Question of scale I guess...

Why is something like this presented as a human interest oddity:

A shaman in Norway has suggested aboriginal people in B.C. might have cursed the Nordic country's Olympic athletes...when Norway's early results in the Vancouver Games were not as good as expected, the Norwegian broadcaster NRK sought out a Sami shaman — or indigenous spiritualist — who speculated his counterparts in B.C. might be the cause.

The main reactions are ones of mocking dismissal, treating this story as a spiritual amuse-bouche. Meanwhile this is seen as a serious (if outrageous) statement by millions:

Pat Robertson, the host of the "700 Club," blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it."...
The Haitians "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever," Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' "

Thinking of this sort has engendered actual discussions here and here, for example.

As for the wider scope of the Vancouver 2010 games, it's been interesting contrasting the coverage from American/Canadian sources, and the far less fawning -- even acerbic -- British. I'd say a lot of the British writing makes sense.

PS: I wrote up a thing of Louis Riel months ago. Think the story of that 19th century isn't still sharp? Check this out:

Liberals are demanding a Tory MP apologize for criticizing Métis leader Louis Riel. Edmonton MP Peter Goldring sent out a pamphlet in December to "set the record straight" about Riel's actions in the late 1800s...Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville said the Conservative party should apologize to the Métis for what she calls a "smear campaign" against the founder of Manitoba.

HB376 update and denouement

A draft post became published a while ago on this blog about HB376, a bill in the State House. The thinking is much more logically and clearly presented at my post on BlueMassGroup. I'll talk about the bill in a second, but I do want to relate my experiences attempting to contact the Democratic co-sponsors.

I have made three attempts to contact each Democratic state representative who signed on as co-sponsor of this bill over the past two weeks. I can understand that these representative are busy, so I must highlight Representatives Calter, Dwyer, DiNatale, and Rosa not only for replies to my initial inquiry, but extended the kindness of responding to a follow-up with a real discussion. I also had a productive talk with the legislative aide for Representative Lantigua.

The other representatives' offices have yet to offer even the courtesy of indicating that they have received my message. If anybody would care to contact the representatives below with questions of their own, please feel free. Maybe you'll get an answer; if you do, please comment it here.

Paul J. Donato 35th Middlesex 617-722-2090
Kevin J. Murphy 18th Middlesex 617-722-2877
Kathi-Anne Reinstein 16th Suffolk 617-722-2783
Angelo M. Scaccia 14th Suffolk 617-722-2060


As for the status of the bill itself, I've gathered through my conversations the following impressions:

1 - This bill was filed in a political and legal vacuum of sorts. Representatives signed on as co-sponsors before the initial process of examining the implications of this bill could be addressed. The facts that this law would be swatted down by settled precedent, or the effect of deputizing school committees to arbitrate between different religion(s) seeking time in ceremonies had not even been considered.

2 - Furthermore, given the paucity of sponsors and the deadline for the session on the horizon, there is little chance of this bill advancing toward debate, vote, or passage.

3 - This bill was written in reaction to a student's recounting of a solitary incident to members of the General Court. As described to me, that incident was mishandled by school administration according to current law. The law was not the problem; administration understanding of it was. This is an issue for that district's administration, not the Commonwealth's legal code.

All this to say that this misguided bill seems to have little chance of going anywhere, probably wouldn't stand up much to real scrutiny in the first place, and hopefully will not be re-introduced in the next session.

11 Mass. Dems against religious equality

Note: I did not mean for the following article to be published until Monday. It requires editing and will be updated and significantly clarified then. A special apology to Representative DiNatale, who has corresponded with me.

---

A bill designed to promote majority religions in public schools pushed forward by eleven Democrats. A law built on the template adored by the "Concerned Women for America". The end result would be local officials deciding which faiths to highlight and implicitly endorse at graduations, competitions, and school events. Is this Texas? Alabama? Wyoming?

No, it's happening right here in Massachusetts through bill HB376 -- "An Act to Protect Religious Freedom of Students". You can find it here in PDF format. Any time spent following the far-right knows that "protection of religious freedom" is just right-wing speak for "promoting Christianity". It's the same thinking that a doctor can abandon his obligations and oath if he doesn't like his patient for religious reasons. This particular bill is designed to order schools to accommodate the promotion of religion at public school events. It's the usual foolishness of the far-right, but I just don't know why eleven Democrats in Boston would think that's a good idea.

The bill mandates that public schools implement:

A policy that allows for a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious views at school events, graduation ceremonies, and in class assignments, and non-curricular school groups and activities.

First, ignore the word "limited" -- everything, even the universe, has limits (heat death scheduled in several billion years). What this bill provides for is a small group of people (perhaps one) deciding the appropriate expression of religious views at public school events. This bill provides for the exclusion of non-religious students and students holding less common faiths at public events. Make no mistake, a public school allowing the expression of any certain beliefs has the impact of endorsing those beliefs to the detriment of those who do not agree. And let's be clear that if only one speaker is making religious declarations at a school event...which religion do you suppose will get the slot? If 90% of the fans at a softball game are Christian, what's the chance of a reading of the Qur'an starting the game? As for the 22% of Bay Staters without a religious affiliation, well, they're excluded entirely. For that matter, even if the Qur'an is read at a certain high school graduation, non-Muslim students are left out that year.

This failed in the bright red state of Oklahoma, where Democratic Governor Brad Henry understood that this type of bill puts school officials in the place of balancing the Constitutional freedoms of students.

Texas school boards are constantly fearful in navigating what school boards call "the rock and the hard place" of mixing church and state, but in a "limited manner". Of course, far-right groups such as the hate-powered Massachusetts Family Institute love this idea and want to see it happen. It's an easy way to push popular religions in schools at the cost of religious freedom -- a trade-off reactionaries of the world would love.

Make no mistake: students have ample opportunity to live their religious beliefs in public schools as things stand. They do not have the opportunity to use public time and resources to compel others to endure their proselytization. This bill would change that. No student should attend their hard-earned graduation, only to hear the invocation of somebody else's God as school officials applaud, all on that student's dime. Participating on the local high school football team should not include hectoring to change your beliefs. That is what this bill would do.

Now, I don't expect much from Republicans, but I would urge people to call the Democrats who signed onto this bill and ask why non-Christians in public school should be left out of part of their own graduation ceremonies and other events (numbers here):

James Dwyer 30th Middlesex
Bruce E. Tarr First Essex and Middlesex
Dennis Rosa 4th Worcester
James R. Miceli 19th Middlesex
Angelo M. Scaccia 14th Suffolk
Stephen L. DiNatale 3rd Worcester
Paul J. Donato 35th Middlesex
Kathi-Anne Reinstein 16th Suffolk
William Lantigua 16th Essex
Thomas J. Calter 12th Plymouth
Kevin J. Murphy 18th

Thoughts going into the weekend...

• The Supreme Court is just making sh-t up with that "Citizens United" decision. I still don't see how money is speech (strange how the Canadian court can declare the exact opposite), or how corporations are persons. Next, the Supreme Court will decide that computers are actually trees. I think corporations should have to serve jury duty.
  
  
• This decision now makes unions more important as far as the left is concerned. I wonder if their input on bills will be accorded more weight. Considering their strong opposition to the middle class tax hike included in the Senate bill, that's another blow to the "pass a crap bill and call it reform" camp.
  
  
• If all this is true, anyone to the left of ExxonMobil's board of directors should be worried that union memberships in the private sector is shrinking -- by 10% this year.
  
  
• The best idea I've seen on health care in the Browned-out Senate is fixing the Senate bill already passed through the 51-vote process of reconciliation. That's smart, and smart is better than desperate.
  
  
• I'm thinking we have a tripartisan system -- Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the rest of the Democrats. This headline is pitch-perfect: "House doesn't trust White House or Senate on health care".
  
  
• I'm not saying it would have changed the result of Coakley-Brown, but I feel that if Chuck Schumer were still head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee rather than nobody Senator Bob Menendez. This doesn't augur well for November.
  
  
• If Republicans are electable in Massachusetts, and Deval has the market cornered on hope...what's left for Cahill? I predict he finishes below 20% on Election Day.
  
  
• With Norfolk County Treasurer Joe Connolly out, Steve Grossman stands unopposed for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts treasurer. Of anyone on the November ballot, my vote for him and Barney Frank will likely be the most enthusiastic.
  
  
• Just how out of touch is the Obama White House? Their featured comic at the Correspondants' Dinner is...Jay Leno. As much as a bland comic can tick people off, he's done it. Why not just roll out Tiger Woods for some putting humor?
  
  
• An 84-year-old woman is found alive after 10 days in the Haitian earthquake rubble. In the wake of the calamity, when so many need so much and have so little, at least there is hope.
  
  
• After a half-hour of searching, I've found the text of the law named the "Education Reform Act of 2010" in some reports (PDF). I plan to be reviewing the text over the next few days.
  
  
• In other news, 11 Democrats are teaming up with the hate-driven Massachusetts Family Institute in a Texas-style cramming of religion down the throats of Massachusetts public school students. More on that next week.
  
  

What a train wreck...

"They can’t mess with our religion," Mr. Johnson told The Boston Globe. "They owe us a small lump sum for this."

This statement encapsulates the current brouhaha in Taunton. In sum:

[A student's] father, Charles Johnson, stirred up controversy when he told reporters of various newspapers this week that his son was suspended for drawing a picture of the crucifixion as part of a class project to draw a picture about the holidays.

... District officials say the boy told his teacher that it was himself on the cross, not Jesus. The drawing was not part of a school project. The boy was not suspended from school, but rather given a psychological evaluation out of concern that the picture was a cry for help. The picture circulated by the media is not the same one that prompted teachers to report the boy.

The town’s mayor called for [the superintendent] to apologize to the boy and his family. But he has since decided to back the school’s decisions.

The Christian Science Monitor, there. Area columnists such as this dingbat, this fool, and that moron are trying to feel outraged, not even mentioning the lack of factual clarity in this situation. It's reminiscent of the Gates Arrest affair, where we had a he-said/he-said disagreement about basic facts that occluded any chance of seeing what really happened. Some people remain determined not to learn their lesson, but would rather implicate one side based on no real knowledge whatsoever. Thus the media stampedes to finger-pointing, oblivious of their own obliviousness.

I find it suspicious that a teacher could, or would, single-handedly order a psychological evaluation of a child. I find it odd that the aggrieved party starts demanding monetary compensation from Minute One. I find it curious that the mayor changed positions quickly, even at the cost of opening himself up. I find it disturbing that some people just love the idea of being persecuted. I wouldn't be the faintest bit surprised to learn that this father has what the media likes to call a "colorful history". You don't convert that fast from victimization to extortion without lots of practice.

Now, the school did make a mistake in presuming that this young child knew the true nature of a cross. Apparently, he had recently visited a large, religious seasonal lighting display, where I'm sure Jesus on the cross was visible. However, a young mind may not realize that the cross was an instrument of torture, pain, and execution...he may well think that's just "where Jesus is", just as Santa is in a sleigh. The connection adults create between a cross and pain is not necessarily in the mind of a child, where the cross is mainly a symbol of some ideas he is told to believe. Without clarifying that issue (which the school apparently failed to do), there resulted a rush to judgment. As usual the purported victim, the child, is quickly becoming rather ignored.

The same sort of rush to judgment that is happening now in the media. In their eagerness to drive the bandwagon, they haven't checked for its integrity. I would suggest cooling down, waiting for the facts or even reconciling oneself to the idea that the facts may never be known, instead of a starting a new Christmas Persecution.

Not that that's going to happen.

The War by Christmas

It was an unnecessary war declared quite some time ago without a clear exit strategy, where the tide is running against conservative dreams, yet it is still cheered on by Fox News and their friends despite all evidence. Iraq? No, the War by Christmas.

That's not a typo, and it is something that needs clarification up front...we don't have a case of a recently declared "war on Christmas" in America that seeks to victimize delicate Christians, but rather a new phase in a centuries-long war declared and conducted by Christmas. The war was begun by Christmas, and I see no reason to ease up now that the aggressors are seeing the tide reverse. From now on, I will refer to this conflict by the historically accurate name "War by Christmas" and encourage you to do the same.

You likely know the full story. The most primitive of humans knew that life was warmer, better, more comfortable with more time with that bright thing in the sky. The two greatest miracles of their world were childbirth and the sun, so no small wonder that almost every culture assigned an Earth-mother and a Sun-god. However, on a yearly basis the sun seemed to be moving away, and weakening. Their god was dying. And every year, somehow, at the point of death, the Sun-god returned and grew again in strength.

We call it an astronomical event, the winter solstice. They turned it into a seminal religious feast. This near-dodge with the end of the world was a solemn annual moment, and inspired a wide range of rituals that would occur in late December. The Incans tied a celestial rope to the sun lest it stray too far away. The Kalash of Hindu Kush still offer dances and praise. Egyptians honored Aset. European pagans and their early Roman neighbors celebrated Saturnalia in late December. Most Romans marked the feast of Natalis Sol Invictus -- the Birth of Mithras, the Unconquered Sun -- on December 25th. Mithras became known to the Roman in the second century BC as a sun-god of Persian background who was born of a virgin mother, and would later die and resurrect in order to offer salvation to all. (Mithraism was as fundamental to the final shape of Christianity as Judaism. It is as accurate to say that Paul and Luke set out to spread Christianity to Mithraists as it is to say they were targeting Gentiles.)

Then the Christians came. Insofar as we can trust the Christian Bible with the label of "history", we are told that Jesus' birth occurred as "shepherds were outside, keeping watch over their flocks by night" (Luke 2:8). Shepherds only lived outside with their flocks while the sheep might be birthing -- something that only happened in springtime.

However, by the early 3rd century, the Christian church moved the feast of Jesus' birth lock, stock, and barrel to December 25th. A few days from the winter solstice and the exact day of the birth of Mithras. When exactly this occurred, we don't know, as the Catholic Church has a long history of keeping inadequate and questionable records on things like historical developments, treasury, and personnel shufflings. So when Emperor Constantine decided to use the Roman army to force Christianity on all, the die was cast. Christmas had declared war on all comers. Several centuries later, it is losing the war it began.

So don't give me this "War on Christmas" BS. About 1,700 years ago, Christmas declared a war in which it is experiencing a reverse. So Fox "News", the AFA, and the rest of you morons, stop complaining.

Kerry pushes feds to provide lethal "medicine"

Picked up in many places this month (and today on Daily Kos) is the surprising and decidedly un-liberal maneuver John Kerry is doing relative to the health care reform proposal. Members of the Boston-based Church of Christ, Scientist refuse medical care in favor of prayer, a practice that is described in the Washington Post:

Prue Lewis listens as they explain their symptoms... Then Lewis -- a thin, frail-looking woman from Columbia Heights -- simply says, "I'll go to work right away." She hangs up, organizes her thoughts and begins treating her clients' ailments the best way she knows how: She prays....Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.

Front and center in the effort to purloin public money for this religious practice is Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Approving this destructive practice in government health care is a ridiculous divergence from best practices. I gather that the public option would be funded by Americans who choose to enroll, thus dodging any real church and state separation concerns. Of much greater concern is that many Christian Scientists have been criminally charged for allowing family members to die of curable diseases this way (a couple was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts in 1993). The last thing we need is the federal government implicitly improving such a lethal practice.

I just can't understand why Kerry would want to promote a religious practice that has had the practical effect of killing innocents. Along with Orrin Hatch and the late Ted Kennedy, Kerry made sure this provision made it into the Senate version of the bill. Though the church is based in the Senator's (and my) state, his obligation is to all citizens of the Commonwealth, and the country. This isn't just the church-state question as UniversalHub flags it. Much worse is the idea of a pseudo-liberal Senator pushing the government to provide, promote, and support a practice that results in the deaths of innocents -- the exact opposite of what health care reform is supposed to do. And the opposite of the kind of clear thinking that John Kerry was elected to exercise.

Where does your collection dollar go?

If you are a Catholic living in Maine, the Most Hateful New England state, you may want to ask yourself where your collection money goes.

I went to a Catholic High School, and grew up with Roman Catholics all around me, so it's not a question I ask lightly. Catholic Charities is the largest non-government charity in the state. St Vincent de Paul does a lot of good work, and so do individual parishes. For that reason, I always thought that it made sense to throw some cash on the collection plate when attending a Catholic mass of some sort.

Well at least $378,000 went to defeat equality in Maine. Much of that came from out of state. NPR tags the price tag of hate at a half-million in cash from Catholics who were hoping to do good. Rather than take any of Jesus' words (you know, "when I was hungry, you fed me" "blessed are the poor" or "as ye would have done unto you, do unto them likewise"), these failures took an odd line from Leviticus, and all but ran over hungry families in their eagerness to blow money on television ads indemnifying gay Americans.

Your collection dollars went to television stations, to promote bigotry. That's where it went.

On a completely different note...

I have nothing to say about Senator Kennedy that hasn't been said better by others. I'll miss him horribly. On a side note, I enjoyed the fact that Jack Williams broadcast the funeral of Senator Kennedy with appropriate gravity, including a clear effort to keep Jon Keller from sniveling up the coverage as much as Jack was able.

It's a reminder of the great state in which we live, and the quality of leaders we often obtain. Unlike, say, this State Senator in Nebraska who is currently considering to appeal a ruling in a bizarre waste of taxpayer resources odd crusade:

A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served.

The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal against the ruling.

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorisation" caused by God.

Believe in the Bible, or read it, I guess

...the easiest way to undermine belief in the Bible is to simply read it:



Didn't realize Jesus was English. If you think this is self-righteous, take a look at Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern, and decide which is worse, a bad video or a bad lawmaker...

Gimme that old time religion

More substance on religion coming soon, but in case you missed this from Sicily:

Prosecutors say that after both the plane's engines cut out, the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land in the Mediterranean instead of trying to reach the nearest airport.

.

There's a train of errors in this, including a faulty fuel gauge, but thank goodness Sully didn't opt for Our Fathers over quick thinking and smart action. I imagine the sixteen people who died in this plane accident would like a do-over on picking a pilot as well.

Changing numbers on religion

The 2008 American Religious Survey was just released, with little surprising therein. The rate of religious identification has tumbled over the last 18 years nationwide, and the numbers of Catholics have grown significantly in the South and West (hm...wonder why!).

I do want to point out one line, thought, that shows how successful hucksters have managed to scaremonger Americans about atheism:

Only 1.6 percent of Americans call themselves atheist or agnostic. But based on stated beliefs, 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure), while 12 percent more are deistic (believe in a higher power but not a personal God). The number of outright atheists has nearly doubled since 2001, from 900 thousand to 1.6 million. Twenty-seven percent of Americans do not expect a religious funeral at their death.

This explains a lot of the braying mismatches between theists' views of their communities and the reality. Through this ongoing campaign of intimidation, lies, and harassment, theists have successfully made Americans reluctant to self-identify as theists, for now. However, it certainly hasn't kept Americans from becoming more and more atheistic. In the way that counts, atheism and agnoticism are sweeping across this country.

If you want to play with the data and see just how godless the northeast is, hit up USA TODAY. One odd stat: the states that experiences the greatest jump in "no religion" as a response since 1980 are in order: Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts...and Wyoming.

(H/T Pharyngula)

Obama delivers on his promise

Lost amid the tug-of-war over the stimulus bill, and the ongoing process of building a Cabinet, Barack Obama announced his opening/continuance of the "Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships". One key passage from The American Prospect:

He is authorizing the office's director, Joshua DuBois, to work "through the White House Counsel to seek the advice of the Attorney General on difficult legal and constitutional issues." This means that the controversial Bush-era executive orders permitting direct funding of houses of worship and religion-based employment discrimination will remain in place indefinitely. "Giving the same, flawed program a new name and new personnel is not the change we need,” said Ron Millar, acting director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Not another taxpayer dollar should be spent until all the constitutional and civil rights concerns are addressed."

Joel Hunter and Jim Wallis are big parts of this function. These guys are "moderates" because they advocate the destruction of the separation of church and state without yelling. On issues such as state funding of religion and abortion policies, they are to the left of Sarah Palin, and to the right of the directives of the Constitution, much less the platform of the Democratic Party.

Hopefully when Obama is no longer a political figure, we will learn the sources of his antipathy toward the separation of church and state, and toward Howard Dean.

PS: In this thread over at BMG, I objected to the rule some people are applying that anti-LGBT bigotry should be an apparently essential question in any conversation. I noted that I don't talk about discrimination against atheists as much, which other took to mean that I didn't have a point. All this to say, maybe I should talk about s--t like this teacher being fired due to accusations of atheism more often:

On January 16th, I was called to Mr. Richard Turner's office (my principal), and he informed me that I had been put on administrative leave with pay. The reasons, as stated to me by Mr. Turner at the time, were that I was accused of being an atheist and teaching atheism in the classroom, and I was too liberal...I later had conversations with parents and a person who lives in the community, who informed me that the principal had met with the minister of the local church and had discussed my suspension with him. I also later received information from REDACTED,a "SCHOOL EMPLOYEE-POSITION REDACTED", that the minister was now subbing...

Quick thought on Warren

Well, many people seem quite reasonably upset that Obama would select a man saddled with heavy bigotry to give an invocation at his inauguration. Warren is as prejudiced as he is bigoted, and I'm glad people (except Obama) seem upset.. Check out AmericaBlog if you don't know what is going on because you've been busy doing Christmas shopping.

The awesome part of this, of course, is that many of this erstwhile crusaders for social justice wouldn't give a figgy pudding had two different, pro-equality ministers been selected. Nevermind that these ministers will be kicking off Obama's leadership of this nation with an appeal to "God" or the spineless stand-in "our Creator". Obama, like most every modern president, reserves part of his ceremony for a clarification that those of us who are not monotheists (most Hindus, Buddhists, secularists, many Universalists, for starters) aren't really welcome.

I guess I just find it ironic that injustice is only a problem when it's certain groups that are on the receiving end of the injustice. Par for the course on issues of church/state separation for most of the left, but hardly thrilling either.

A belated happy rebirth to all

Well, the good news is that we're all still here. After the longest night, the sun was reborn this morning, and all appears well with the universe. Happily, the sun was reborn on its own without needing bloodletting or human sacrifice, animal offerings, or even the casting of old materials on the ground. All is not lost, however -- I am given to believe that many others have properly installed a decorated tree in their homes as befits celebrating the Winter Solstice. Oddly, they somehow believe this to be connected to a desert legend in Southwest Asia. Although this day is no longer a rite of near-universal observation as it once was, at least many people continue to inadvertently celebrate what the Romans lyrically named Sol Invictus, or the Feast of the Unconquered Sun.

If nothing else, we can have a further spring in our step as the days grow incrementally longer. Also, all those johnny-come-lately holidays -- Saturnalia, Hanukkah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa -- that try to piggyback on the solemnity and widespread observation of this first true holiday can go on apace. Happy Rebirth, everyone.

His Noodly Appendage Shall Care for Our Soil...

I have to admit that the ongoing sturm und drung (a phrase that Firefox won't recognize) about the Minnesota recount is completely boring to me. I almost want to let Coleman win just to stop hearing about it. If you must follow it, I guess The Uptake is the place to do it. The main reason I can't be bothered frankly is that the whole thing is just going to end up in the courts anyway, regardless of what the canvassers think right now. Let me know when the judges start ruling.

Anyway, it has been amusing to see what other people do to their ballots. It frankly surprises me that people who apparently don't care for any candidates in a race write in silly votes, rather than leaving it blank. My favorite until today was the infamous "lizard people" voter. This person may be trying to be funny and failing, or may be a believer in David Icke's wacky theories that a cabal of shadowy reptilians control our planet.

However, "Lizard People" was recently bested by a vote cast in an unaffiliated race:



I would point out that this voter correctly filled out the ballot, and with all due respect to Wade Bastian, I can hardly imagine a better candidate to care for Minnesota's soil than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May His Noodly Appendage Keep It Clean.

Thoughts on the way back from the video store

-It's getting ridiculous that a late fee from a video store can sometimes end up less than the cost of gas to deliver the DVD on a dedicated trip.

-The movie was The Golden Compass, the subject of this blog's first post. Nicole Kidman is to be credited with a good portrayal of one of the more elegantly conceived characters I've come across. The ending is foolish but necessary from a Hollywood perspective, and falls short of the book's. And Hollywood's decision to remove religion from the story in any significant way -- recasting the Dobsonesque theocracy called the Magisterium as a simple tyranny, and slipping only one oblique mention of God -- rather neuters the story. Still a good story, but not what it truly is -- imagine The Hunt For Red October without the fact that the Soviets and Americans were bitter enemies. I have no idea if they can keep that up for the rest of the story arc without kneecapping the richness of the narrative.

-It's funny that the symbol for Christianity is a painful method of execution, for Judaism a military shield, and for Islam a serene astronomical scene.

-John Meyer has about as much business singing "Free Fallin'" as Osama bin Laden would have singing "Hava Nagila". Combined with Kid Rock's Frankensteinian hybridization of "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Werewolves of London", this is a bad summer for remakes. Not that remakes are all bad, mind you: Billy Idol did a great "Mony, Mony", Celine Dion's English career was launched with her remake of Jennifer Rush's "The Power of Love". But the ultimate remake is so well-known, that few people realize that it is a remake:

Done

Obama announces today that Bush's religious bigotry and assault on the Constitution doesn't go far enough for his liking:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities.

This is a man who declared in his 2004 marquee speech that "we worship an 'awesome God' in the Blue States." This is a man who in 2006 called on "liberals" to inject their religion into their politics and policies. A man who expanded on this chastisement in his early books. This is a man who pridefully recounted his recent "endorsement" of the most prurient and reactionary evangelical leaders of the country.

Obama has chosen a side in the question of separating church and state. People who are not affiliated with a religion (for practical purposes, that means Christianity) -- about one quarter of the nation's population -- are inferior. We should be overrun in national conversation, and our tax dollars should reward groups that assault those who don't share our beliefs. Obama wants to use our money to help other people bribe others into thinking differently than us.

I am proud to be a secularist. It hasn't made my personal life easy, but the truth rarely makes things easy. And I cannot countenance the idea of a president who sneers at those who share my beliefs -- and works to undermine them.

I will be proud not to vote for Obama this November. At this point, I'm not even sure I want him to win.

Secularists need not apply

In January, I felt that there were many reasons I didn't want Barack Obama as the nominee of my party. But the number one was always an unsure embrace of American secularism. More than any serious Democratic candidate that I could remember, Obama always seem ready to throw in with the Republican interpretation that Christians get special treatment in our country. So recently, I read Obama's description of a meeting with evangelical "leaders"...

I opened up the meeting by quoting Ronald Reagan which was saying, I know you can't endorse me, but I endorse you. I endorse the good works that are being done, the wonderful ministries that are taking place all across the country and my goal here is just to have a dialogue to listen, to learn, to share my faith journey and I think people came out of it, not necessarily agreeing with me on every issue, but I think that they recognized that I respected them, I respected their faith, I respected what they're trying to achieve.

Who is "they"? John Hagee's publisher. A man who pushes "therapy" for gays and lesbians. TD Jakes, opulent hustler in the name of God.

Obama is currying favor with the nastiest, vilest shards of American Christianity, and it makes me sick. I hope it's just talk, but I'm not convinced.

Elohim and Aliens

Jeez, everyone really knows that this post should be properly entitled "God and ET", as was this somewhat diffidently written article that showed up in The Atlantic a few years ago. I'd like to examine questions raised in this article. Questions and problems surrounding organized religion in the event of discovering extraterrestrial sentience are a bit topical with this news (via Someday I Will):

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican’s chief astronomer says that believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God.

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, says that the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

In an interview published today by Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Funes says that such a notion "doesn’t contradict our faith" because aliens would still be God’s creatures.

The interview was headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother." Funes said that ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God’s creative freedom.

Less cocky was Arthur C Clarke, who opined that extraterrestrial sentient life would be a death knell for organized religion (incidentally, who knew they had an official astronomer? Naturally he's a Jesuit.)

I would like to mention three things up front before looking at some issues:

• It's not a bad bet that sentient alien life exists. We can debate this point elsewhere, but there are just so many stars (100 billion billion) that I have to think there's self-aware life somewhere, even if we never meet. For the purposes of our discussion, it isn't important that they meet. Check out the famous "Drake Equation" for more.
  
• I will be mainly speaking of Christianity, partially because this discussion is sparked by the Vatican's statement, and also because it is the dominant religion in spacefaring nations.
  
• The single essential source from which to approach this topic is Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan.
  

Sagan proceed through many arguments against and for the existence of a god/gods. He doesn't do it quite as clearly or efficiently as, say, Richard Dawkins, but he does a fairly good job.

Where Sagan excels, and something of which the Vatican seems unaware, is looking at the sheer myopia of a faith rooted in a time when only six planets were identified. A time when planets were suspended in crystal spheres. So much of Christian theology -- particularly fundamentalist dogma -- was written in a time where humans were the only conceivable mortal in town.

I see three equally unhappy possibilities facing Christians if sentient life is indeed detected another planet. I keep in mind important stories in "Christian salvation history":
God condemns humankind for eating an apple in the Garden of Eden, God takes a giant eraser to the Earth project in the form of a giant flood, and God invents polyglotism after crashing the Tower of Babel.

• ET is throughout our spiritual past, constantly lurking out of eyesight. He was in Eden, aided in the construction of the Tower, and had his own Ark during the Flood. He's culpable in human misadventures, and is justly condemned. Jesus died for him as well as us...Jesus just never mentioned it, and never bothered going to their planet.
  
• ET had a parallel set of experiences during which God condemned him for being human himself. Maybe Jesus was also killed there to achieve their salvation (so much for that "God's only son" business).
  
• ET is hated by the universal God. He didn't screw up like humans did with suffering Original Sin and the killing of the Saviour, but isn't the recipient of God's largesse to the Chosen and Re-Chosen People. ET is ignored by God.
  

Oh, and they're not even made in God's image! God created ETs world during his down time, tossing it off incidentally in the creation of life, before he'd warmed up to the important act of creating Earth.

Living in Montreal, one was regularly exposed to one attempt to reconcile the Old Testament to the possibility of sentient life off-planet: the idea that the Hebrew word "Elohim" which is usually taken in English to mean "angels" actually means "aliens". A French journalist founded a sect/cult called Raelianism that basically offers aliens to take God's place. Being largely in the French language, it's notable in France, but was a presence in Montreal where somber-faced adherents silently offered a small pamphlet adorned with the classic alien visage.

As a matter of fact, Raelians tell us, aliens are waiting to help us out once we build them a suitable landing pad in the appropriate place -- a city that may just be the most inhospitable in the world for such a project. Want to guess? For a hint, look at the first letter of the initial three words of this post.