in references to God appearing on the nation’s, and this state’s greatest monuments...including the Ten Commandments..." So, this nation acknowledges God in the X Commandments? First off, isn't that a bit circular? And second, the X Commandments aren't an American document, they're Jewish, dating back to waaaay before this country was founded.

U.S. Oil for Votes Program

The oil-election issue What's this? Oil? Bush? Election? Ohmuhgosh!

McClellan said only that Bandar had visited the White House on April 1 and pledged to take actions to ensure that crude oil prices remain between $22 and $28 a barrel.

"We've made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren't taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy," McClellan said.

Wait a minute. If BushCo's views on oil prices are that they should be determined by market forces, then what are they doing getting pledges from Saudi royals that they'll keep crude prices fixed between $22 and $28 a barrel? Could it be that the neo-con mantra of "free market" is just an empty slogan and that they only favor a free market when it benefits them? Could it be that they actually do favor government regulation, but only when it protects their wallets? Nah...couldn't be!

(Bandar) said gasoline prices are rising because of inadequate U.S. refining capacity rather than tight oil supplies. "It doesn't matter how much oil we produce today," he said. "You cannot refine enough."

It's not us, it's YOU! It's YOUR fault your gas prices are so high. You can't refine it fast enough, puny Americans!

Bandar's family is close to the Bush family, and the prince is reportedly the only diplomat in Washington who has regular access to the Oval Office.

You don't say! An oil sheikh with close ties to the Bush family and regular access to the Oval Office? Could it be??

Some private experts are predicting that the U.S. average will rise to as much as $3 per gallon this summer, noting that stocks are at the lowest levels in 30 years for this time of the year. "The gasoline market is now on the precipice of a serious supply problem," Barclays Capital said in a recent report.

But, how can this be? We own the country with the largest amount of proven reserves in the world! (Or was that second largest? No matter). Are they saying, then, that Bush, given near complete control over one of the world's largest reserves of crude oil, can't get it out of the ground and turn it into gasoline? Well, that just doesn't make any sense, given the great success of his multiple failed oil companies. Oh. Ooops.

In recent months, Kerry has advocated a broad switch of U.S. energy policy, saying the Bush administration's emphasis on drilling more oil at home and abroad should be replaced with programs to conserve fuel and reduce American dependence on imported oil.

Kerry said Monday that he has his own plan for lowering gas prices. "And you know what the No. 1 priority of that plan was? Put pressure on the Saudis to increase production and lower the prices to America," he said.

Wait a tick. If Kerry advocates changing U.S. energy policy to focus more on conservation and a reduction of American dependence on imported oil, then why would Priority 1 be to pressure foreign sources to increase production for import to America??

Kerry suggested that the deal reported by Woodward shows that the administration is coddling the Saudis and other Arab oil producers that are suspected of serving as sources of funds for terrorist groups.

Gee...ya think?

Starr Dances

Life After the Report

You mean your investigation into Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Do you feel your work as an independent counsel helped the country in any way or just added to cynicism about government?

I am so ill-equipped to say.

Huh? Starr was perfectly equipped to decide whether or not to bring charges against the President for lying about oral sex, but he's now somehow unqualified to say whether or not he thought it was good for the country? Oh, wait. Nevermind. I forgot. Reich Wing shills aren't concerned with what's good for the country.

Ah, well...who cares. Read the interview. It's pretty entertaining. Even borders on satiric. Come to think of it...I can't even tell if it's serious or satire.

On Reagan

What would Reagan think of the Pledge case? Who friggin' cares!

there is one current question I could shed some light on: “How would Reagan respond to the attempt to remove ‘One Nation Under God’ from America’s pledge of allegiance?”

Answer: he would be quite disturbed.

Arguably, he was always quite disturbed.

The founder of the Soviet state, Vladimir Lenin, had called religion “necrophilia” (sex with a corpse)

Well, if you think about the way most Xtians pine for their favorite dead character from mythology, "necrophilia" is a pretty good description of the fanatacism that is Fundamentalist Xtianity today.

Reagan thought it important to acknowledge God in school. Doing so reminded young people that they possessed sacred rights granted by the Almighty rather than by benevolent government bureaucrats who can arbitrarily take them away.

While I would hardly call Ashcroft "benevolent", he, along with the rest of the Bush cabal, certainly has arbitrarily taken away many of our rights with the "Patriot" Act. So much for possessing sacred rights granted by God!

Bonk Job Evading Taxes

Religious tax evasion

"Since 1997, Hovind has engaged in financial transactions indicating sources of income and has made deposits to bank accounts well in excess of $1 million per year during some of these years, which would require the filing of federal income taxes," Schneider said.

Hovind said he suspected he is being targeted because of his religious beliefs.

No, he's being targeted because of his tax evasion.

Stoll said the IRS allegations were "based on misperceptions."

"They don't understand how the church is created and registered, how it operates under church law, which is entirely separate from secular authority," Stoll said.

Given the fact that it's not a church, it's an amusement park, these bonk jobs don't seem to understand how businesses are created and registered. Regardless, even churches aren't exempt from secular authority.

Hovind also has a May 18 court date on three misdemeanor charges stemming from his refusal to get a building permit. He objects to the permit process as an undue expense on his church.

The guy is making million-dollar-a-year deposits into his accounts and his complaint is that the fees for building permits are an undo expense? Gimme a break. This is just another case of religionists thinking that they're above the law.

fGoT's Press Conference - 4/13/04

Transcript

This has been tough weeks in that country.

The former Governor of Texas didn't even make it two sentences before his illiteracy reared its ugly head and irritated me.

Although these instigations of violence come from different factions, they share common goals. They want to run us out of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi people.

First off, way to go George! You've manage to successfully unite former sworn enemies (Shiite and Sunni Muslims) under a common goal...the destruction of U.S. forces in Iraq. Next, it should be noted that democracy isn't something you can foist upon anyone. The Iraqi people would have to first want democracy in order to have hopes for it or to have those hopes destroyed. But George, in his rush to "secure" the oil fields of Iraq and make the Middle East safe for U.S. "interests" (in other words, business ventures), never bothered to ask the Iraqis if they wanted us to bring them democracy. In fact, many Iraqis have stated that democracy can't work in Iraq. The whole invasion was a farce. Saddam was no more a threat to his neighbors or the world than any other megalomaniacal dictator and the Iraqis were hardly begging for democracy. It was a power grab, pure and simple.

The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable.

This is commonly known as "damage control". But not a very good example of it. To simply claim that what people are saying (Iraq will erupt in civil war, Iraq is unstable, there will be popular uprisings, etc.) isn't true without evidence -- and contrary to the fact that Iraq isn't stable and that there are popular uprisings -- can hardly be considered compelling. And what the hell is "relative" stability?

Most Iraqis by far reject violence and oppose dictatorship.

This is probably true. Which is why they want us out. They view you, George, as the oppressive dictator who has brought violence and destruction to them.

In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong protections for individual rights. They want their independence. And they want their freedom.

Wow...now there's a revelation! The puppet government hand-picked by the hawks in Washington want the same thing as the hawks in Washington. Amazing!

By helping secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens.

Oh, come on! This is such bullshit! I can't believe we, as a nation, let the fGoT get away with making such baseless claims. Saddam/Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. -- at least not any more than, say, North Korea and we seem to be managing that threat just dandy without the need for an all-out invasion of their country.

This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a Purple Heart to some of our wounded, had the honor of thanking them on behalf of all Americans.

Translation: "I'm a good war pResident, aren't I!"

Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and we pray that their families will find God's comfort in the midst of their grief.

I guess anyone not of an Abrahamic faith can just piss off, then, is that it? They can just suffer in the hell that George has created by sending their children/spouses/parents to die for his political-financial war.

America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them.

Oh, yeah. That's readily apparent. Just look at all the peace and prosperity in Iraq! See what a good job our soldiers are doing? I thought their mission was to bring peace and stability and prosperity and democracy to Iraq. Maybe it was just to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. In that case, "Mission Accomplished"!

We're constantly reviewing their needs.

They need to not be in a country they don't belong getting shot at! Or maybe they just need enough Kevlar to go around. That might be nice. Or maybe they need hazard pay, or decent benefits once they return. That might be nice.

Troop strength now and in the future is determined by the situation on the ground.

The situation is bad.

If additional forces are needed, I will send them -- provided it doesn't require me sending anyone I know. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them -- provided it doesn't cut into my estate.

Okay, so I embellished. A little. Call it artistic license.

As a proud, independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We're a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest as well.

And the nations in Central and South America? And Southeast Asia? (Think Panama, think Vietnam, think Grenada, etc, etc). How would they feel about our status as a "liberating" power? I think they all have a slightly different perspective.

We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.

Really? Will the Iraqi people get a vote? No? Hmm...as evidenced by the not-so-slow erosion of our voting rights here in America, it's clear that the fGoT has a horribly twisted idea of how democracy works.

Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future.

In other words, once June 30th passes, it's no longer our problem. If Iraq implodes, it'll be because of their own shortcomings and failings. It'll have nothing to do with us and the downward spiral into which we forced them.

As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue and our military commitment will continue.

Then what the hell is the point of "turning over" Iraq to the Iraqis?? If our military is still the dominant force in Iraq, we will hardly have turned over control.

Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion.

So...our military will remain in order to ensure that the U.S. puppet government isn't threatened by any actual Iraqis.

The terrorists who take hostages or plants (sic) a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.

...is the same as the terrorist who blows up an abortion clinic or murders gynocologists with shotguns and sniper rifles.

None of these acts is the work of a religion.

Maybe not directly, but religion certainly has a way of fueling the fire and enabling and motivating extremists, now doesn't it.

All are the work of a fanatical political ideology.

You ought to know, eh George?

They seek to oppress and persecute women.

And you would never advocate that the rights of women be infringed, now would you, George? I guess by pushing for a ban on women's reproductive freedom, you're just trying to protect women, right? Funny. That's the same thing Muslim extremists say when they force women to wear burqas and to walk behind men or ride in the back of a car or when they tell them they can't have an education.

And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.

More empty rhetoric and fear mongering.

Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed.

Come on, George, don't be afraid to call it what your predecessors called it: the domino theory. Except that I guess you can't call it that since the domino theory proved not to be true and how useful is an empty, fallacious theory. Well, apparently quite, if you just rename it.

For the first time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of terror -- a series of powerful, effective blows.

Yes, we have been getting our asses kicked in Fallujah, haven't we.

The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the training camps in Afghanistan. They have lost safe havens in Pakistan.

Yeah, right!

They lost an ally in Baghdad.

They never had an ally in Baghdad. More fear mongering and lies.

And perhaps more frightening to these men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of freedom and reform in the greater Middle East.

Where, exactly?

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable.

They're not unthinkable, George, they're reality. Look around you!

And now for the "unscripted" portion of the press conference. Let's count the "on message" phrases used to avoid answering the question asked, shall we?

stay the course...A free Iraq...we're making progress...we're doing the right thing...I just don't make decisions that way (based on polls)...We're changing the world, and the world will be better off...the advance of freedom...advance toward a free society...

We interrupt this fun little exercise to bring you the following question, asked by a reporter at the press conference and promptly not answered by the fGoT.

QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.

How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

Now there's a question for you! If only the press had the balls to press the issue when George avoids the question.

And now back to our regularly scheduled reckoning of on-message buzz phrases:

...Saddam Hussein was a threat...he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people (which we sold him)...He was a threat because he coddled terrorists (much like we do. Hello Mr. Sharon, how are you today?)...He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States...he refused to disarm (acutally, Saddam did disarm)...We knew they were hiding things (huh...apparently they were hiding the fact that they weren't hiding anything. so well, that Bush thought they really were hiding something)...A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught (hypocritical ass!...physician, heal thy self!)...Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons...he was a danger...It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country...This guy was a torturer, a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves...he was a horrible individual...

Okay, time for another breather.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency.

Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

BUSH: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context, because he had asked me if I was -- something about killing bin Laden. That's what the question was.

And I said, you know, compared to how I felt at the time, after the attack, I didn't have that -- and I also went on to say, my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote said.

Oh, hey, well, thanks for clearing that all up.

Oh, hey...here's another good question that didn't get answered:

QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked.

One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

And back to the accounting task...

The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on a war ever since...we must deal with gathering threats...the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war...we weren't on a war footing...I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat...the world is better off without Saddam Hussein...we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country...had we had any inkling that this was going to happ...we must remain steadfast and strong...the country really wasn't on a war footing...Iraq is a part of the war on terror...I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons (we already have...there aren't any there)...They could still be there. They could be hidden...He's a dangerous man...He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them (irrelevant to the current invasion, two totally different times frames being talked about)...We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people (like you, George?)...we'll stay the course, we'll complete the job...My message to our troops is, we'll stay the course and complete the job...if I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls...

This might be the biggest avoidance of a question yet:

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

So, let me get this straight. The answer to "Why are you and the VP appearing together in front of the 9/11 commission?" is "We're looking forward to answering the 9/11 commission's questions".

QUESTION: You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?

BUSH: And the, frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with al-Qaida in that part of the world.

Oh, you mean like how the world as astounded and outraged when the U.S. acted unilaterally against Iraq?

The A.Q. Khan bust, the network that we uncovered thanks to the hard work of our intelligence-gathering agencies and the cooperation of the British, was another victory in the war against terror.

Yeah, huge success that was. An operation like that can't be carried out by one person. And even if it could, once he was busted, what happened? He was immediately pardoned. Huge success there!

This was a shadowy network of folks that were willing to sell state secrets to the highest bidder.

So it wasn't just one man. Did we bust the whole lot of them? Do we even know who "they" were?

QUESTION: In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

In other words, "...so Karl could've told me what to say".

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

Surprise, surprise! Nothing popped in to the fGoT's head. How shocking!

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

He's confident he's made mistakes, but he can't come up with one. Huh. Sounds a lot like WMD in Iraq. He's confident that they're there, but he can't come up with them. And if there's one thing that's for sure, it's that Bush has made mistakes. Oh, and that he's not quick -- on his feet, on his ass, laying down...

This is the war that other presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.

We're already in the 21st century. We headed into it last century. It would be nice if the Repugs would join us here in the 21st century where women control their bodies, where gays and lesbians are treated as equal citizens, where we don't fight holy wars and where we don't believe in archaic mythology.

One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course you can.

Just not the way George is going about it. See below.

That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology.

George just doesn't get it. You have to give a voice to those who don't have one. You can't just march in to their contry and say, "Here! Have some freedom! Do it like we do!" Terrorism exists because people have been forced in to a corner and have no other option. If you give them other options, if you give them a voice and listen to them, the terrorism will stop. Violence only begets violence, as evidence by the current debacle in Iraq and in Israel/Palestine.

So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.

But only for those who share your extreme ideology.

You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country.

You mean like at Diebold, where they've developed the technology to rig elections without any trace? You mean like in your endorsement of granting gays and lesbians equal rights? You mean like in in your support of women's reproductive rights? The only freedom George believes in is the freedom of the uber-wealthy to be free of responsibility or the burden of paying their fair share for maintaining society.

I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.

Just so long as they're rich, white, and man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman, and so long as the man has final say over what he woman can do.

QUESTION: Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic.

BUSH: Gosh, I don't know. I mean ...

QUESTION: Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber.

BUSH: A pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

QUESTION: But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

Another good question that never got answered.

Religious Apologism

There, he was told about a girl who went to Lourdes hoping to receive the miracle of sight, which never occurred. Still, she was later buried there with a tombstone inscribed: "What is important is not to see, but to understand."

Ref.

And the religious among us, all around the world, nodded knowingly and sighed, "Ahhh, yes...indeed".

Permit me, if you will, to parse this out a bit. Oh, why thank you. Right then. This girl had, at some point in her life, gotten the idea that a religious miracle would/could heal her sight. (If I had to guess, I'd say she got that idea from the purveyors of religious beneficence -- those very people who gain from the belief of others). When she went to get the miracle, it never came. Is this seen as a setback to religion in the eyes (pardon the pun) of the girl or of religion? No. Empirically speaking, a situation like that is a nightmare. The rational person would conclude that the religious promise of a miraculous recovery of sight was bunk. But, for whatever reason, religion is constantly given a "pass" by almost everyone in the world. Rather than address the complete failure, the issue is sidestepped. What, exactly, was it that the girl "understood" after having had the promise of sight revoked by religion? And why, if sight isn't the important thing, did anyone claim that her visiting Lourdes would result in the return of it for her? Apparently, that's not important.

When will they open their eyes?

Canadian Free Speech

An article by a conservative wonk in the U.S. claiming that pending Canadian legislation that protects gays and lesbians is a violation of free speech.

Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, a longtime supporter of gay rights and an important figure in the American Psychiatric Association, published a study finding that many gays can become heterosexual.

Conveniently, the author fails to mention that the study goes against the APA's own standing on homosexuality. Direct from the questions and answers page of the APA website:

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.


Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

And

There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).

There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.

Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.

The wonk goes on...

Pedophilia and sadism are among the conditions listed by the American Psychiatric Association under "sexual orientation."

But, again, the Q&A page at APA specifically condradicts this claim.

What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

Nothing in there indicates that the APA considers pedaphelia as a sexual orientation.

As usual, the position of the Reich Wing is founded on nothing more substantial than fear and hype.

A pResidency on Vacation...Literally

I guess when you're the spoiled son of privilege, you become accustomed to a certain way of life -- namely a permanent vacation.

fGoT on Vacation

...and the thinking world's all, "WTF"?

Weird sophistry from a Fundie Bonk Job

I do believe that talking birds are more capable of stringing sentences together into actual logic (if even by chance) than these people.

The United States Supreme Court has heard arguments from California atheist Michael Newdow that school children are religiously coerced when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- infamous these days because it includes the words "under God."

Mr. Newdow's reasoning? "I don't believe God exists."

If that's true, it's hard to understand why Mr. Newdow believes he has any rights to be violated.

No, it's simple to understand. Newdow, like many people, doesn't believe that his rights come from God. Which is only logical. The rights we give ourselves come from -- tadah! -- us!

If Creator God isn't real, then we are all just animals in an accidental universe.

Why does this freak out Fundies so badly? Are they really that insecure about their existence that any chance that we're not "the chosen species" threatens to unravel their world?

The first amendment to the United States Constitution does indeed say Americans have a right to be free in matters of religion. But why do we have any "human rights" at all? How do we know what they are?

How do we know that there's oxygen in the air we breathe? How do we know it's oxygen that we need, anyway? Is he being purposely obtuse or is he really this stupid? Don't answer that...I know.

Attention, Mr. Newdow and all atheists: If God isn't real, then our founding documents aren't worth the paper they're written on. There's no such thing as right and wrong, and you haven't got a right to complain about being "coerced" to recite the pledge or use currency that has "In God we trust" stamped on it.

Nice logic. How neat that it works out for the Fundie Bonk Jobs no matter what! If God exists, the Atheists are wrong! If God doesn't exist, the Atheists are wrong to complain because they have no rights! Gee, how convenient that, without ever bothering to prove that first, God exists, and second, that all rights come from God, the author has jumped right to the conclusion that God must exist because we have rights and we have rights because God exists. Circular logic anyone? How about some nice fallacy?

I am regularly taken to task by atheists who don't like what I write. They criticize Christians for "forcing" our values on others who don't share them. They make it very clear that, unlike Christians, they don't believe there are standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Most Atheists don't contend that there is no right or wrong. There are such things as right and wrong, but they aren't absolute, and they don't come from an imaginary man in the sky.

Fine. There's no such thing as right and wrong.

Thank you for coming out tonight, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'd now like to introduce you to the Straw Man argument. "Atheists say there is no such thing as right and wrong". Let's now begin attacking this fake argument.

The only way people have human rights is if they are created in the image of God.

No, the only way people can have human rights (or morality or society) is if they grant them to one another. Morality and human rights are part of a social contract we make with one another when we decide to be a part of society. Human rights were not handed down from a make-believe man in the sky. Read the Bible. Read about its sanctioning of slavery. Read about its sanctioning the suppression women as less than second class citizens. Read about its sanctioning of warring, and murdering, and raping, and incest. Where are the human rights in the Bible, the supposed word of God and code for how we should live our lives?

The fact that Newdow's worldview is nonsense wouldn't keep the Supreme Court from ruling on his complaint. The court has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to split legal hairs while ignoring weightier matters of justice. The "justices" -- like most Americans -- hold a worldview that says God is a mere belief that one can choose whether or not to accept.

The Justices aren't ruling on whether or not a worldview including God is a mere belief to be chosen...they're ruling on whether or not the government is endorsing a religion...which it isn't allowed to do, according to the Constitution, which -- according to this guy's reasoning -- came from God . Ergo, God says that the government can't endorse God. Whoa! Aaaand I've gone cross-eyed.

God's reality, however, is not an issue of personal belief; it is an issue of fact and whether that fact can be proven to be true.

And, it turns out, that "fact" can't be proven to be true. So it really does come down to a matter of whether or not one chooses to believe.

If God's reality cannot be proven to be true, then America needs to throw out the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and quit talking about justice and human rights

People like this really frighten me. These are the same people who say that, without God in a person's life, that person will rape and murder. Obviously, this is not true. Well, at least not for the sane among us. Maybe this guy would rape and murder and steal of he suddenly realized that God doesn't exist, but we have a nice padded room all ready and waiting for him.

The good news is that God's reality can be proven. For the better part of a century, the leading edge of virtually every field of science has been amassing evidence that the universe is too complex and too finely tuned to be a cosmic accident.

I love this argument. It's the same one that says, when a person wins the lottery, it is impossible that it happened by random chance. Furthermore, this argument can be used to make the claim that no one has really ever won the lottery because the odds are just too high that it would ever happen by chance. But people have won the lottery. Just because an event has occurred (evolution, for example) that doesn't mean that it must have been planned.

Apart from a Creator, no one can even explain where it came from, much less how it developed into such a marvelous place.

I like asking Creationists where the Creator came from. They usually respond, "He's always existed". Hmm...then why can't the universe have always existed? Or, why have Creationists concluded that there wasn't a creator of the Creator? Do they have evidence that there was no other creator? And is this other creator still alive? And did that creator have a creator? And on and on. You see, it all depends on where you decide where to stop "going back", as it were.

The best science says God is real.

Actually, the best science puts forth hypotheses which can be tested in a repeatable manner, which, "God science" does not, and can not, do. Hack science says God is real.

Mr. Newdow says, "I don't believe God exists." It doesn't matter whether he believes it or not; God's reality is a fact.

It would be especially nice if the God freaks could establish God's existence as fact, but they can't. So, to bandy about their claims that the existence of God is fact only reinforces the impression that they really have no clue about real science or even what the hell a "fact" is.

If America has to accommodate whatever idea anyone might believe -- even if it contradicts the facts, even if it makes no sense -- then we'd better prepare for the lawsuit from the Flat Earth Society (http://www.flat-earth.org). Because we'll also be needing to remove all the globes from America's school rooms.

Ugh. The fact that the Earth is round can be proven.

Superstition and Ignorance

Lapse in "Prayer Coverage" blamed for film breaking during showing of "The Passion"

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do superstition and ignorance know no bounds?

Russ Hughes, director of worship and prophecy...

Director of worhsip and prophecy? I didn't realize that prophecy required direction.

...at St Luke’s, said that throughout the weekend teams of people had been praying for the screenings, in order to “protect” equipment and boost their success.

He revealed that on Sunday, members of the church were even praying for nominated seats in the theatre. But he added that there had been a gap in the “prayer cover” on Saturday evening.

Can you imagine if a group of Star Wars fans were in a constant "Force coverage" for the showing of any of Lucas' films what kind of mentally unstable fanatics they'd be labeled as? But when Christians do it, it's taken as perfectly acceptable.

“While I definitely wouldn’t say that it was a demon or the devil that did it, I would not rule out the possibility that there were spiritual forces involved,” he said.

Now...read it this way: "While I definitely wouldn’t say that it was the Emperor that did it, I would not rule out the possibility that the dark side of the force was involved”. Sound kooky? Of course! Any more kooky than the Christian version? No way!

No failure left uncriticized

No faith-based attacks on Bush allowed

Last Sunday, John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, worshiped at a black church in St. Louis and used a Bible verse to describe President Bush's leadership as one that has "faith but has no deeds."

Specifically, Kerry summed up Bush by citing James 2:14: "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?"

Bush's attack dog Steve Schmidt pounced on Kerry, intoning that the Massachusetts senator's indictment "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack." Did Schmidt forget that he speaks for one of the most "faith-based" administrations ever? If Bush can be legitimately attacked on any front, it is that of "faith." In other words, the president's own public declarations of faith as the source of his leadership and designs on the world are fair game for political scrutiny and attack.

-"Faith changes lives. I know, because faith has changed mine. I could not be governor if I did not believe in a divine plan that supersedes all human plans." -the fGoT

That wasn't divine intervenion, that was a famous name and the deep pockets of the oil industry.

- "My faith frees me. Frees me to put the problem of the moment in proper perspective. Frees me to make decisions that others might not like. Frees me to try to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well." - the fGoT

Since when has the fGoT ever done the right thing?

Hypocrisy at its height...and then some

The Christian Taliban

"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like – and if you have babies, you have babies." Randall Terry, Operation Rescue

As a "Family Values" advocate, this guy is one of the biggest hypocrites of them all. The following is from a member of the anti-choice movement quoted from his epitaph for Paul Hill, an abortion clinic bomber who was executed in Florida,

in 1998, Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, abandoned his wife of 19 years, along with their four children (three were adopted), and then declared bankruptcy, so that the National Organization of Women would get off his back. This declaration deprived his wife of their home. He then married his assistant, 16 years his junior, age 22. Without informing his followers of what he had done to his wife and children, he sent out a fund-raising letter to his supporters, who responded faithfully, whereupon he bought a $432,000 home -- not in New York state, where he could see his children regularly, but in Florida, where the state's bankruptcy laws don't permit creditors to get your home.

The rest of the Christian Taliban article is quite, good, too.

The Passion of the Bonk Jobs

On Tour With the Hairbingers of Doom

Coming in the wake of the success of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which details Jesus's last 12 hours before crucifixion, the Left Behind series is the latest example of the huge impact religious themes are having on popular culture in the US, as well as the vast amounts of money that can be made from them.

From where I stand, this is the latest example of how ridiculously ignorant and superstitious people are and how Fundie leaders are more than willing to cash in on the gullibility of their followers.

Ms Golightly, who has read only the first three of the Left Behind series, found Gibson's film hard going but rewarding: "It was two hours of rough beating. But it was good."

Yup. Yessiree. Nothing like a good, rough beating to satisfy an American audience.

The book's core reader is a white, southern, female homemaker in her mid-40s, who is a college-educated, born-again Christian.

What does that tell you? And just to clarify, when the author says "college-educated", he means like how Bush was "college educated". They attended. And they got a diploma. But they didn't pay much attention. Or if they were paying attention it was because they were taking distance learning classes from Liberty University, which did nothing to increase their knowledge of the world around them, only reinforce their fantasies.

A Time/CNN poll 18 months ago found that 59% of Americans believe the events in the book of Revelation are going to come true, while nearly 25% think the Bible predicted the September 11 attacks.

???

Little wonder then that sales jumped 60% after 9/11 and Desecration -the 9th book, released in October 2001 - was the bestselling novel of the year. "The tragedy of 9/11 made everything so much more real and believable," Jenkins says.

"Yay! People died, Bush used it to begin a downward spiral of death and destruction, and we made a killing preying on the fears of the ignorant! Yay!", Jenkins should've said.

Referring to Mel Gibson's film, LaHaye said: "I think the world is waking up to the fact that there are a great many people who support wholesome movies and maybe we'll have a whole new field of faith-based movies.

Ex-squeeze me?! "The Passion" was wholesome??? You sick, sick bastard.

"People complain that The Passion is violent and wonder if children should see it ... But they're used to violence. Good grief, television and the internet abound with it. But that's senseless violence. This is purposeful violence."

Oh. Well, then. Of course! All is forgiven. It's purposeful violence. Who are the first to rail against Hollywood for its depictions of violence and sex? Christians. And yet, when anyone attacks "The Passion" as being too violent, they defend it. Is the concept of hypocrisy even in the Bible? I think it is. So, how is it that Xtians seem to have no idea what the hell it is?

A Good Read

Arrogance and Ignorance on Behalf of God

What fuels the efforts of conservative and evangelical Christians to defend the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Arrogance and ignorance seem to me to be two of the primary driving forces: arrogance in that they think their beliefs deserves a privileged status and ignorance about history, law, and religion.
Jen Kibler-McCabe writes at Blogs4God an open letter to Michael Newdow:

Having grown up as a northern Californian in an atmosphere that was much more progressive than other parts of the country, I knew from an early age that I had the right not to recite the pledge -- I could even name the Supreme Court ruling that gave me that right.

Jen Kibler-McCabe seems to be one of those many Christians who are under the perception that so long as people can opt out of some activity, then it is constitutional for the government to encourage and endorse it. By that reasoning, government-written and government-endorsed prayers to Allah in public schools would be constitutional so long as students are allowed to refrain from joining in. Of course, when stated in such stark terms, the lunacy of that a position is manifest. The government has no authority to endorse or support the acknowledgment of any gods, much less prayers to them. The fact that students or other citizens can opt out of participating in such endorsement or support doesn't suddenly make it all OK.

Other faiths had the right to practice and have their symbols displayed, but my Christian holidays and symbols were banned. Prayer was not allowed in school because it might offend someone...

For someone who claims to have known at an early age what Supreme Court ruling gave students the right not to join in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, Jen Kibler-McCabe has a really poor knowledge of Supreme Court history with regards to religious liberty decisions. Prayers were never outlawed. Students, acting as individuals, can pray all they want. What was outlawed were state-written, state-sponsored, state-endorsed, and state-encouraged prayers. The reason wasn't that they might "offend" someone. The reason was that the government has no authority to write, sponsor, endorse, or encourage prayers and that doing so sends the message that certain people are more privileged members of the community while others are outsiders - all because of their religious beliefs.

Conservatives like to play on people's ignorance of the Supreme Court by pretending that a prohibition on a government action is the same as a prohibition on individuals' actions - that restricting state-written prayers is the same as restricting individuals' prayers. The question we are faced with here: is Jen one of those who has been misled and doesn't know any better or is she one of those who does know better and is trying to mislead others? I'd love to see examples of where "other faiths" are given rights and freedoms denied to Christians.

Having studied religion as it relates to politics and ideology, I cringed when I heard about the lunacy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they sided 2-1 in your favor.

A lot of people, not just Jen Kibler-McCabe, have decried the 9th Circuit Court decision - but I doubt that they have read it. If they had, they would find a very careful, very cautious decision that relies heavily on Supreme Court precedent. The 9th Circuit Court judges went to a lot of effort not to stick their necks out and they based every one of their points on something already decided by the Supreme Court.

How will you handle your daughter's world history classes as they discuss medieval Europe, a period heavily influenced by Catholicism? What about any Asian history which would cover Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese religions? Are you going to request that she be excused from class as they discuss the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment?

Jen Kibler-McCabe appears to be one of those defenders of the Pledge of Allegiance who thinks that daily recitation of the affirmation "this nation is under God" is somehow equivalent to the neutral observation that "in the past, many political leaders have believed in God." How ridiculous is that? Michael Newdow isn't fighting to remove neutral references to religion in historical or cultural lessons, he is fighting to remove a state-written and state-endorsed approval of a particular theistic belief.

There's a world of difference between the two - one which even conservative Christians like Jen Kibler-McCabe would recognize if it didn't involve their own beliefs. Imagine the contrast between pledging belief in Allah and a history lesson which described in influence of Islam on the Middle East. Is the former unconstitutional? Absolutely. Is the latter unconstitutional? Absolutely not. Would opposition to the former logically entail opposition to the latter? Not at all. But of course, conservative and evangelical Christians don't believe in the Islamic conception of God, so they are able to see (or at least acknowledge) the distinction here. When it comes to their own beliefs, however, such good sense seems to evaporate.

Another issue that has arisen from your lawsuit is the demand that "[you] want [your] belief system to be given the same weight" as other belief systems that profess faith in a deity. Did you ever consider that doing so would limit the belief systems of others? I'm not going to claim that atheism isn't a belief system because it is: you have to be resolute in the belief that there is no deity and no higher power, making it a religion of sorts.

Oh, the irony - by acknowledging that making room for his beliefs would "limit the belief systems of others," Jen Kibler-McCabe doesn't seem to recognize the corollary: when the government endorses her beliefs, it essentially "limits the beliefs of others." That, of course, is exactly why the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is being challenged. I'm sure that she wouldn't approve of it being changed to "under no God," but that of course just underscores the hypocrisy of the Pledge's defenders.

It's really not surprising that after a letter filled with so many logical, legal, and historical errors that at the end Jen Kibler-McCabe would be reduced to such blatant mischaracterizations of atheism as well. I doubt that she has the first idea as to what atheism is or entails. She's "not going to claim that atheism isn't a belief system" because she doesn't know enough about atheism to write about it at all. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a lack of a single belief (theism). Atheism isn't a religion, although it is included in some religions. It wouldn't have taken much time or effort to learn the truth of these matters, but apparently she didn't consider it worth it.

If you want to keep your right to your beliefs, please refrain from abusing the legal system to infringe on my right to my beliefs.

I always love to see people make such grandiose claims because it demonstrates beyond a doubt that they haven't given serious or fair thought to the subject. To see why, take a very close look at what Jen Kibler-McCabe is claiming: if the phrase "under God" is removed from the official Pledge of Allegiance which the government asks people to recite, her "right" to her "beliefs" will be infringed upon.

Now, what "beliefs" do you suppose she is talking about? What will be "infringed" upon? Will the government be endorsing atheism? No - although as noted above, any objection to that by a person who defends government endorsement of theism is a mark of hypocrisy. Will the government be endorsing Islam or Buddhism? No. Will the government be endorsing humanism or existentialism? No. Will the government be forcing people not to say "under God" when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No. Will the government be banning the belief that there is some connection between America and God? No.

Quite simply, a failure to endorse theism (and a particular sort of theism, at that) in the Pledge of Allegiance cannot reasonably be described as an "infringement" on the "beliefs" of anyone at all - everyone remains just as free as ever to believe whatever they want. There isn't even an infringement upon anyone's actions.

So why do people like Jen Kibler-McCabe make arguments like this? Sadly, there seems to be a perception that when particular Christian privileges are lost, then that represents a loss of rights as well. It's not unlike a white person complaining about blacks being allowed to sit in the front of the bus, saying that the refusal of the government to give whites special recognition above blacks somehow means that whites' rights are being infringed upon. Well, I have to say that such a position is incredibly arrogant, short-sighted, and ignorant.

Christians don't lose any rights when their beliefs aren't treated as being special and better than the beliefs of others. They may not like losing their privileges and preferred status, but the fact of the matter is they never deserved those things to begin with. They only had them because in the past they have been able to wield their political power in a manner that ignored the rights of minorities - but that power has been eroding and the end result is ultimately more liberty and more opportunity for all.

More proof that they only care about ramming their views down our throats

Oh, sure they love you when you're a zygote. They fawn over you when you're a fetus. They'll do everything they can to "protect" you from the will of your own mother. But once you're born, you're fair game! It's a tough world...get used to it. If you're a hot little 15-year old, they'll do with you as they please.

Anti-Abortion Extremist Found Guilty of Molestation