Posts Tagged ‘ACLU’

« Older Entries

Maddow on North Carolina versus Atheists

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

I’m glad that this issue has finally been elevated to the level of evening political news with Rachel Maddow. North Carolina is one of a handful of other states with active constitutional prohibitions that prohibit atheists from holding public office. This blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution (Article 6 and the First Amendment)1 by creating a religious test for public office has not been the focus of the news, probably because prior holders of public office in those states either lie about their beliefs (pandering to the heavy religious pressure of the Bible Belt) or are religious themselves. However, recently, critics of a new Asheville city council member Cecil Bothwell have threatened to try to remove him from office because he’s an atheist.

Here’s Maddow’s inquiry and discussion with ACLU North Carolina Legal Director Katherine Parker:

  1. Article 6 prohibits religious tests for public office and the First Amendment prohibits establishment (and it can be argued that by requiring state officials to be of a particular religion, the state is establishing a religious preference [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Law, Religion | 3 Comments »

Sanford and Ensign Should be Put to Death

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

According to “God’s Law.”

During Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s teary apology to his state, his family, his mistress, and others, he repeatedly made reference to “God’s Law.” In this case, he craftily manipulated the definition to be about self-control rather than an actual serious punishment.

But I’m here because if you were to look at God’s laws, in every instance it is designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line of God’s law. It is not a moral, rigid list of do’s and don’ts just for the heck of do’s and dont’s, it is indeed to protect us from ourselves. And the biggest self of self is indeed self. If sin is in fact grounded in this notion of what is it that I want, as opposed to somebody else.1

I wonder which of God’s laws Sanford was referencing here. Could it be one of the Ten Commandments? Could it be, depending on your denominational choice, Exodus 20:14? “You shall not commit adultery.” Know what’s excruciatingly difficult to find on Judeo-Christian websites? The prescribed consequences for violating “God’s Law.”

So addicted to the testament of the commandments are these hypocritical politicians that they’re willing to violate the First Amendment by signing bills to put them on display at public buildings, as Mark Sanford signed last year. But despite all the devotion to those laws, they ignore God’s prescribed consequences. Sanford says they’re designed to protect people from themselves, but I fear that Sanford must have missed that bible study lesson.

According to God’s law, the law that Sanford adopts so openly, Sanford should be put to death. So says Leviticus 20:10:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Or, is that open to interpretation? How dare we, as a society, as the governed, allow men like Sanford and Ensign, another hypocritical adulterer, to openly condemn homosexuality and other behavior they deem immoral based on God’s law if, when they are confronted with violations of that very same set of laws, we give them a round of applause?

Sanford, you want to display the Ten Commandments on public grounds? Fine. We’ll compromise. You can do that if, on those very same public grounds, you stand there, unprotected, surrounded by stones, allowing the public to choose whether you’re subject to God’s Law as you subject others to your interpretation of it.

—

Mark Sanford:2

-Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
-Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
-No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
-Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)
-Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
-Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
-Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
-Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
-More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
-Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
-Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)

John Ensign:

-Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
-Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
-Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
-Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
-Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
-Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
-Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
-Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
-Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
-Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
-Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
-Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
-Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
-Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
-Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
-Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
-Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
-Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
-Voted NO on allowing Habeus Corpus appeals in capital cases. (Mar 1996)
-Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
-Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
-More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
-More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
-Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Permanent crime database for volunteers with kids. (Jul 2008)
-Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
-Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

In 1998, after President Bill Clinton admitted to having committed adultery with Monica Lewinsky, Ensign called on him to resign, saying, “He has no credibility left.”

In 2004, Ensign spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have barred states from recognizing same-sex marriage. Ensign said:

Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.

Ensign considers himself pro-life and both the National Right to Life Committee and NARAL Pro-Choice America identify him as having a pro-life voting record.

Ensign authored the Child Custody Protection Act in 2003 that prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.3

—

Note: I do not follow God’s law. Therefore, I do not think Sanford and Ensign should be put to death. I am not advocating in this article that they should be, and I’m not suggesting that anyone go about making it happen (unless Sanford and Ensign are volunteering to manifest God’s will). As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone should be put to death. I am merely trying to hold these men accountable for not only their actions, but also their stance with regard to their application of their set of beliefs upon the makings and enforcement of law in their position as representatives of the people.

  1. Transcript excerpt from WIS10. [<]
  2. From On the Issues [<]
  3. Wikipedia [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Morality, Religion, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Just when you thought it was safe to possess a pen and paper, we hear about the disturbing case of Manga1 collector Christopher Handley’s prosecution and guilty plea (disappointing the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund) for violating the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The maximum sentence is 15 years. It’s likely that Handley pled that down significantly.2 What did he possess to get him in so much trouble? Depictions of cartoon children being sexually abused.3

Some call him sick for collecting such things. Some feel he should be locked up. They feel that sick things should be prohibited. What is this really a case about? Sexuality? Pedophilia? Puritanism? Regardless, there has been an uproar in the comic book community, and the point I made last December is being reiterated.4 My “underage” stick-figure sex depiction (daring someone to prosecute me) has been, in a variety of ways, repeated.5

Where’s the victim? The ink? The paper? Are the prosecutors the type of people who believe that fictional characters have feelings or rights? And why isn’t everyone who has a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita (in book or movie form, or, heck, is there a graphic novel?) currently being prosecuted? Heck, why isn’t the government clamping down on Amazon and Barnes & Noble for selling both artistic and literary depictions of underage sex, rape, and torture? If you think it doesn’t exist, if you think it’s not purchasable by the general public, perhaps you’re the myopic kind of person who would cheer to see Handley thrown in jail while you simultaneously forgive the Catholic Church for harboring men who actually stuck their penises in the mouths and anuses of the innocent boys in their care.

Was that statement too obscene for you? Funny, because it really happened to real children by real priests (and lots of other people who don’t even know what Manga is). Why on earth would a man like Handley, who merely possessed drawings of things you don’t like, be subjected to more years in prison than the men who perform the acts you cannot bear to read upon REAL CHILDREN? That, not Handley, is what is disgusting in this society and world. Perhaps if Handley suddenly found Jesus he would be treated with real justice in a nation that touts its freedom of thought while failing to practice what it preaches.

Worth reading is the BoingBoing post about Handley’s unfortunate situation. Also some of the comments are right on target, and I’m going to quote a few of my favorites right here:

-verde-

Thought Police at the door sir:

-Have you ever in your head pictured an infant being raped?

-No.

-Not even now that we brought up the subject?

-Well, mmm I guess so.

-Could you come with us?

—

-spazzm-

And who exactly decides what is artistic or immoral?

Erotica is artistic, porn is immoral, smut is illegal.
Erotica is what excites me, porn is what excites you, smut is what excites them.

—

-anonymous-

One of the questions I have is why the assumption is that such content serves the sole purpose of titillation or arousal for the reader. Yes, its principle intent may be that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reader views it that way. I have books of Toshio Saeki’s work that I have brought back from Europe in the last ten years (and not without concern they would be confiscated at customs or worse). His work is *extremely* difficult to look at, and often incorporates children in sexual situations with adults. I do not find this at all arousing, and in fact, I find it shocking and disturbing. But I find his work incredibly beautiful, challenging and it inspires me to ask questions of myself as I look at it. So, where is that part of it? We must be allowed to examine the work of others that we ourselves may not agree with or even like…And I don’t want to live in a world where we’re not allowed to express even the darkest parts of our psyche…which no one is above. Some just keep it to themselves better than others.

Spare the whole “it inspires others to act”. Pete Townsend has a quote about that.

Then there’s that whole problem of suppressing thoughts and artistic expression. You know. That kinda poses ongoing problems. Telling people what they can / can’t think / express / consider doesn’t really work so great.

And, I highly agree with what was said earlier about cultural misunderstandings related to the taboo depiction of pubic hair making these characters appear to be children.

This is tragic. Very scary, very sad that he pled guilty without proper counsel. (I’m a mid-30’s white female, btw).

—

-anonymous-

Wow. I guess I better get ready for prison. I drew a picture of myself having sex with a cartoon girl (…after cutting her cartoon head off). By this standard, I’m guilty of sex crimes against children. I didn’t even get to “play doctor” as a kid. :(

If we really wanted to protect children, the US Catholic Church should be (temporarily) shut down and have all the clergy FBI checked and registered (fingerprints and DNA, you pervy bastards). Let’s start with the real criminals. Remember the psychologist in Happiness who was a pedophile? He jerked himself off to a male teen magazine in the back of his car (one of my all-time favorite cringe comedy moments). Those are the PEOPLE you should be worried about having pictures fuel their desire. It won’t be the loli.

I am a victim of child sexual abuse in two ways. I was abused as a teen, and my first attempt at intercourse was destroyed by my adult partner’s sobs of physical and psychological pain. She had been raped as a young girl. I carried that crushing guilt with me for several years after that.

Show me comics/drawings of someone’s fantasy/nightmare of raping and killing children, I may enjoy it. I may abhor it. I might fantasize about killing the person who made it. I might masturbate to it and cry afterward. In the privacy of my home and in my mind, I should be able to do anything I want with it.

Should I go to jail for thoughts?

In the meantime, I’m going to be renaming all of my folders “midget porn.”

—

-Redsquares-

In other news, millions arrested for owning copies of Gauguin’s works and early sketches.

I’d hate to see what happens to Scheile collectors.

God dammit, under this sort of law, my paper on Bellmer I wrote for art history is enough to throw most of that class in jail. Dude drew bisected nude girls, in a clearly sexualized nature. Damn good drawings, aesthetically and technically: well done, good composition, and were done to fuck with the Nazis to boot, but still… what does that prove?

It’s obvious you are a sick fuck, no matter what the hell you do. Someone, somewhere, is against it for the pure purpose of being against it, the only question is: can they convince others to be against it too?

—

-blueelm-

What a strange situation. It was my understanding that the posession of photographic child pornography was illegal because it encouraged the assault and mistreatment of the children in the picture. In other words it is documentation of abuse.

It is a strange and tough argument about manga and I don’t know exactly how I feel, but while our children are fetishised to a large degree in the US there is a distinction between a predatory pedophile, your nasty uncle, and people who collect drawings of little girls being split in half by squid with hardware. I’m not sure that the latter influences the former, as the person molesting one’s child is more likely to be a good friend or spouse than a sexually-frustrated comic collector.

I think the Gacey clown of pain model sticks in people’s heads, but remember that he actually interacted with kids… not drawings of them. Secondly while we may be stigmatizing our kids by putting them in beauty pageants and American Apparel ads, the objective of some one who compulsively rapes small children is not to worship the adult-like beauty of a little girl but rather to have sex with her because it fufuls a compulsive need. As far as sympathy for them, I’m not sure about these teach-a-lesson type laws, but I see no problem with confining a serious enough offender from the rest of society, but some one with some drawings? Really?

By the same token it makes me sad that there is probably some one who has actually raped a little girl who will serve less jailtime than this guy will for having some troubling drawings. As far as the drawings, as an artist, I can’t help but think that these things must be tolerated.

—

Okay, that’s enough for now. Check out the BoingBoing comment thread and KOS for a lot more on both sides of the issue.

If you have some extra money, donate it to CBLDF. If you know someone who is about to get in trouble for possessing cartoons (or a book, etc.), refer the person to CBLDF and the ACLU.

  1. “Comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku コミック), in the Japanese language and conforming to the style developed in Japan in the late 20th century.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga [<]
  2. Here’s a link via Wired of his actual plea agreement. I think he screwed himself. [<]
  3. I’m sure that statement will get some unwanted Google hits to my blog. [<]
  4. If you missed it, the argument was about Lisa Simpson, the cartoon character, being depicted in sexual situations, and a law in Australia was being applied. My earlier article also referred to the U.S. Protect Act and related laws that have arisen in the Handley case. [<]
  5. No, I’m not taking credit for it, but I did post it in December, damnit! [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Law, Sexuality | 3 Comments »

February Friday Fun

Friday, February 27th, 2009

What kinda stupid stuff has the government been doing lately? Let’s find out on February Friday Fun.

First, we start off with the imbecilic local government in Clearwater, Florida, who first fined a store owner for having upon his store wall an image of a fish of the type that he sold in the store (violating a code against store owners having on display a depiction of something the store sells — uhm, that makes sense), and then was fined yet again for him covering it up with a naked picture of his wife! No, just kidding. Actually, he was fined again for covering it up with the U.S. Constitution. According to the St. Petersburg Times, the ACLU is suing the city of Clearwater, alleging that it has violated the shopkeeper’s First Amendment rights. Pshaw. What First Amendment?

What First Amendment?

Next, Vjack asserts that a qualified apology (a non-apology apology) isn’t really an apology, especially with respect to the kind of public apology that seems expected from those responsible for what is being claimed to be a racist cartoon. Although Vjack has his points (when doesn’t he?), the most interesting part of his article is the comments, which lean toward suggesting that an apology isn’t necessary at all. Particularly in cases where either the meaning is misunderstood, or if the would-be apologizer meant to do whatever it was that caused offense. I agree with Vjack that people should take responsibility for their actions, but I also don’t think that people should apologize for something non-existent caused by a misunderstanding, when there was no intent to do harm. But I mean that as a general principle — no “default” knee-jerk apologies; that doesn’t mean there aren’t cases where it’s in everyone’s best interest for someone to make a real, formal apology. Unfortunately, though, in this world, an apology, even when there’s no actual harm or intent to harm, is often perceived as pleading guilty, and it’s possible that the idea behind not giving a “real” apology is really just a way of saying, “Look, this isn’t what you think it is, and if I apologize for it, you’ll think you were justified in thinking it was what you think it is.” Apologies shouldn’t be evidentiary (except maybe while being interrogated by police), but they are.

This burns. Jesse at Rant & Reason brings to light the fact that a sole Colorado legislator voted against a bill that would require HIV tests for pregnant women (to ensure the health of the foetus/baby), specifically because HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and that he didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” What a crock! Read the article if you want to be further disgusted by the inhumanity of some of the idiots we elect to represent our interests.

As I re-Tweeted on Twitter the other day, Christopher Hitchens was on Lou Dobbs (no, not like that!), and I’ll let PZ Myers at Pharyngula give the rundown, because I’ve had a shitty week. The issue is the UN’s proposed resolution banning blasphemy. (It’d make it a crime in the U.S. to criticize religion (specifically Islam). WTF!). Fuck Islam. Fuck Mohammed, Muhammed, Muhammad, Mohinder, whomever. Where was that First Amendment again? Oh, that’s right, we don’t have one. Fifty-fucking-seven nations supporting this!?!? If it passes, the U.S. should leave the UN. “Universal human rights exist whether religion recognizes them or not,” says Hitchens. Woot.

Oh, hey, remember when I said that there’s no First Amendment? I meant that we civilians, we “people” don’t have First Amendment rights. Apparently, though, government entities do. WTF? According to The Legal Satyricon, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously held “that a city’s government has a right to decide which donated monuments to display on municipal property.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State suggests dropping prayers and invocations at political rallies. “The only thing worse than having these prayers in the first place is to have them vetted, because it entangles the White House in core theological matters.”

And that’s it for this first and last edition of February Friday Fun, which is just some name I made up just now, because “Daily Dose” was just too alliterative for me.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Religion | No Comments »

Hardcore Atheist List

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

I first saw this list on Tangled up in Blue Guy’s blog, but it was originally posted at Friendly Atheist’s blog. I’ve been procrastinating, partially because I had some bones to pick about some of the specific items, but apparently Friendly Atheist has made some edits. Now I’ll try again, with my sometimes extended commentary. If you have a blog, copy the list (the clean list is on FA’s site) and post an answer of your own, bolding the ones you’ve done (or cheating, like I do), and comment below with a link! If you don’t have a blog, or you just don’t want to put this on your blog, do a list in the comments!

How much of an atheist am I? Let’s find out. The challenge is to boldface the ones I’ve done, and elaborate, if I choose.

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
-I’m giving myself half a point on this one. I’ve said the words (over and over), but I haven’t made a video and posted it on the YouTube version of the Blasphemy Challenge. I’ll say it again: fuck the holy spirit.

2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
-Yeah, right.

3. Created an atheist blog.
-You’re lookin at it.

4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
-And the invisible pink unicorn, and the flying teapot, and whatever else gets the message across. Lately, it’s ingesting sand.

5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
-I don’t like the way this one is phrased. I don’t get offended. I will correct someone, but I won’t get offended. I don’t think a real atheist would.

6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.
-Well, that would be included in unable to watch anything with that idiot in it.

7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
-To be fair, I don’t know that many Christians. Most are family. I’ll give myself half.

8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
-That, and my atheist hint book. But why bother with paper when you can have the skeptic’s annotated bible?

9. Have come out as an atheist to your family.
-The ones that matter.

10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.

11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.

12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
-This one I’m particularly proud of.

13. Donated money to an atheist organization.

14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
-I will if you send me the $$ to facilitate that. But I’d never limit it to one author. Dawkins is great, but he’s not god. ;)

15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
-Best friend in high school went all Mormon, and I also lost the friendship of about half of my family.

16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.

17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.

18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
-Kinda, but I don’t actually display anything.

19. Attended a protest that involved religion.

20. Attended an atheist conference.

21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.

22. Started an atheist group in your area or school.

23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.

24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.

25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
-I’m having trouble with this one. It sounds extremely shallow and pointless, but perhaps I’m missing something. Why would doing that make me “Hardcore”?

26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
-Actually, I think about this kinda stuff all the time. I am very careful not to scream anything during sex, lest I offend or distract. I’ll give myself half.

27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
-I’d be working for the ACLU right now if that were the case.

28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).

29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.

30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
-I usually say nothing. Why bother, when 90% of the people around me are of the inclination already to do it. Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I were in an elevator with just one person, and that person sneezed. God would probably smite the poor bastard.

32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
-Hahah, I like this one. Yes, and no to this one. I’ve refrained from doing so, and I’ve also kept my hands clasped on purpose just to see if people would regard me differently (while I keep my eyes squinty).

33. Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
-Heh, yep. And radio, too.

34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.

35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
-Yes and no. I’m not really me on anything public. yay. I’ll give me half.

36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).

37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)

38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.

39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
-For this one, I’m also going to count writing a letter to a government representative.

40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
-“New Atheist”? Is that the name of the book, or are you saying “Not a book by Bertrand Russell? And I’ve given a lot of my own “book” away, in a sense. The Atheist Hint Book.

41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
-Yeah, everything that doesn’t say “pro-God” is my pro-atheist garb. Yay.

42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
-Heh, yep. Also, I stood on the stoop outside the other day, during the amazingly freezing weather, just to talk to a few young Mormons (called, oddly enough, “Elders”) for two hours! I even told them straight to their faces that their chances of converting anyone on my block were none to less than none.

43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
-In a sense. I’ll leave it at that, and half it.

44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).

45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
-How about I tell people not to send me Christmas presents?

46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
-In general.

47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
-Well, that, and I like to be mysterious. ;)

48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
-Close to #46.

49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
-Almost every time, except when I’m nodding off.

50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.
-Yeppers. Can’t stand them quasi-religious non-church churches.

Friendly Atheist’s ranking system:

0-10: Impressive, but not too far from agnosticism.
11-20: You are, literally, a “New Atheist.” But you now have something to strive for! Go for the full 50!
21-30: You are an atheist, but babies aren’t running away from you. Yet.
31-40: You are the 5th Horseman! Congratulations!
41-50: PZ Myers will now be taking lessons from you.

—

Looks like I scored a 30.5.

yay?

StOP

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries