Atheist Groups Continue to Protest Too Much

"At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

That's the text of a sign created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, erected near a nativity display in the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington. The sign was ripped down by an unknown person or persons and later found in a ditch by someone who turned the sign over to radio station KMPS-FM. Freedom From Religion founder Annie Laurie Gaylor pointed out the irony of a vandal breaking one of the famous Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not steal", in swiping her sign. Atheists always have a pithy line at the ready.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. I'm pretty close to atheist...I guess I'll just say I don't know what's out there but I doubt it's an all-knowing being that created us all and waits to sit in judgement on high. And I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in the FFRF's sign, not the least of which is the idea that religion can harden hearts---see, for example, the recent passing of Prop 8 in California---and enslave minds.

But the efforts of the FFRF and other atheist groups that have been erecting billboards coinciding with Christmas (amongst them Washington, DC's American Humanist Association) continue to rub me the wrong way. My biggest problem is, they can't seem to own up to their own ad campaigns.

The AHA's Fred Edwords claimed that their organization had budget money left over in December and that's when they decided to use it, and it had nothing to do with Christmas. However, their ad depicts a shrugging black guy in dreads wearing an out sized Santa Claus suit, under the slogan "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." Nothing to do with Christmas, huh, Fred?

Dan Barker, a co-founded of the Olympia group, had this to say: "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message. On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

Dan has some pretty curious ideas about the nativity. Having been raised Catholic, I'm pretty sure that's not what the nativity is about. It's about a light being born in a dark time. It's about hope. From Dan's position, that hope is based on a lie. That's his opinion, which is his right to have and express. But it doesn't change the meaning of the Christian nativity into some ominous threat of submission and violence.

But Dan evades the question. Exactly why does he feel the need to put up something critical of people's holidays? Why not create an ad campaign that literally has nothing to do with Christmas? Every time these atheist groups attack one of the most important Christian holidays, it just makes them look petty and cruel. If their object is to attract all of the unpleasant and superior atheists, they might do okay. They just shouldn't expect me to sign up with them anytime soon.

Is a Great Shopping Deal Worth More Than a Human Life?

I'm disturbed beyond belief to even be writing this blog entry. Having enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving with my family, I go online to catch up on what's been happening and read one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.

At a Long Island Wal-Mart this morning at 5 a.m., the huge crowd gathered for the company's early-bird deals swarmed into the store when the doors were unlocked, trampling a 34-year-old temporary Wal-Mart employee to death.

Nassau County police Lt. Michael Fleming said that security officers who had been monitoring the crowd---which began forming as early as 9 p.m. Thanksgiving night---were concerned about its size and the organization of the queue. He also said that criminal charges have not been ruled out, but bringing them might be almost impossible due both to the difficulty of identifying individuals on the store security video, and to the fact that many of those in front were pushed by others from behind.

"I don't know what it's worth to Wal-Mart or to any of these stores that run these sales events," Fleming said, "but it has become common knowledge that large crowds do gather on the Friday after Thanksgiving in response to these sales and in an effort to do their holiday shopping at the cheapest prices. I think it is incumbent upon the commercial establishments to recognize that this has the potential to occur at any store."

Listen, I'm not big Wal-Mart fan, but I'm not going to hold Wal-Mart morally responsible. Individuals in a crowd have to take it upon themselves not to become a mob. I know that none of those responsible for this as-yet unidentified man's death are reading this blog, so I'm going to send out a mental curse on all of them. On Christmas morning when they're unwrapping their new cell phones and digital video cams and big-screen TV's, may they all be haunted by the vision of that man's blood on their hands.

We'll Idolize Celebrities, But Only On Our Terms

If you've ever made the mistake of tuning into Showbiz Tonight, or clicking to see highlights online, then you've been subjected to A.J. Hammer and his "panel" of apparent showbiz experts analyzing the day's celebrity "news".

Their most recent topic was Brangelina...oh, look what I did, I did showbiz speak. What I meant was, their topic was Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie revealing "too much" about their child rearing tribulations.

On Oprah, when asked how fatherhood's changed him, Brad said, "I'm impervious to poop, snot, urine, I'm ah---vomit" and served up other "precious" gems. TMI or cute? Panel decision: cute! But Angelina's discussion of her breastfeeding trials with a British journalist, including a very innocent reference to the "football hold"? TMI! The panel then goes on to disparage Brad and Angelina for not having a team of people to whisk away the vomit, poop, etc. God forbid Brad and Angelina actually deal with these things for themselves! And how dare Angelina breastfeed? Surely she can afford formula, and a nursemaid to give serve it up?

The celebrity machine has put Brad, Angelina, and countless others up on an absurdly high pedestal, simply because they chose to be actors/singers/what have you. Once up there, being only human, some celebrities are going to embrace celebrityhood, for good or ill. Some, like Angelina and Brad, whose every word and gesture is hungrily consumed, may rightly assume that their fans want to actually hear what they think and do. Conveniently, the celebrity machine that built them up is right there to tear them down for it.

What really got me in this discussion was the all-too-typical and puritanical aversion to discussions of breastfeeding, which human beings have been doing for countless millenia! According to these leeches, Brad Pitt miming eating a puked-up piece of hot dog is actually preferable to Angelina saying "football hold".

When I waste five precious minutes of my life watching this junk, I'm always struck by how pathetic these entertainment "reporters" are. They get up at the crack of dawn, get themselves trussed up in suits and glamorous gowns to stand in front of a camera to blab about Britney's junk and Paris' BFF's and Angelina's boobs and Lindsey's girlfriends. If I spent a few hours trying, I bet I couldn't think of a lower profession. Their mothers must be so proud.

I'm Confused: Isn't Business About Survival of the Fittest?

As the Federal government continues to consider various bailouts, many segments of the American economy are looking for a piece. In the words of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), "Somebody heard that we're giving out free money in Washington. They're showing up from all over the place. "

Up for heated debate is whether Washington should bail out Detroit's Big 3 automakers: Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, the latter of which is in the greatest danger of running out of money during the next few months, if not sooner. The ramifications of the American automaking industry failing, almost everyone seems to agree, are enormous: plants and American auto parts makers closing and the attendant unemployment and loss of health coverage, a shortage of parts for vehicles already sold, increased foreign imports, higher prices, lack of great consumer incentives, the list goes on and on.

It almost seems unconscionable not to bail out the Big Three, and yet many experts and politicians, including Mitt Romney, the former Republican Presidential candidate (the one with the economic cred), actually support the alternative, allowing them to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or even fail.

I won't pretend to understand the complexities of the situation. I don't truly understand money, I've never made a lot of money, I'm sure I never will. I wish human beings had never invented money. But there is one thing about the auto bailout that's got me really confused. Isn't business actually supposed to be about the survival of the fittest? Figure out what consumers want---or in some cases, more importantly, what they need---and give it to them, or else fail?

Executives for the Big Three claim they have better cars in the pipeline, such as hybrids, that will help break our ties to foreign oil, and I'm sure they do. But the question is, where was this pipeline when we needed it, when the Big Three were feeding the American fascination with, and addiction to, enormous gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks? The idea that we need to break our "oil addiction" isn't a new one. In 1974 President Richard Nixon said that our country
"should not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." Now, American automakers aren't the only bad guys here, but what significant moves have they really made in the intervening 34 years?

Some argue that weaning ourselves off of foreign oil is not only impossible, but actually not desirable (see http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-seven-myths-of-energy-independence.html or http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce11212006.html). Alright, let's say that's true. That still doesn't leave American automakers off the hook. Forward-thinking engineers have developed incredibly fuel efficient cars. Here's an article on one, created by WV: http://gas2.org/2008/03/12/the-worlds-most-fuel-efficient-car-285-mpg-not-a-hybrid/.
Here's another, created by two engineers in their spare time: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/230-mpg-car/4197588660.

Note again that these two cars use fuel, not electric or hybrid energy. They have been designed to be more fuel efficient, lighter, and more streamlined. What is the Big Three excuse for not having delved into this sort of experimental car-making before it was too late for them to do so?

The obvious answer is that they have been operating with an outmoded business model, a business model that simply cannot cut it in the 21st century. And now, as they face extinction, they ask the Federal government for an enormous bailout, to the tune of $25 billion dollars (of taxpayer money). They believe they can turn their businesses around.

Those who would allow the Big Three to fail believe that their absence would leave a vacuum that would be filled by forward-thinking companies with an innovative, modern business model. And maybe it would. But this leaves the question: who, in business or government, truly has the expertise to make the call? Who is willing to take that risk, a risk we might all pay for dearly?

Update:
Lawmakers called Big Three execs to the carpet for flying expensive private jets to Washington for bailout talks instead of taking more economical commercial flights. "There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) told them. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

What did the execs have to say about this? They tried to shame lawmakers into thinking they were dwelling on petty matters. "Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," said GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson in a statement.

Plainly Wilkinson, and the Big Three executives, fail to see the hypocrisy of promising more responsible business practices when they can't even economize on flights to DC. Is the difference in cost between a private flight and a commercial one significant compared to the incredible shortfall the Big Three are facing overall? No, of course not. But economizing here would have a been a simple, and easily accomplished, symbol of their good intentions. So far, the signs are not good.

Obama Already Going Back On A Promise

Full disclosure---if you know me, you know this already---I voted for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best man for the job. That's because he is. But I am not going to spend the next four to eight years wearing blinders, either. When I see him doing something I don't like, I will call him on it.

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama said, "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." And rgarding their negative influence on politics: "That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America."

Well...the New York Times has published a list of former lobbyists, or those who have close ties to lobbyists, who are working for Obama, either on his transition team, or who have accepted White House positions. What's the Obama camp's excuse? No previous administration has had stricter rules and regulations on who they hire (if you've seen their job application, which is available for perusal on the Obama website, change.gov, that's easy to believe). And of course, these folks aren't currently lobbyists, though some were lobbying as recently as this year.

Sorry, but that's not good enough. On the campaign trail, very recently, Barack Obama mocked John McCain's claims that he would show lobbyists the door. Obama said that, “after nearly three decades in Washington, John McCain can’t see or won’t acknowledge what’s obvious to all of us here today: that lobbyists aren’t just part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem.”

Hard to believe that Barack Obama has suddenly decided that lobbyists can instead be part of the solution. Maybe it's a simple matter of realizing that lobbyists are incredibly knowledgeable within the scope of their own special interests, and he can't pass on tapping into that knowledge. I am concerned, though, that he is playing with fire. Let's hope it's not the American people who get burned.

Catholic Guilt Gets Political For Greenville Priest

Father Jay Scott Newman, a Catholic priest in Greenville, South Carolina, has a controversial take on Barack Obama's Presidential victory: he asks his parishioners to repent for voting for Obama before they receive Holy Communion.

For any non-Catholics reading, the rite of Communion is the most important part of the Catholic Mass. In eating the host (a small piece of unleavened bread), Catholics believe through faith that they are consuming the body of Christ. By the letter of the law, one should undergo the Sacrament of Confession (admitting your sins to the priest, and having them absolved) before receiving the Host. It seems Father Newman counts voting for Barack Obama as a sin that must be addressed before undergoing the holy rite.

Of course, Father Newman's stated basis for this position is Barack Obama's pro-choice philosophy; since the Catholic church's position is that abortion is murder, voting for Obama---at least according to Father Newman--is therefore a sin. No word on whether Newman's diocese backs him up on that.

Here's the thing, though. We have a separation of church and state, and though that only means that the state does not endorse any particular religion, and not that churches can't have political opinions, I have a real problem with clergy addressing politics during their religious ceremonies. Church---at least Catholic church--is the place to which you go to worship your God and commune with Christ. It is meant to be an ideal place, a spiritual refuge from a troubled secular world. The political choices of his parishioners---the choices they make when dealing with the state and the messy and often unpleasant problems the state has to deal with--shouldn't be assailed by Father Newman when they come to him for solace.

Father Newman's position on abortion, and therefore Obama, is black-and-white...since he lives entirely within the realm of religion and faith, it can be. Barack Obama's position---and the position of some in Father Newman's flock, who have to live in the real world---must by necessity be far more complex. And to endure the times in which we live, many choices which were once labelled "sins" might be more appropriately called "necessary evils".

If the Gay Movement's Flag Is the Rainbow, Prop 8's Must Be Yellow

Time just published an article called "What Happens If You're On the Gay 'Enemies List' "---and yeah, great, add flames to the fire that there's a "gay agenda"---about a strategy some Proposition 8 opponents have been undertaking.

On AntiGayBlacklist.com, gay marriage supporters have been publicizing the names of contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, names of their businesses, etc., so that those who voted no on Prop 8 can decide whether to stop, or avoid, patronizing them. Is this nice? No. But neither is banning gay marriage.

According to Time, the Yes on 8 website was also publishing names of their donors until recently, when they took the lists down. Hey, they're proud until gays start naming the same names, then they're being attacked. No fair!

What does the Yes on 8 campaign manager, Frank Schubert, say about these gay blacklists? "It's really awful," he said. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."

Oh, Frank...so, it's okay for you to trample on the civil rights of gays, because it's part of the political process! Oh, those damn gays...why don't they just lay there and be trampled like we want them to? They're so uncooperative. Why, oh why, are they being so mean to us? I mean, all we want is to permanently deny them the ability to enter into a committed marriage with another consenting adult...is that so bad?

I hate to break it to Frank and the rest of the Prop 8'ers. You're going to have a really, really hard time passing a law to ban gay people having freedom of speech. So if you're going to contribute money to a campaign to deny them marriage, you're going to have to listen to them call out your name. And anyway, what are you ashamed of? If you believe what you believe, shout it from the rooftops. Don't be a coward twice over.