I'm Tired of Mosque Talk - Let's Make Fun of Sarah Palin!

Chances are, unless you've been hiding under a rock somewhere or are REALLY good at ignoring most media including magazine covers in line at the store and the ticker tape news they try to squeeze into most TV these days, you've heard about the mosque-cultural center-built-literally-on-the-ashes-of-but-in-reality-two-blocks-away-from-ground-zero mess.

Harris has weighed in.

Hitchens has commented.

PZ kind of talked about it.

Hemant has addressed it.

Obama chimed in.

Pat Condell ranted about it.

Vjack let his opinion be known.

All of that when it would seem the group responsible for funding it doesn't even have the money together to build it yet.

So frankly, I'm bored with it. My opinion is that it shouldn't even be an issue. A fully fledged mosque already exists, has existed for decades even closer to ground zero than this one. Seems pretty obvious this is being made into more of an issue than it should be for political reasons - convince people their bigotry isn't bigotry but valid concern and they really will love you for giving them the freedom to be petty and hateful.

Satire is the best remedy for boredom, so here's a nice healthy portion -

OUTRAGE OVER PLANS TO BUILD LIBRARY NEXT TO SARAH PALIN

PLANS to build a state-of-the-art library next to Republican catastrophe Sarah Palin are causing outrage across mainstream America.

Campaigners have described the project as insensitive and a deliberate act of provocation by people with brains.

The issue is forming a dividing line in advance of November's mid-term congressional elections with candidates being forced to declare whether they have ever been to a library or spoken to someone who has books in their home.

Meanwhile President Obama has caused unease within his own Democratic party by endorsing the library and claiming that not everyone who reads books is responsible for calling Mrs Palin a fuckwit nutjob nightmare of a human being.

But Bill McKay, a leading member of the right-wing Teapot movement, said: "Sarah Palin is a hallowed place for Americans who can't read.

"How is she going to feel knowing that every day there are people going inside a building to find things out for themselves and have thoughts, right in the very shadow of her amazing nipples."

He added: "Our founding fathers intended for every building in this country to be a church containing one book, written by Jesus, that would be read out in a strange voice by an orange man in a shiny suit who would also tell you who you were allowed to kill.

"Building a library next to Mrs Palin is like Pearl Harbour. Or 9/11."

And Wayne Hayes, a pig masseur from Coontree, Virginia, said: "I is so angry right now.

"It's like something is on fire right in the middle of my head. Like I've eaten a real hot chilli, but it's gone up my nose tubes rather than down my ass tubes."

He added: "Would these library lovers allow me to set up a stall next to the Smithsonian Museum and start selling DVDs of bible cartoons as long as it was in accordance with local regulations?

"Oh they would? I see. So is that why they're better than me?"

Why Little Things Matter

I was going to write about this yesterday because It's semi-local and I found it interesting, but then I got distracted by epic personal lameness, so here it is today:

PORT ANGELES -- Tim Davis, a candidate for Clallam County District Court 1 judge, stood in front of a voters-forum audience of 100 people this week and related one of those stories about an electoral opponent that makes the ears perk up.

Davis, a candidate with Pam Lindquist in the Aug. 17 primary, said incumbent Judge Rick Porter had required a potential juror in a DUI trial to pledging to truthfully answer questions about her qualifications to be a juror, "so help you God."

The judge uses the term, asking if the juror so swears, and the juror is expected to answer, "I do."

When the woman objected -- after she was impaneled -- to saying "I do" to the phrase "so help you God," Porter told her to sit in the jury box "all by herself," Davis told the audience, saying Porter's actions were unnecessary and suggesting that Porter humiliated the woman.

"That never, ever happened," Porter responded at the forum Tuesday in Port Angeles.

"This issue, as far as I know, never came up."

Gail Smith of Sequim said Thursday that's exactly that happened to her Feb. 17 as a juror during a one-day driving-under-the-influence trial that Porter presided over.

Only an option

She said she was required to take the oath twice before the trial began despite the state Administrative Office of the Courts and the state Supreme Court saying that the phrase is only an option and not required.

"I had to say it to perform my civic duty," she said.

"I felt consternation, I felt embarrassment, and I felt discriminated against. I was not given the option that the state Supreme Court has given people."

Smith said she continued fuming about having to take the oath after the trial began.

During a break, she wrote a note in the jury room expressing her anger and gave it to the bailiff to give it to Porter, she said.

In the note, she compared the oath to taking an oath that invokes the name of Santa Claus, Smith said.

Her husband was in the courtroom with other trial participants and saw Porter laugh when he read it out loud, Smith said.

Her husband said Porter told the defense attorney and prosecutor that he needed to question Smith to determine if her anger would make her biased, Smith said.

When the jurors returned from lunch, Smith was called out of the jury room by the bailiff.

"I was required to sit alone in front of the defense lawyers, the prosecutor, a deputy sheriff witness, the general public and the defendant's family member while the judge explained to me that the state Supreme Court mandates that he follow, verbatim, certain protocol including the so-help-me-God oath," Smith said.

"He asked if my being upset at having to swear to the oath would taint my ability to be a juror, and I answered no."

She said that part of the oath is in brackets in court rules set out by the state Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning it is optional.

Smith described herself as a secularist, or one who, according to www.mirrian-webster.com ascribes to secularism, or "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations."

"I'm a secularist, not an atheist," Smith said. "I challenge church dogma of any sort. It didn't make me any less impartial."

Porter agrees about option

Porter on Thursday agreed that the "so help you God" part of the oath is optional, noting, too, the brackets.

Porter said he vaguely recalled an incident involving a woman who objected to the oath.

He asked if the incident happened two or three years ago, saying it's been a long year.

He said no one is required to say "so help you God."

"I recall there was a lady who told [District Court Administrator Keith Wills] that she was an atheist and didn't want to do that," Porter said of the oath.

"I explained that I was sorry, and it was part of the script. I don't know if it was during the trial or after the trial, I honestly don't know.

"I recall vaguely having a conversation and saying I don't mean to offend you and that's the way the script reads."

Porter said this is the only time anyone has raised an issue with the oath in District Court.

"I'm just amazed that this is that big an issue," Porter said.

As to claiming at the forum, "that never happened," Porter said Thursday he was referring to Davis' characterization of the incident.

"He said I was rude and belittling to her, and that never happened."

It seems to me that this Judge singled this woman out, was kind of a prick to her, she stood up for herself, he was even more of a prick to her, and now he's trying to distance himself from the whole thing because it's nearly election time.

The thing that really gets me about these kinds of stories are the comments. A few of the uglier ones:

Posted by Allen Frank

Criminals hate Judge Porter.
Trial Attorney's hate Judge Porter.
Atheists hate Judge Porter.

Sounds like my kind of Judge.
God Bless you Judge Porter!

Posted by Allen Frank

The latest tactic of the Atheist Progressives is to deny being Atheist; calling themselves "secularists". Sounds better I guess.

"During a break, she wrote a note in the jury room expressing her anger and gave it to the bailiff to give it to Porter, she said.

In the note, she compared the oath to taking an oath that invokes the name of Santa Claus, Smith said."

Equating God with Santa Claus??
Sounds like an Atheist to me!!

Posted by Allen Frank

I never said it wasn't ok for folks to be Atheists.
It's just hysterical that people like Ms. Smith would go out of her way to claim to be a Secularist and not an Atheist....then equate God with Santa. That's the point. We have free will to make choices and are, THANK GOD, free to exercise our Rights. Even make fun of God like Ms Smith did.
I'm pointing out her clear case of HYPOCRISY!
Seems like Ms Smith enjoys being offended so she can lash out her dogma.

Most of the negative comments on the story were posted by this guy, Allen Frank. From what he's written, he's most likely a random harmless troll.

Posted by Lauren Pratt

If someone doesn't take an oath . . . how do u determine if THEY r telling the truth? R there consequences for people who do not take the oath and later are determined to be unethical or a liar???

This is just an epic fail in regard to reading comprehension. She didn't refuse to take the oath, she refused to say the bits having to do with god, which is legally her right.

Posted by Wynn silence

Porter must be doing something right. Because he's got all the drunks and nutjobs mad at him. Oh yeah and the Devil and his crouwd too.

Davis needs to present what he will do different or better than Porter or drop out of the eletion and quit waisting the peoples time with back stabbing.

And the same Go's for Pam Linquist. Both of them sound like they should be in the school district Judge for a day program.

This is probably the most disappointing comment I read. But nothing new or surprising here either.

Look, if a judge had made someone uncomfortable about saying the god bits of an oath, people would be freaking out about the injustice and abuse of power in the situation. It's hard not to feel a little bitter when a good chunk of comments (granted, a healthy portion of those were from ranty Mr. Frank, but still) are essentially saying - well, she's an atheist so good for him.

This is a little thing and it's very tempting to want to distance oneself from this kind of story to avoid the inevitable label of being whiny or petty, but when you let the little things slide, it paves the way for the bigger issues to have just a little more credence. That's why it's important for people to speak up, even for the little things like a religious display at the capital or the words 'Under God' in our pledge and on our money, or a judge using his position of influence to make you feel singled out or your secularism.

Non-religious people, just like any other kind of people, have a right to equal representation. We don't forfeit that when we make the decision to be open about our godlessness. Unfortunately, being a minority group, we have to remind people of that right fairly often and may even have to fight for that right from time to time. That's the burden of knowing what's right and sticking by it, even when society pressures you to conform to something different.

Sharron Angle - God Planned Your Rape

This woman is a horrible human being.

It's a good thing she's not in a position of influen - dammit! This is not even funny anymore.

VJack posted about her on his blog recently, which is why I decided to listen to this audio in the first place. She's running for political office in Nevada and she seems to have at least some chance of winning, which is about 'some' too much of a chance if you ask me.

Tea Bagger Dares Local Pastors to Endorse Him From the Pulpit

Some Tea Bagger in South Dakota has decided to double dog dare via a press release pastors across the state to use their position of influence to endorse him for political office, an action which would rightfully jeopardize any participating church's tax exempt status since they would not be playing by the rules of the establishment clause which gives them tax exempt status in the first place.

Shockingly, one pastor of a Baptist (no so shocking) church took him up on the challenge.

One Rapid City pastor has accepted gubernatorial candidate Gordon Howie's challenge to defy federal tax law and endorsed Howie from the pulpit.

However, other local religious leaders have dismissed Howie's Pulpit Challenge initiative as legally and pastorally irresponsible.

On May 15, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, officially endorsed state Sen. Gordon Howie in his bid for governor during a church service.

Williams did not return a message last week when called by the Journal, but few here expect that his church will face repercussions from the Internal Revenue Service as a result of his sermon. Federal tax code prohibits all tax-exempt organizations, including charities and churches, from endorsing any candidate for public office.

It also forbids those organizations from making donations to or fundraising for a candidate and from "becoming involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate." Those restrictions on political activity for charitable organizations stem from a 1954 amendment to the tax code that historians attribute to then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson's desire to punish certain tax-exempt organizations (not churches) that supported his opponent in the 1954 Texas primary.

Federal courts have upheld those tax-exempt conditions about political activity, most recently in 2000. But the Alliance Defense Fund, which promotes Christian values in the political sphere, encourages pastors such as Williams to openly challenge the IRS and risk their tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization, in hopes that it might lead to a legal challenge and a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Johnson amendment.

It would seem that the current opinion is that it's OK for these institutions to break the law because 'no one is really going to do anything anyway.' Hopefully these churches will continue to push the envelope, to the point where the Christian privilege is forced into the mainstream and we as a nation are similarly forced to deal with it.

It would be disingenuous to insinuate that this moronic Baptist pastor is indicative of the general opinion of the religious leaders in the area, however. Though that seems to be exactly what Howie himself is trying to do.

Howie said Wednesday that his Pulpit Challenge was "getting great response from pastors across the state.

Not from the Rev. Jeff Otterman, pastor of St. James Lutheran Church in Belle Fourche, however. He called Howie's Pulpit Challenge irresponsible and insulting to his congregation.

"The people at St. James are very well-read, and they don't need their pastor telling them how to vote, or who to vote for," Otterman said. "To back one candidate over another seems far-reaching and could alienate a congregation rather than create opportunity for growth."

At Synagogue of the Hills, vice president Wayne Gilbert said its congregants hold divergent political opinions but all agree not to jeopardize the synagogue's tax-exempt status over political activity.

"I don't think any responsible leader of a tax-exempt religious group would be willing to risk tax-exempt status to endorse a candidate," Gilbert said.

Gilbert said the idea "that I should be instructed by a religious leader as to which candidate has the moral or religious high ground is personally insulting to me. I expect religious leaders to offer me insight and guidance into spiritual and moral matters, not secular and political ones."

Craig disagreed, saying pastors have a responsibility to educate their flock on God's laws, including which elected officials do the best job of following those laws. Pastors who don't are "not doing their jobs."

The Rev. Susan Huffman at First Congregational Church in Rapid City believes strongly in the separation of church and state, as did her religious ancestors, the Pilgrims.

"We recall that history and know the many problems that develop when politics and religion become entwined. We encourage our members to vote, but we won't tell them how to vote. We encourage our members to think, but we don't tell them what to think. We don't believe that one political party has a monopoly on the truth."

Even Howie's own pastor, Bishop Lorenzo Kelly at Faith Temple Church in Rapid City, said he has no plans to endorse his friend from the pulpit. "I have encouraged our people to be participants in the political arena and showed them the scriptures that back it up," Kelly said. "But I have not from the pulpit endorsed him. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't put my church in jeopardy of anything."

It's nice to see that at least some of the religious leaders in the area don't feel it's their job to tell their congregations what to think outside of religion.

I'm very interested to see what comes of this. Like I said, the more churches that do this, the more obvious the Christian privilege becomes and we can all finally address it out in the open. Or, the churches that participate in political endorsements will lose their tax exempt status and very quickly churches will stop playing around in the political arena.

Declaring Religion Isn't Taboo But Responding Sure Is

My dad told me once that it's generally known that it's impolite to talk about politics or religion with people you don't know very well. When I asked why, he told me that people have strong opinions about those subjects, so it's better to not talk about them at all to avoid an argument.

The internet has changed a lot of social rules, and politics has become a pretty open topic of conversation. People root for politicians the way people root for sports teams and you'll see the full range of opinions, emotions, and passions attached to those declarations of support. I hardly ever hear anyone complaining, online or off, about someone being 'too political' or bringing up politics as if it's a taboo subject.

Religion, however...

Well, it's gotten a bit better but it's still considered an inappropriate topic to talk about.

Let me clarify - it's inappropriate for ME to talk about. Because I'm an atheist.

Religious people feel comfortable plastering their worship/praise/general ass-kissery of god all over the place - on facebook status messages, in chain emails, in forums, wherever. The religious are becoming more and more free with their expression, but it seems when an atheist friend or associate responds to such a declaration, they're still seen as being invasive and rude.

So it's OK to post "God is so awesome! I feel bad for anyone who closes their heart to feeling how loved I feel!" - that is no longer taboo.

However, if you were to respond and say, for instance "That's crazy, because I think living without god is awesome and I wish you could feel how it feels to be free of religion!" - YOU ARE A TOTAL ASSHOLE.

...Ok, maybe that's a tad dramatic, but my point remains.

Making ANY subject taboo to talk about creates problems for people and communication between different groups. A chunk of religious people have a ton of misconceptions, sometimes bazaar and sometimes pretty insulting, about non religious folks and to a degree non religious folks tend to guess the possible 'believer category' that the person their dealing with falls into, at times incorrectly assuming things about the person that aren't exactly true when discussing religious topics. This leads to a hell of a lot of bullshit fights that would be reduced by quite a bit if we could all just drop the whole 'not supposed to talk about it' attitude.

So this is my new vow - if I run across someone who is saying anything about religion and I feel like commenting, I am going to. Not to be rude, not to be obnoxious, but because if they're going to talk about it, I'm going to talk about it too. I figure if someone feels compelled to email me a story about Noah's Ark, they're showing that they are rejecting the taboo of not talking about religion and are open for a conversation.

Best case scenario - we both learn something more about what the other person believes. Worst case - they quit bothering me and I no longer have to delete annoying mass emails filled with Family Circus and Love Is... comics and clip art from Windows 95.

Bruise-Gate 2010!

Ash Wednesday is serious business.

On Wednesday, VP Biden was seen on TV with some shit sacred Jesus ash on his forehead. The newscaster, Kay Burley (I have no idea who this lady is, but now I know a lot of people in the UK seem to hate her), mistook the mark for a bruise and commented on it as such. As soon as it was pointed out to her that it was Ash Wednesday, she laughed and apologized, saying 'I've said three Hail Marys, everything is going to be fine.'

Haha, case closed right?

Nooooooooo way in hell. It would seem some religious people can't pass up a pearl clutching moment of righteous indignation. I wanted to share a few comments I found while reading about this story online:

***

What rock did she crawl out from under? She obviously does not practice any type of religion. She sounds like an idiot that did not do her research. I find it amazing she is a presenter. She needs to back to school and learn a few things.

***

If this deeply insulting ignorance had involved more sensitive religions this presenter would have been in far more trouble. Dismissing religion as a bit of a joke ('I've said my Hail Marys'!) is unacceptable.....

***

Why should Christians have to put up with this constant belittling of our faith? You know if it had been a Muslim there would have been an outcry.

***

I Don't Biden should even get the ashes. HE IS PRO ABORTION makes Him A Two Face XXXXXXguxxkxlcdccvkclgc

***

This insensitive and ignorant so called news media person, should be fired on the spot. Her ignorance and contempt for Mr Bidens religion, is indicative of a person with limited knowledge and ability to be a news media person.

Is this the kind of individual "Sky New" wants on their payroll?

***

Let's not forget that the "catholic" Mr. Biden believes in killing innocent babies and allowing homosexuals to marry. It's an embarassment to good catholics to have him and other "cafetera catholics" lumped together in the public's mind. Yes, all men are sinners but those who publicly disavow strict teachings of their church should not be shown any sympathy.

***

It is sad to hear someone who calls herself a Catholic, said such disrespectful comment, made a joke about someone's accidental death. Anyhow, we are sinners ourselves; we can not judge her, only God can.

***

Ahhh yes. I believe the smudging ashes on the face practice is way more common in the US than in the UK, so it makes sense the newscaster wouldn't see a mark on a guy's face and think - That looks like a bruise, but I wonder if that's actually some kind of religious symbolism?

WWJD? Kill Sick Gay People, Evidently.

A Ugandan lawmaker wants to pass a bill that calls for the execution of HIV+ homosexuals. Wow.

The Washington Post:KAMPALA, UGANDA -- A Ugandan lawmaker refused Friday to withdraw proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty for some gay men and lesbians despite international condemnation and presidential opposition to a measure that some critics said could scare off foreign investors.

Lawmaker David Bahati said he will not heed a call late Thursday from the government to drop the proposed bill, which has provoked criticism from gay rights groups and protests in London, New York and Washington.

"We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into" homosexuality, Bahati said. "The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on." The country's parliament is expected to debate the measure in late February or early March.

Although President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues that he believes the bill is too harsh and has encouraged his ruling National Resistance Movement Party to overturn the death sentence provision, Information Minister Kabakumba Matsiko said the parliament will act independently.

Several lawmakers and officials from the ruling party said this week that they will push to remove the death penalty statute. They have proposed instead that gays receive counseling to convert them to heterosexuality.

Lawmakers outlawed gay marriage in 2005. The proposed legislation is being promoted as an update to Uganda's statutes against homosexuality, which date from the 1950s and do not address homosexuality by name, only by what the law terms as "unnatural offenses" and "gross indecency." The draft bill says anyone convicted of a homosexual act could face life imprisonment.

Current legislation imposes seven years in prison. Under the new law, the death sentence could apply to sexually active gays living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. The law would also include Ugandans living abroad, who could be extradited and punished.

http://tinyurl.com/yzonqw9

The quote in bold could just as easily come from Palin or Bachmann or any number of US politicians or pundits currently in a position of power and influence.

Uganda is a country whose majority (84%) is Christian, and this atrocious legislature is and example of what I fear about religion having government power. This is why I feel religion is dangerous and why I am vocal in my support of the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Ministers To Obama: Find A Church...Think of the Children!

It seems a couple of pearl clutching ministers have felt compelled to voice concern over The Obama family's personal choices regarding religion:

In Minneapolis for the Religion Newswriters Association annual conference, I asked two members of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships about the ongoing question of the first family finding a local church. It's about the children, is basically what both the Rev. Peg Chemberlin, president-elect of the National Council of Churches, and the former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page answered.

"How will the children have a sense of Christian community?'' asked Chemberlin. "That's the pastoral question that's in my heart and I don't know the answer.'' Though she has "no criticism about the decision that they've made,'' she said the question still tugs at her." "How is the family going to get what they need, including the kids? How do they have a sense of Christian community, which for many of us is the formative place?''

This woman talks about Christian community as if Christians have a special kind of social structure that can't be found anywhere else but church. That may be true in regard to indoctrination, but otherwise anything you get from socializing at church you can attain by alternative means. Volunteering at a food bank or pet shelter, participating in community sports, even going to a park on any given day will expose your child to the same kind of community you find at church. Christians do not have any kind of monopoly on social interaction beyond proselytizing their own specific beliefs. It ends there.

If this woman has "no criticisms about the decision that they've made" then why is this being put forth as an issue of concern? This claim seems disingenuous to me - I'm not criticizing, I'm concerned. So are we to believe that your concern is because of something that you...agree with? Are comfortable with? Concern typically arises from actions which are perceived as negative in some way. By making a statement like this, You might be skirting around the edge of criticism, but that's only in regard to semantics. You're criticizing. It's OK, you have the freedom to do so. Just please be honest about it and stop trying to act as though you're not.

Page was equally concerned. "I do encourage our president to find a church for he and his family to attend,'' he said. "And while I deeply appreciate the fact that he does read the daily devotional that Joshua DuBois (director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships) sends to him - I appreciate that very much - those girls need a church. They need to be under instruction and tutelage of some godly people.''

Page said it was encouraging that Obama is currently hearing preaching from a Southern Baptist chaplain when he visits Camp David but he doesn't think that's sufficient. "He needs to be faithful on a regular basis, not just when he's on vacation at Camp David so it would help if that were a more consistent and more a part of his life," said Page. "I think it would be a grounding influence for him and an encouragement to the faith community."

The only person who knows President Obama's spiritual needs is President Obama. Perhaps it benefits the image of religion to have the president be faithful on a regular basis, but that has nothing to do with concern for Obama's immortal soul, that has everything to do with religion trying to remain as relevant and powerful as it was in the last administration in this current administration.

Personally, I respect Obama for seeking out what spirituality he personally requires and dedicating the rest of his time to, you know, running the country.

Get Out Of My Country!

I don't know about anyone else, but I get a tad bit pissed when someone tells me what my country is supposedly like and that if I don't like it or at least accept it and conform to it, I can get out.

This has come up in my presence a few times at work this season though I was never the recipient of this ridiculous phrase, it bothers me to hear it at all.

Instance 1

National health care came up as a topic and then a debate which led to me, my boss, and two other co-workers in the office talking about this and that. We started to talk about civil rights. I said that I felt that civil rights were paramount and that anyone should be allowed to do anything they please as long as their actions don't hurt anyone else directly. My boss agreed and started talking about gun laws. Yes, just so everyone is clear - Seattle might be the hipster capital of the nation but we regular Washingtonians love our liberal social stances and we love our guns. Personally, I was raised to both respect and detest guns so I'm not big into them, but I also don't oppose other people owning guns outright.

Back to the story, my boss then continues to say that our manager doesn't believe in public gun ownership but does support gay marriage. Essentially, my manager wants his rights and will cry persecution and civil liberties and everything else in order to get his equal rights, yet he feels he can tell someone else that they can't own a gun - a topic which is specifically mentioned in our nation's constitution. I thought that was a good point, though the comparison of marriage rights to ownership of a deadly weapon seemed fuzzy to me and I started mulling it over when my boss made that terribly American mis-step:

"The constitution protects our gun rights. If he [our boss] doesn't like it, he can get out of my country."

Instance 2

My sweetie and I were outside talking to another co-worker and the topic of drug legislature and punishments assigned to drug related crimes came up. My co-worker was arguing that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' and should be treated as harshly as heroine or cocaine. My sweetie brought up how much more destructive alcohol is and how the only destructive aspects of marijuana currently are the issues which are directly caused by the substance being illegal to posses in most states. His argument was that the punishment created the only existing issues which are often sited by police and government sources when asked why marijuana should be kept illegal. If negatives affects on the user can be sited as reason to keep a substance illegal, how can alcohol possibly be kept legal while weed is against the law?

My co-worker looked at him and said; "Well, that's how this country works. If you don't like it, you can just get out. Get out of my country."

This is not your country to pick and choose what you want it to be and have always been, regardless of what your personal logic or specific interpretation of history tells you. America is supposed to be for everyone. Majority is not supposed to rule here, we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

Benjamin Franklin once said: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

We are a nation whose focus is liberty, not majority rule. No law is too absolute to question and no group is so large that it is allowed elevated importance over even the tiniest minority. At least that's how it's supposed to be. Liberty and justice for all.

Court Repeals OK Law Requiring Mandatory Ultrasounds And Fetus Descriptions

Ok, so this is good news first of all, but it's still very strange that this was ever even suggested and the act was passed in the first place and it leaves me wondering - WTF Oklahoma?

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma judge on Tuesday overturned a state law that required women seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound and a doctor's description of the fetus.

Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson said the law violated constitutional requirements that legislative measures deal only with one subject. He did not rule on the validity of the ultrasound provisions.

Special Assistant Attorney General Teresa Collett said she will meet with state officials to discuss whether to appeal. The law was passed in 2008, but legal action has prevented it from going into effect.

It seems in 2008 the Oklahoma legislature enacted the Freedom of Conscience Act (full text Word doc). The bill not only contains very broad conscience protections for medical personnel who object to participating in a variety of procedures, but it also requires medical providers, before performing an abortion, to conduct an ultrasound and describe and display in detail the ultrasound image to the woman seeking the abortion.

Now, this is effed up in all kinds of ways, but Stephanie Toti says it best here:

Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Nova, said Oklahoma is the only state in the nation that mandated a physician to both conduct an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient.

"The ultrasound provision takes away a patient's choice about whether or not to view an ultrasound, and it requires physicians to provide information to their patients that the physicians do not believe is medically necessary," Toti said.

"It's an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power, and it's also an intrusion to the physician-patient relationship."

It seems obvious to me that this is an aggressive tactic meant specifically to bully and browbeat women who are already in a compromising position and often an emotional state. I stay away from posting too much about abortion because I have personal experience with it and find it very difficult to stay emotionally detached enough about the topic but this to me seems like a form of mental abuse. It's like the legislature saying 'We can't stop you from getting an abortion, so instead, we're going to force you and your doctor to have a conversation about the fetus before it's aborted, just so you feel like a real piece of shit for making this decision. And remember, you can always change your mind.'

Is this legislation religiously motivated? Well, it's very cleverly propositioned as a means to 'allow patients to know the full scope of the medical procedure they are requesting.' However, when you look into the political standing and backround of the main author of the bill, Todd Lamb, it's difficult to ignore the importance of religious this man presumes personally and professionally. The fact that this is a seemingly religiously motivated bill which is presented as if it is a medically inspired piece of legislature makes it all the more unsavory.

The presumption that abortion is as easy a decision as what to have for dinner that night is disgusting to me, as is the presumption that women don't understand 'enough' what they're doing by having an abortion. Most women are fully aware and suffer emotionally from making the choice - that doesn't mean they didn't make the right choice for them, the unborn, and society in general.

I'm glad this law was repealed and I have to assume it won't take long before the people who proposed this bill propose similar bills to take its place - ones which can't be dismissed on the same technicality. I can only hope for the people of Oklahoma - women and men - that ya'll have the sanity to stop these kinds of legistlastions in their tracks. How long will it be before the 'ethical protection' of doctors means the only physician in your small town can refuse to sell you condoms because of their religious beliefs? Or refuse to fill your heart medication because they feel medication is a sign of mistrust of their lord? Seriously, this kind of legislation is dangerous for reasons that go above and beyond abortion. Abortion is just the 'easiest' target when it comes to religiously motivated medical ethics legislation.

Kissimmee, FL "In God We Trust" Ordinance Withdrawn, Bigot Pissed

KISSIMMEE, Florida - Kissimmee commissioner Art Otero is not letting go of his effort to add the words "In God We Trust" to the city logo and says he will take the initiative to a referendum if needed.

An ordinance that added the motto passed on first reading through the City Commission last month but was withdrawn last week by the board, after Mayor Jim Swan said that Otero's comments had brought "ridicule" on the city.

Swan read a statement at the meeting saying that the commission's original intent to add the motto for "patriotic purposes" had now been "tainted."

"Staff has been distracted from its normal duties responding to citizens comments and demands on the issues. There have been threats of boycotting local businesses and future businesses looking elsewhere," his statement said.

Otero had told the Orlando Sentinel he started the logo effort because he feared the country was moving toward "liberal postures such as homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion and the legalization of marijuana." He also referred to the Obama administration as "socialist."

Read More...

It's simple, Otero. You had a chance of getting this BS passed until you showed your cards and left no doubt that this ordinance was not proposed by an American Patriot (tm) in the name of American Patriotism (tm) but rather as an anti-gay, anti-Obama extremist hell bent on pushing your god in any way possible in order to quell your own unfortunate fears about the big bad pace of social progression.

You forgot the cardinal rule of underhanded religiously driven politics - never be honest about your motivations or intentions. Stick to secular-based patriotism arguments and pretend the religious motivations don't exist AT ALL COSTS.

I have to thank you, however, for removing all doubt in regard to what the motivations behind this and no doubt most other pro-"In God We Trust" implementations really are.

Healthcare Debate Turns To Abortion

James Oliphant writes in a recent Los Angeles Times article regarding the latest(?) healthcare reform issue - abortion:

Reporting from Washington -- With House leaders struggling to reach agreement on healthcare legislation, aiming toward a possible vote this week, a new hurdle has emerged: abortion.

Some conservative Democrats are threatening to pull their support from the massive healthcare bill unless their concerns over potential federal funding of abortion procedures are met. They fear that the Obama administration will take advantage of an expanded government role in healthcare to increase the availability of abortions nationwide.
Republicans, meanwhile, are trying to use the divisive issue to build opposition to the bill.

The abortion issue has taken a back seat to a protracted dispute between Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who worry about the bill's price tag and lack of cost controls. That conflict has delayed House Democrats from arriving at a final version of the bill and made it increasingly unlikely that the chamber will vote on the package this week.

On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) signaled an openness to postponing the voting.

"I have said that I wanted a bill to pass before we left for the August recess," she said. "But I've also said that our members need the time . . . not only to get the bill written but to have plenty of time to review it. . . . So, we're on schedule either to do it now or to do it whenever."

The Senate last week pushed off floor action on a healthcare measure until September to give the finance committee more time to draft its version of the bill.

If the House leadership's dispute with the Blue Dogs is resolved, abortion looms as the next sticking point. Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and other Democrats opposed to abortion rights want to ensure that the bill includes language restricting taxpayer funds for the procedure.

The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, explicitly prevents the federal government from using tax dollars to fund abortion through Medicaid. But the reach of that law grows murkier if the government establishes its own competitive health insurance plan, or if it assists in creating a new market in which the public could sort through various private insurance plans. Both ideas could be included in the healthcare bill under consideration in Congress.

The Obama administration has tried to stay neutral on the matter.

"I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings and not get distracted by the abortion debate," President Obama said in an interview with CBS News;photovideo last week.

When asked about abortion prohibitions in the bill, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said last week that "a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover."

That is precisely what worries antiabortion advocates.

"By being silent on this issue, [Obama is] actually making an affirmative statement in favor of taxpayer abortions," Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said.

As it stands, the House bill would create a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to prescribe which "essential benefits" should be offered in any government-supported insurance plan.

Opponents of abortion rights believe that unless there is specific wording to the contrary, abortion services will be included. "Unless you can specifically exclude abortion, it will be part of any federalized healthcare system," said Charmaine Yoest, executive director of Americans United for Life.

Efforts in other House committees to insert such prohibitions have failed. Stupak has vowed to push Waxman to include them in the version being written by the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Stupak was one of 19 Democrats to write to Pelosi last month to say that they "cannot support any healthcare proposal unless it excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."

Abortion rights advocates say the bill simply would maintain the status quo, in which companies that offer health insurance are free to choose whether to cover abortion services. And they argue that any government restriction would mean that women who seek abortion coverage could be forced to choose a more expensive private health plan instead of a lower-cost, government-supported one. They also fear that insurers who wished to take advantage of government incentives would be forced to discontinue covering abortion procedures.

Stupak's proposal has drawn strong opposition from abortion rights advocates such as Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who leads the rules committee.

"The starting point for Rep. Slaughter on the healthcare debate was protecting abortion rights," said Slaughter's spokesman, Vincent Morris.

"Opponents of women's health and healthcare reform are exploiting healthcare reform as a way to push for unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace," Planned Parenthood said in a recent statement.

As it stands, if a woman without medical insurance or with inadequate medical coverage becomes pregnant in my home state, she can apply for medical through welfare and either receive an abortion or have her medical costs completely paid for through pregnancy and birth. This is her choice to make, and both options are offered to her without any pressure for the woman to pick one or the other.

Planned Parenthood offers UA pregnancy tests free of charge and in the event of a pregnancy, provides the woman with a complete packet of information including contact numbers for counselors and other supportive services regardless of the choice the woman makes. If the woman is not pregnant, the clinic will at the very least give the woman information regarding free birth control programs and, if she is interested, will help to enroll the woman in the free brith control programs.

My point is, I feel like this is how it should be. It is the choice of the people personally involved with the pregnancy - the mother and father - who should be making decisions regarding whether to abort or to take the pregnancy to term. I hate this fear that some people seem to have of allowing people to make their own choices regarding pregnancy.

The focus of these debates shouldn't be abortion, the focus of these talks should be how to effectively educate about unwanted pregnancy prevention.

The Co-Evolution Imperative of Capitalism and Religion

After reading this wonderful editorial by Bill Maher I began considering the modern American zeitgeist and how paramount both the "Abrahamic religions" and capitalism seem to our current climate. For me, this begs a question - are capitalism and religion two entities which thrive independently of one another or are they two entities which have both gained promenence in this country by means of a kind of social co-evolution?

Personally, I feel the latter theory is not only correct but glaringly obvious.

Let me pre-face this by saying that I am not strictly anti-capitalism. Rather I should say, I'm anti-capitalism in the scope it's seen in America today, but I am also aware that no other system besides a somewhat capitalist one has ever proven to be successful and so I have concluded that it's not a bad system, it's just easily manipulated into becoming the monster we see in America today.

Many claim that the largely privitized system we have is a result of the American dream and therefore anyone who opposes it opposes the very spirit which made this counrty what it is today.

I disagree, first that the people who succeed in regard to large wealth are the people who made this country what it is. I think they're part of it, but of no more importance than the workers in that person's business who generate the products or services for far less than a six figure salary. Most of us are those people, and we're of no less importance to this country than the people who own the businesses that we work for.

I also disagree on the current attitude toward the American dream. I know I'm fond of this idea and I'm sure most people are either fond of it or reject it completely. I believe those who reject it completely are the more rational of the two. The American dream has always been just that - a dream. One that was attainable to many when the dream itself was not as decadent and self indulgent as it is today. When the American dream was for an immigrant to be able to come to America and start a new and better life, that was attainable for enough people to keep that dream going. Then the dream became having the house with the while picket fence, 2.5 kinds and all that. A notably different dream because the America of that time was different, but still simple and attainable. People wanted to have enough to live a comfortable but still modest lifestyle.

What is the American dream now? It seems to be a dead concept for most people because when it is envoked, the current incarnation of it is something so unattainable for everyday people that it's not even a dream anymore, it's a delusion. We are not all going to live the P. Diddy (or whatever his name is now) lifestyle, we can't all be ballers, we can't all live large. One of the reasons we can't is because that's not how capitalism works. As the rich get richer, the poor become more destitute. Therefore, this current American dream is an indication of the times and the popular acceptance that making money - lots of money - is the indication of success and should be a common goal. Though thankfully not for everyone, for many the current American dream is either a reminder of insigifigance and a beacon of hopelessness or it is an invitation to reach for that bank account - no holds barred.

For the no holds barred crowd which often turns to action which are hurtful in some way in the persuit of money, there is a wonderful privitized system to keep them busy - lawyers and jails and the like.

It is the hopless and even worse - the hopeful and unconcerned with the American dream that need to be kept busy in order to keep the current state of our caplitalist country going and that means diverting public interest as much as possible so that the people aren't allowed to realize the power they have as a unified force. This is where religion comes into play.

The marriage of government and religion has been happening since the beginning of time when the religious were known more as the wisemen of the society and therefore their wisdom was important to a governing body as a source of insight and information. With the progression of science, religion has lost it's power in regard to being the most accurate source of factual information, and so for fear of losing their position of influence and power, religion is trying to turn spirituality into a daily vitamin of sorts for Americans. That is to say, selling religion as something everyone needs in order to be a complete and healthy American.

Abrahamic religions specifically teach people to be subservient to a god figure and to follow his word unquestioningly. The word of god is delivered by the very people who are trying to keep their positions of power, so it is logical to conclude that these figures may have some vested interest in guiding people to accept capitalism as it is capitalism that allows religion to retain it's place.

My conjecturing is completely unscientific, but I follow this line of thinking to the conclusion that both capitalism and religion somewhat match one another in regard to extremity. This seems to explain the contradiction that, in a country so mired in greed and evidently unconcerned with the human toll that uncontrolled capitalism takes, extreme religious views which dictate, among lots of other things, that the sin of greed will send you to hell is so unquestioningly embraced.

More and more I feel that the religious pay very little attention to their holy books as a means of introspection and personal reflection. The proof is mounting that in actuality, these books are really only meant to be used as righeous weapons against anyone who proposes to question the powerful place of religion. Otherwise, most of what they say is of little importance.