The fear of reprisals among atheists

The conversation on the message board at GC is turning to the issue of making our membership directory there private to non-members. (It is now private) Charlie, the same guy I debated concerning alternative energy, has of course waxed poetic randroid-style about fear and courage and individuality. While I think comparing the "coming out as atheists" thing to a civil rights movement is fallacious, I do know of many instances of workplace discrimination and illegal terminations based on atheism. However, I don't like the comparison between atheist "movements" and civil rights movements:

Most important is that this isn't about ending some entrenched economic system or clear and flagrant inequality before the law. We have none of the same legal and moral authority that civil rights and abolitionist groups had on their side. And it was this very issue that became an argument a while back between D.J. Grothe and PZ when atheists today were contrasted to civil rights crusaders in the 60s. Ditto with gay rights groups, who are still denied marriage and have been targets of violence since time out of mind. We have to go back to the Puritans or Bruno to get that sort of comparison with atheists.

Honestly, I think that I could be fired if parents found my blog site and/or the extent of my Godless Columbia ties and decided to go to the headmaster with threats of withholding gifts. My school runs on donations, and they'd find some way to justify getting a new chemistry teacher. But, this sort of prejudice is not akin to the legal discrimination that other groups face based on race, sex and sexual preference.

If people want their privacy, they should have it, while not walking around worrying about being the victim of a hate crime like that at the UU of Knoxville. Now, on to the latest post:

I think everyone is making more of this than what it is. I don't think anyone is more out there than myself, and the negative backlash I have received has been minimal.

I think you should separate out two very different things:

1) fear of violence
2) fear of reprisals -- attempts to smear you, get you fired, &c

As for (1), you are a physically-large male with an agressive attitude, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you neither worry about, nor have reason to, acts of violence directed against you for your lack of religious beliefs.

As for (2), you are lucky. Many of us work in places that we can easily be fired for minor offenses, and although saying, "I'll sue!" sounds good and all, at best, this will lead to months of no pay followed by (hopefully) reinstatement and some coverage of our legal fees. Given the conservative composition of the high courts and recent relevant rulings in areas of labor protection, especially Enquist v. Oregon Dept. of Ag. (ruling), I wouldn't hold my breath.

I keep a blog that my boss reads on a regular basis where I publish my unvarnished opinions on anything and everything. No backlash. In fact, it is often the topic of conversation at work.

Then you are obviously lucky to work under someone who isn't a bigot. Many are not so lucky. I don't think that the people here are worried about "people not liking me at work," but rather, some Evangelical type supervisor who would find a way to start putting undue pressure on you or finding ways to discredit your job performance once they learned.

People disagree with me, but they respect me. That is because I don't hide in fear or shame.

When I was at the University of Florida, I started the only non-theistic student group on campus and went on Hannity & Colmes to argue against the placement of a Decalogue monument in Dixie County, Florida. While we were there, people cussed at me from the crowd gathered around and said crap to my wife while I was on-camera. (Unfortunately, the satellite feed was cut off right as it was getting ready to be my turn to talk to Alan Colmes, who would've let me speak uninterrupted for a few minutes. I still wonder if Hannity had me cut off because I sounded half-competent and cognizant of the facts surrounding the other cases he referenced...)

Does that sound like I "hide" from being an atheist?

However, now that I'm working, with a baby on the way in about a month, the security and stability of my job is far more important than having my atheists.meetup.com profile public. In the question of risk versus reward, what is the reward? The real risk I face is in having a parent at my school find this site and rally a bunch of other parents to have me fired. Given that my school is run by donations and gifts, if even one "high roller" put pressure on them to get rid of me because, "We don't need no elitist bastard atheist teaching Johnny or Janey," I have little to no doubt that I'd be gone.

The real threat here is not getting assaulted or fired. It is being embarrassed. It is sticking out from the herd. It is being an individual.

If you say so. Sounds to me like you don't really care about the evidence of discrimination based on atheism in the workplace and school for others. You just choose to pretend all that doesn't exist or doesn't matter. If you feel strongly that it's about "being embarrassed" then that's all that matters to you, right?

I am with Seneca when he said that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Yeah because having a public membership directory of a meetup group is to "die on your feet", while having a private one to non-members is to "live on your knees"...

Believe me when I say that everyone of you is more likely to die or be injured in a car wreck than to be assaulted or lose your job as a consequence of being a freethinker.

So do you wear a seat belt, or is that also fear? Do you show courage and "die on your feet" by not wearing a seat belt?

It's about risk and reward Charlie, nothing more. Having a private membership directory to non-members is not "hiding in fear" any more than your wearing a seat belt in the car is "driving in fear".

The GOP & race

If the muck of Ron Paul's racist nonsense isn't a clear enough demonstration of the fundamental differences between the GOP & the party with a black man and a woman as its frontrunners, then perhaps Mike Huckabee's support of the Confederacy is (and don't forget his lovely and telling rant about aligning the Constitution with "the Word of the Living God.") Or, maybe the right wing's reaction to this...whatever recent example you choose, the GOP has a race image problem, if not a race problem.

Ron Paul & racism

Although I mentioned on 1/2/08 some of the Neo-Confederate nonsense that Paul spouted on MTP with Russert, I didn't think it would get this bad: newsletters dug up by TNR that are just plain disgusting that have Paul's name on them. Now, his campaign has of course denied association between itself and the newsletters that went out under his name (which itself raises a lot of questions -- how could he be unaware of these newsletters, given they went out for a decade under his name and contained some inflammatory stuff?), but the dissociation isn't as strong as it seems:

Some responses came from more conventional libertarians who found ways to justify Paul’s writings and the acceptance of contributions from people such as Don Black. By finding excuses for Paul’s acts, these so-called libertarians help blur the line which has separated such racism and anti-Semitism as attitudes which have been considered unacceptable in our society. A campaign which started with well-deserved opposition to the Iraq war has turned into one where the main freedom they are defending is the freedom to discriminate and oppress.

What is also remarkable is that upon closer examination Paul’s views are far better characterized as social conservativism with extreme support for states’ rights as opposed to libertarianism. Despite his reputation as a libertarian, Paul is actually hostile towards First Amendment rights where they conflict with his other views. As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian America. Ron Paul’s version of the Constitution is contradicted in the writings of the founding fathers, many court decisions, and in the view of most historians.

Ron Paul was interviewed by Reason following the publication of the article in The New Republic. Dismissing this all as “old stuff” or “political stuff” is no more reassuring than the statements that the material in Paul’s newsletters was written by someone else. Jim Crow laws and the Holocaust are also “old stuff” but this doesn’t make them something which should just be ignored.

Libertarians have no excuse accepting this half-ass as their man; he is obviously a poor representation of libertarian philosophy, some call him a "doughface liberatarian." His version of morality is quite skewed.

Ron Paul: being a creationist wasn't bad enough

Finding out that Ron Paul is a creationist is not nearly so morally repulsive as his neo-confederate rhetoric on MTP.

They'll love him for it here in Jesusland, of course.

Mitt & Mormonism

So "Magic Underwear Mitt" will be addressing us on how reasonable Mormonism really is? What a laugh. Funny that anyone really thinks that this will help. Go read up on Mormonism and you'll find it hard to see how keeping people's attention on his faith will help him. The polls from a while back seem to show only about 1 in 4 claim that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon (compared to a majority -- 53%, who wouldn't vote for an atheist), but I think these numbers are always too low because of socially desirable response bias. I just don't think the majority of Evangelicals will vote for him.

The RR still doesn't know quite what to do: back the serial-adulterer Giuliani with a liberal track-record on judicial appointments, Mormon "Magic Underwear" Romney -- someone they know only became "pro-life" 5 minutes ago (both he and Giuiliani fit into this category), or someone they know will not win? Dobson swears he'll choose the latter.

Giuliani isn't just involved in a scandal over using tax dollars to finance his extramarital affair; he's also got a brewing scandal involving his ties to terrorists. I really think his campaign is done, kaput...or else people are ignoring the mounds of dirt on this guy. See TCR's summary of Giuliani's worst week ever.

I don't think that there is anything comparable on Mitt's side, aside from a few gaffes and some reversals; no substantive corruption, but it may come out later. On the other hand, dirt on Huckabee is piling up, and he is looking dirtier all the time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...

The Boy Scouts of Philly & discrimination

Looks like one of the more famous discrimination cases for the Boy Scouts, this one regarding the "Cradle of Liberty Council" is coming to a head...much to the dismay of the AFA and their fallacious reasoning.

UN report on rights of atheists

An interesting report from Asma Jahangir details some of the legal and cultural issues that non-beleivers face. It may be useful when deciding on legislation in some already-enlightened country, but it will have little impact anywhere that it is most needed, I'm sure. Here's a nice tidbit:

In several countries, religious groups enjoy certain exemptions from equality legislation concerning employment or the provision of goods, facilities and services. This is criticized as effectively allowing religious groups to discriminate against other religions and non-religious believers. This problem may increase when public services, for example in the health or social sector, are contracted out to faith-based organizations. Atheists and non-theists are concerned that contractual clauses may not be enough to protect them and religious minorities when seeking services from or employment with public service providers when the service provision has been contracted out to faith-based organizations.

Hmmmm...why does this sound so familiar?

Another tactic for ID Creationists

Their newest trick? Bullying school libraries into accepting copies of their junk science books. Luskin screams bloody murder [faux discrimination] when librarians refuse to stock the dreck, and contacts school boards to intimidate those librarians (of intellectual integrity) into shelving them.

If they can't get in the valid front door (developing a real science of IDC), they'll try the back (sneaking it into classrooms ala Dover), then get desperate and crawl through the basement window (making sure their pseudoscience is in every school's library). I'd say the next step is to "inform" sympathetic teachers of the books' existence, once stocked, so they can "loosely suggest" to their students they ought to check out "both sides" of the evolution "debate." Lovely.

Sounds a lot like Dover, doesn't it? They don't learn. Keep the crap out of schools.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Bush Threatens Veto on Hate Crimes: Analysis

Yesterday, Americablog pointed out the hypocrisy and stupidity of Lamar Smith (R-TX), who rose to ask that the hate crimes legislation, HR 1592 (.pdf), be amended to include protections for the elderly and those in the military and law enforcement. When his request was met with an acceptable response to amend and include the language, Smith refused. Here is the official Congressional record H4449 to H4452 (all bold is mine):

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SNYDER). All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 364, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF TEXAS

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose it, in the current form.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1592 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with the following amendments:

Page 12, line 5, after ‘‘orientation,’’ insert ‘‘status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces,’’.

Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward. It seeks to protect America’s senior citizens and those who serve in our Armed Forces. My colleagues on the other side contend that a new law is needed to cover crimes against persons based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The motion to recommit makes sure that seniors and our military personnel are added to the list of protected groups. We all care greatly about the safety and security of our senior citizens. We all understand that they are particularly vulnerable to crime. Criminals who prey on our senior citizens because they are senior citizens should be vigorously prosecuted and punished. The statistics paint a disturbing picture of violence against senior citizens in our country. A recent Justice Department study found that each year over the last 10 years, for every 1,000 persons over 65, four are violently assaulted. This includes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assaults. Approximately 65 percent of these crimes against senior citizens are committed by strangers or casual acquaintances. In my hometown, the San Antonio police report rising crime against the elderly, with over 6,200 crimes just this last year. We were all horrified by the recent videotaped robbery in New York City committed against 101-year-old Rose Morat. Rose was leaving her building to go to church when a robber, who pretended to help her through the vestibule, turned and delivered three hard punches to her face and grabbed her purse. He pushed her and her walker to the ground. Rose suffered a broken cheekbone and was hospitalized. The robber got away with $33 and her house keys. Police believe the same man robbed an 85-year-old woman shortly after beating Rose.

These are horrible crimes that strikefear into the hearts of America’s senior citizens and make them wonder whether they will be victimized next. This motion to recommit also adds the category of current or former members of the Armed Forces to the list of groups in this bill. We honor our men and women of the military because of their patriotism, their commitment to protecting our freedom and their service to our country. In times of controversy surrounding the use of our military, we have seen unfortunate acts by those who use their hostility towards the military to further their political agenda.

With the rising debate over the Iraq war, we are seeing increasing threats to Iraqi war veterans. Recently, a Syracuse woman pleaded guilty to spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at an airport. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make it clear to everyone that we honor our veterans and current members of our Armed Forces. Congress can make the message clear that hate of our Armed Forces will be punished at a heightened level, just like the other groups under this act. If Congress rejects this motion to recommit, who will explain to the thousands of victims who are senior citizens or military victims that their injuries are less important than those of others protected under the hate crimes law? Are we really prepared to tell seniors and our men and women in uniform across our country that crimes committed against victims because of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are, as a rule, more worthy of punishment than those committed against seniors and military personnel? Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. SMITH, would he yield for a unanimous consent request that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after ‘‘orientation’’ insert ‘‘status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed services.’’ Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully object.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. SMITH, the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent request that the motion be amended by striking the word ‘‘promptly’’ and inserting the word ‘‘forthwith?’’

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also object to that request.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield for that purpose.

Look at that bullshit. This guy pretends to actually want to include the language, but when his request is accomodated by an instantaneous decision to amend the language, rather than sending it back to committee, he balks. Why? Because it wasn't about protecting the elderly or the military at all. It was about, instead, sending it back to committee to kill the bill. What a lying piece of shit. The Congress will soon be taking a break, and this turd from Texas wants the bill sent back to committee for just that reason -- to kill it for months.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House ‘‘promptly’’ rather than reported back ‘‘forthwith.’’ Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word ‘‘promptly’’ is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back ‘‘promptly’’ sends the back bill back to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would
not be immediately before the House. Does the gentleman from Michigan seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The preceding clarified exactly what Lamar was trying to do, as does the following, in which Conyers and Hoyer call Lamar on his bullshit political game.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the Congress...Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman. This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior citizens. He asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas objected, so it was not added. Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ‘‘forthwith’’ for ‘‘promptly’’ so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the gentleman from Texas objected. How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed. My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The American public knows it is a political game. Let’s reject this cynical political game and pass this legislation.

At this point, the motion to recommit the bill (send it back to committee) was rejected and the bill was subsequently passed, without the amended language for the elderly or the military, because of Lamar Smith himself. So if someone wants to throw that bullshit at you regarding how the bill's protections were not expanded because of Democrats, then you throw the facts right back.

Now, with respect to Bush's veto, most people think the federalism/anti-federalism stances are a smokescreen for his real objective -- bowing to the pressure of the bigots in the last vestige of a support base he has left -- the troglodytes of the Religious Right. They claim, over and over again, that this bill will stifle their right to hate fags and preach discrimination. But it won't, and the language of the bill itself makes that clear:

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

1) This only applies to an "act of violence" -- NOT speech or expression.
2) Section 8 clarifies that the act does not and cannot infringe upon 1st Amendment protections.

Thus, demagoguery and stupidity are to blame for things like this:

Both the house and senate versions of the bill are a direct affront to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and if by some remote chance they should become a permanent part of the law they will surely undergo challenges in the Supreme Court about their obviously suspect constitutionality.

The Hate Crimes Bill is a means of squashing the rights of preachers, gospel witnesses, youth workers, journalists, and every ordinary citizen to quote or explain to others what the Bible says about homosexuality.

And this:

Many conservative Christian groups, such as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America (CWA), called the bill unconstitutional.

"Hate-crimes legislation is constitutionally dubious on its face," said Matt Barber, CWA's policy director for cultural issues. "[H.R. 1592] flies in the face of the 14th amendment. It clearly sets up a two-tiered justice system with a first class of victims and a second class of victims. This bill provides unequal protection under the law."

Barber contends that sexual orientation and gender identity, like religion, describe a set of behaviors and should not be specially protected. The other identities protected under current federal hate-crimes law —race, color, and national origin—are non-behavioral characteristics.

Many Christians worry the House legislation could "lead to serious infringements of our First Amendment freedom of speech protections in the United States," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Barber warned that the bill would mean that "any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle would be against the law. If a pastor or a speaker were to speak out against homosexuality and it were to incite someone to act out violently, then that [pastor] would be tried as a principal."

I don't want to come at this from the perspective of analyzing federalism -- which is one stated perspective espoused by those opposed to federal hate crimes legislation. That is, I don't want to analyze whether or not a federalist or anti-federalist position is more constitutionally correct. What I want to do is see if, upon analysis, the stated justification for Bush's promised veto -- fear of over-reaching federalism -- stands up to scrutiny for logical consistency (it doesn't). If that is indeed the case, all federal regulations of otherwise-state-controlled laws would be opposed on principle.

The problem is, as has been pointed out, that the president and the Congress apparently support the idea of labeling certain violent acts "hate crimes" when they involve race and religion. If that is indeed the case, then they are lying through their teeth about their legal justification. One cannot simultaneously claim an anti-federalist constitutional position against hate crime protections for gay people while claiming a federalist constitutional position for hate crime protections for Jews or blacks. But this is par for the course for Bushco, and for his pinbrained supporters on this issue.

I don't normally level sweeping insults against everyone on some particular issue X even when we disagree, because I think it is possible to have an intelligent argument, in most cases, for both sides of issue X. However, anyone and everyone who support hate crimes for race and religion but oppose hate crimes for sexual preference and identity are, simply, all stupid people, who either don't notice such inconsistencies, or who are blinded by their own bigotry and religious prejudices.

During yesterday's press briefing, Perino got nailed on this inconsistency:

Q Why does the President oppose broadening the hate crimes law to cover gays and lesbians?

MS. PERINO: I think the President -- the statement of administration policy that we put out was very clear, in that the opposition goes more to a federalism issue. The President believes that every single person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, that violence against anyone is unacceptable and abhorrent. So I think I would encourage you to look at the statement of administration policy that says that we would oppose it solely on the grounds that it would federalize law enforcement of crimes already being addressed in the states.

Q But he found it necessary, if you will, to take specific action when people are attacked because of race, and this is another attack on a person because of a characteristic, and not something the person is doing. You have a segment of the population that you decided needed protecting, and not this one, at least not federally?

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, the state laws address these issues in terms of all acts of violence covered all people. And so I think that the President is going to leave it in the states' hands. And that's what he said.

Q So why should there be a special case for black people then?

MS. PERINO: I'm not a lawyer. All I know is what we said in our statement of administration policy. I take your point. I'll see if I can get you some more on it.

One doesn't need to be a lawyer, Ms. Perino, to see the bullshit for what it is.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

Westboro Baptist Bribed to Leave VT Funerals Alone

Via Prof. Friedman:

Westboro Baptist Bargains Away Virginia Tech Funeral Picketing For Radio Time

By Howard Friedman

Plans (previously reported here) by virulently anti-gay members of the Topeka, Kansas Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals of the Virginia Tech victims have now been called off in a deal with a radio talk show host. The blog Straight, Not Narrow reported yesterday that church spokesperson Shirley Phelps-Roper will get 3 hours on the air with conservative radio host Mike Gallagher in exchange for calling off the funeral demonstrations. While a posting on Gallagher’s website is somewhat apologetic about the deal, Westboro describes the deal in contractual terms on its website. The church's earlier posting announcing the picketing of the first of the student funerals had said that the Virginia Tech killings were explainable as God "punishing America for her sodomite sins and for persecuting Westboro Baptist Church for warning America of her doom". Another of its postings says "The 33 Massacred at Virginia Tech died for America's sins against WBC."

I seriously expected one of the WBC to be added to the casualty list. If my son, or daughter, or wife, or sister, or mother, was lying dead in a casket and these people were standing a few feet away screaming that their death was God's wrath on butt sex, I would lose it. I would seriously, seriously lose it. And thus God would probably then use me as an instrument of his wrath to kill one of those hate-filled idiots.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism

Patrick Henry College in the WaPo, AGAIN

The homeschooler's haven and pseudo-institution of higher learning, PHC, has made the WaPo again.

The reason centers around a trip from Soulforce Equality Ride's "Social Justice for Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People," a bunch of gay Christian student activists who were apparently so threatening that the a whole damn brigade of the Loudon County Police were called out. I'm sure glad they were keeping those queers off of PHC campus instead of, say, busting drug dealers and pederasts. There's a photo album posted by Barbara (some random PHC-supporter, maybe a PHC kid's mommy) here.

The last time, it was over its firings of "liberal" (i.e. not dominionist enough) professors. This pseudo-school is the epitome of intellectual vapors and moral vacuity. You've gotta love the hysterical tone of the school's press release:

Uninvited, often trespassing illegally, the group imposes itself on to Christian campuses in hopes of engaging students in suggestive discussions about sex. By their own admission, organizers hope to indoctrinate young Christians to notions that God’s Word is supportive of the “gay” lifestyle, or that it remains morally mute on a subject about which the Bible actually has much to say, on behaviors it explicitly labels sin.

And then the sigh of relief in the aftermath:

The group numbered between 30 and approximately 50 protesters throughout the day, except when they broke for lunch shortly after noon. “I’m thrilled that it seems to be over,” said Earl Hall, PHC Vice President for Campus Administration, watching as the last of the protesters crossed over to their awaiting bus.

I'm sure you were, Earl. Gay is viral, and I'm afraid a few of your students may have some unclean thoughts tonight.

Watch the video here. I think sophomore Mr. Jenkins may be the next Ted Haggard -- the lispth of condemnation is just too much. And the little snot saying, "We are not just a bunch of sheltered homeschoolers!" -- a blatant lie, is just too funny.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

More Confirmation of "Atheists = Worst People Ever"

Last time, it came from MN, this time, from Gallup: atheists are more distrusted than multiple-divorcees, people from different races, gays, etc., -- the rock-bottom on the list.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Atheism, Politics

Next Time I Hear, 'the liberal MSM'...

...I may have to spit on someone.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state

Discrimination Against FSM Geology

I have been following with much interest the recent developments in the controversy over selling a Christian Creationist book at the NPS office of the Grand Canyon. Although some denizens of AZ are calling for the book to be pulled, I have an alternative solution: consider going the route of presenting diverse views on the geology of the Grand Canyon.

We all know that diversification in America is increasing. Some of us embrace it, others shun it.

However, you appear to be falling behind -- as of now, all you seem willing to offer are so-called "science" and Christian "creation science" books in your store. What about including my highly-scientific drawings of the noodly appendage of the FSM carving out the Canyon?

Will books on Noah's Ark also be made available?