Posts Tagged ‘ancient’

Police Hunt for Boy Fleeing Diet and Exercise

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Forces nationwide on alert for mom, son who are on the run.
obese
(Image is ubiquitous, represents but does not depict child in question)

Health and faith clashed in the courtroom, with police on the lookout for a Minnesota mother who fled with her obese 13-year-old son rather than consent to a diet and exercise program.

A court-ordered BMI examination on Monday showed that Danny Hoosier is severely obese, with a score of 43, and that he would likely die from the symptoms of obesity if he did not receive physical and diet therapy.

Before she fled, Caileen Hoosier, a Roman Catholic, told a judge that she wished to treat her son’s obesity with spiritual healing methods advocated by an American Spaniard religious group known as the Nameless Band.

Danny has severe childhood obesity, a highly curable form of obesity when treated with a regimen of diet and exercise. But the teen and his parents rejected the regimen after a single workout session followed by having to eat broccoli. The boy’s mother said that exercise and putting healthy substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions.

Authorities are alerting the public to report the mother and son’s whereabouts, if seen, and that they have frequently been sighted at McDonald’s drive-thrus. 1

Seems silly, no matter how you look at it, eh?2

Isn’t this mother’s action equivalent to post-partum abortion, or should parents be allowed to “care for” their children in whatever manner they feel appropriate? What do the Libertarians say about this?

In addition, isn’t it curious how it seems that religion gets a free pass in many aspects of law and society (e.g., tax breaks, requiring monotheistic belief for public office, hate crimes based on religion, general inability to criticize religion, lighter sentences), but when society doesn’t agree with someone’s specific actions, it condemns those actions, even if they were motivated by sincere religious conviction?

Broken down, here’s what it means: Religion does not give you a free pass. Accepted religion does. That means someone’s dancing a jig on the grave marked “R.I.P. First Amendment.”

Speaking of the First Amendment, does this case threaten to violate it in the reverse respect? In other words, by not allowing someone to practice their religion as they see fit (no matter how kooky we perceive it), isn’t that “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? Heck, perhaps the First Amendment does need an overhaul. It obviously doesn’t take into account all the wacky religions out there, and all the wacky people who do crazy things in the name of their religion. What the Supreme Court and others say is, “Oh, the founders didn’t mean absolutely no prohibitions! There has to be some reasonable guideline to keep the kooks from doing really crazy stuff.” Hmm, I wonder who establishes those guidelines. Could it be… mainstream Christians?

Either we need to eliminate reading between the First Amendment’s lines, risking religious justification for all sorts of heinous acts, or we need to eliminate religion as a justification for any action. In other words, if an act is harmful, it’s harmful. If it’s not, it’s not. Religious conviction should not be able to adjust that fact.

UPDATE:

Believe it or not, my satire has manifested in reality.

From CNN:
Authorities arrest mom for medical neglect of 555-pound teen

South Carolina authorities have located a 555-pound teenager and his mother, who faces a charge of violating a custody order, police said Thursday.

obese-reality
Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk,” social services said.

Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, of Travelers Rest, South Carolina, and his mother, Jerri Althea Gray, were located at about 4:30 p.m. near a laundromat in Baltimore, Maryland, by the Baltimore County Sheriff’s Office, said Matt Armstrong, a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office in Greenville, South Carolina.

“The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that was not being provided for by his mother,” Armstrong said.

Earlier in the day officials said the boy “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk.”

Gray was supposed to appear in family court Tuesday with her son and failed to do so, the sheriff’s office said. During the family court hearing, the boy was ordered into state custody because of medical neglect, as well as his mother’s failure to appear. The Department of Social Services then contacted the sheriff’s office, authorities said.

The warrant said Gray was served with papers Monday and told to report to court for a hearing in which the department would seek state custody of Draper. “The defendant has avoided the custody proceeding and has concealed the child,” the warrant says.

Wow. Or is this more satire? How can anyone be sure?

  1. Yes, this is satire. Yes, I have to say it. The real subjects of this insanity are Colleen and Daniel Hauser. Daniel has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a highly curable form of cancer when treated with chemo and radiation. His parents did, in fact, reject chemo after only a single treatment, and now mother and son are on the run, and the court has issued an arrest warrant for her arrest. [<]
  2. Note that my perhaps even more subtle satire here deals with the fact that in the real case, the mother said that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions. When I read the story, I wondered how much fast food the kid had eaten (and how much more he’ll be eating on the run). We’re constantly putting toxic substances in our bodies. Quite a bit of it is natural. What the mother really meant to say is that under circumstances of her choosing, she’ll allow her god to kill her child, because that’s what Jesus would do. Or Abraham. Or someone ancient. She shouldn’t interfere. Funny how she still manages to find a way to ingest food. You know, if God wanted her to survive, she wouldn’t have to eat food at all, or take any action whatsoever to preserve her own life. Fucking hypocrite. [<]

When Will Obama Go to an Atheist Meetup?

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

President Obama has not attended an atheist meetup, drinking skepchickally, skeptics in the pub, or other nonbeliever event since he took office, despite his inaugural address pledge to acknowledge nonbelievers, and his continued insistence on “reaching across the aisle” to acknowledge and respect those with different beliefs.

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace,” Obama stated in his inaugural address.

Within his first few months in office, Obama has already reached that hand of respect out to all corners of the earth, from offers to speak with leaders of Muslim nations to actually visiting heavily Islamic countries , bringing offerings of peace, and an explicit assurance that the United States is not at war with Islam.

Domestically, Obama has reinvigorated the controversial faith-based initiative, favoring religious discrimination in organizations that receive federal funding, and stocking his advisory panel with a heavy majority of theists.

Despite this overt and frequent outreach to religious organizations domestic and foreign, Obama has made no effort to connect with the non-believers he pledged to treat with the same respect and attention as believers. His reference to non-believers seems, in hindsight, to have been nothing other than a hat-tip to the often left-leaning fifteen percent of the nation, most of whom helped him get elected.

Obama has also pledged to seek a new church for himself and his family, subjecting his minor daughters to indoctrination in dogma almost universally rejected by the scientists of the world, with details disagreed upon by nearly every other religious denomination or sect. He has yet to choose one, indicating that he must take into consideration the interference he would cause with church attendance of fellow church members. Why has he not taken into consideration the idea that by choosing to be an active practitioner of an ancient superstitious ritual, he interferes with the ability of both non-believers and those who believe in different superstitions to be treated with respect and equality in a nation founded with an explicit separation of church and state?

President Obama, pick yourself a church along with your wife. Let your children play in the White House playground, or have them tutored by someone who respects reality and can encourage them to be skeptical instead of dogmatic. And then make a surprise visit to a Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris lecture/debate, or an atheist meetup. You might get some shit from the fundamentalists, but didn’t you say something about reaching out to everyone, despite their beliefs? You reached out to one of the most hated homophobes, Rick Warren, for your invocation. What’s stopping you from reaching out to people who don’t happen to share your monotheistic point of view?

This article is a rebuttal to the Fox News Blog comment “BILL SAMMON: When Will Obama Go to Church?” by Bill Sammon, Managing Editor, Washington Bureau, FOX News Channel, which, out of all the things that someone could find fault about Obama over, chooses to attack Obama’s lack of church attendance since his swearing-in.

Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl

Monday, December 8th, 2008

From the What a Fucking Moron files comes the verdict of a child pornography criminal case in Australia, where Justice Michael Adams, of the New South Wales Supreme Court of stupidity, held that a fictional cartoon character, specifically Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson, is a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Because the accused, John McEwan, possessed images of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson having sex, the court found him guilty of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

Said the judge:

In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …

… The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.1

So, is the judge right?

Bwahahahaha. Oh my goodness.

Look, it’s two stick figures having sex: (man, I’m bad at this)
O
|\___o
||/\../\

See the one on the right? That’s a 7-year-old girl, right? Just play along. The one on the left? An old guy.

BOOM, that’s child pornography in Australia. Nearly was in the U.S., too, before the U.S. Supreme Court (barely) decided that, hey, maybe no one is actually getting hurt when someone DRAWS (simply or creatively or otherwise) a child.2 Wait, did I say “nearly” in the U.S.? Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law that Congress passed, which would have criminalized possession of cartoon kiddy porn, Congress persevered, passing the PROTECT Act of 2003 (related to COPA that originated in 1998). Now we’re just like Australia in that respect. [also see the latest bs Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years] (my stick figures are going to end up with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) (But see Update below about the implied overturning of the law) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly:

The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects of child abuse, prohibits all illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. One section of the PROTECT act has been challenged and was upheld by Supreme Court decision in May 2008.3

But perhaps I could have been of some use in McEwan’s defense. Here’s how I would have argued:

The youngest Simpson, Maggie, was a newborn at the start of the cartoon series on television, which was in 1987. Considering it’s now 2008, that would make the youngest Simpson family member about 21 years old. Despite the fact that the characters have not “appeared” to have aged, someone in possession of depictions of these actual age of majority characters having sex is no different from possessing pictures of an adult victim of dwarfism engaging in sex.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that McEwan’s attempt to appeal was successful. What would you do if someone in the U.S. were tried under the PROTECT Act for possessing Bart Simpson porn? What if it were you?

It may seem pointless to defend the rights of someone who would illustrate or enjoy such things, but realize that by doing so, you’re actually defending the rights that you currently possess, but that quite possibly are next in line on the chopping block. If you’ve ever pointed a finger at someone for being a hypocrite, for cherry picking moral lessons from an ancient book, note that by defending what you think is your right to speak freely, but attacking someone else’s self-perceived right to do the same thing (because, perhaps, you don’t like the content of the speech), you’re pointing a finger at yourself.

Wake up. Get the new administration to examine and amend the PROTECT Act, and other laws based on nonsense.

I linked above to The Nock Blog, where an automatically generated trackback thingy posted on my behalf on that blog. Mr. Nock read this post, and commented, albeit on his blog. I responded, and he elaborated. Here’s the conversation, which can be seen at The Nock Blog.

#State of Protest » Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl
December 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm

[...] with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly: The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects [...]

(that’s the auto linky thing)

Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Firstly Wikipedia itself is not banned, only that access to Wikipedia passes through transparent proxies that cause the page that is dodgy to be not available in the UK, with no logging taking place based on Plusnet’s responses and other information gathered from the Internet.

Secondly, the cartoon depiction of sexual acts between minors is as illegal in the UK as it is in Australia. It matters not that they are cartoons or real, as long as the meaning is sexual. I think however a full legal opinion would need to be sought for this, but you can bet that the realism of the depiction does count and Lisa Simpson is real enough but your stick figures are not. However associate those stick images with the words you have so placed on your site then I think you could be going some way towards demonstrating important circumstantial evidence that you are indeed committing a criminal offence. However, I am not a lawyer as I said and a full legal opinion would need to be obtained… This in itself is pertinent to the discussions today as the IWF are not a full legal body (for opinion) and are making decisions about content that can be challenged in court, and would ultimately be challenged with the right amount of suspicion and belief that an offence is taking place.

stateofprotest
December 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Ian D. Nock,

(First, feel free to leave that comment on my actual blog; what you see above is an auto-generated trackback thingy).

Second, what’s the difference between stick figures described as minors doing it and the sticks that make up the words creating the description you suggest would criminalize my depiction? In other words, words are stick figures, and once you start censoring the content of words (stick figure or no), you open the door to having any words censored for any reason. For, who is to judge?

Censorship is a double-edged sword.

Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm

The words give the drawing context, this is what can give criminality to something that is otherwise grey.

UPDATE:

According to Polymorphous Perversity, the fact that the law was pinballing among the courts till recently meant that despite its “passage” in 1998, it could not really be enforced until a final decision (or at least a precedent) was made. PP refers to an article in the LA Times today that indicates that the Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die. Five years ago, the Supreme Court was split on the issue, deciding that the lower courts should determine whether the proposed filters would be sufficient to protect minors. In the key case of Mukasey vs. ACLU, where the ACLU prevailed in the lower courts, the fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case indicates that the law is effectively unconstitutional (or at least not enforceable as it stands), and is effectively dead. Good news for free-speech advocates and stick-figure artists.

Also check out this thorough article on CNet: Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law

StOP

  1. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767142-29277,00.html [<]
  2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795 [<]
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography [<]

The Rationalist Playing Field

Monday, December 8th, 2008

One thing that gets me when I am involved in religious discussions is the constant struggle of the religious to “bring it back” to scripture, as if their arguments are somehow validated by the ancient scratchings of ill-informed desert dwellers. Their beloved texts, other than perhaps the fact that they have survived so long, have no more value as factual references than, for instance, Homer’s Iliad, which has survived (in much better shape) even longer than the bible and related scripture.

My semi-rhetorical question is: Why do people who are supporting rationalism (atheists, agnostics, skeptics, etc.) keep being lured in by the trap of having to argue the details of such scripture?

The simplified way to see what’s really happening when we succumb to the temptation to argue about whether scripture is right or wrong goes something like this:

Rationalist (“R”): “We need no spirits or religion to be moral.”

Believer (“B”): “Ah, but the Bible indicates otherwise.”

R: “How is that relevant? The bible is flawed, and therefore cannot be fully trusted.”

B: “How is the Bible flawed? There are no contradictions in the Bible. It is perfect.”

R: “No contradictions? Are you crazy? There are hundreds of…”

B: “Name me one. Just one! You can’t!”

R: “Yeah, I’ll name you one. How about the no smaller seed part, huh? Or the cud-chewing cloven foot part. Or, even better, the fact that Genesis is all screwed up in its timeline.”

B: “Fascinating, but I don’t think you’re really reading the Bible. If you really read it, you will see. Now, show me what you were talking about in Genesis, and I will show you where you are wrong.”

And then what happens? You get into a lengthy discussion about what boils down to be strict versus loose interpretation and the validation of the bible as a work of god via the holy spirit, which we non-believers just don’t get, because we don’t open ourselves up to the truth. How do we do that? By reading the bible. And so on.

What has been accomplished as a result of that conversation? The optimistic among us might think that, at some point, the rationalist may have planted a seed of doubt in the mind of the believer, hopefully eventually steering the believer into becoming more skeptical about scripture and the world view created around that scripture. The cynical among us might think otherwise — that this was a fruitless battle that mimics many of the discussions believers have with non-believers, on the turf of the believers. That, I argue, is a flaw in our approach to the overall issue of infusing society with reason, and pushing aside (back into its niche, if anything) religion.

The question that naturally follows is: Where, exactly, is the rationalist playing field? Or, where should it be?

It doesn’t seem logical to argue in a vacuum. It’s also probably not effective to avoid using arguments targeted specifically against scripture, like the argument that scripture should be trusted as much as, but not more than myth. One might argue that a rationalist’s playing field ought to be from the point of view of science. That makes sense, to some degree, since science is the language we use to interpret the natural world, and rationalists argue that there is nothing but the natural world. However, not all of us are versed in that language. Should all rationalists who hope to argue against religion, for reason, be made to learn science fluently enough to use it as the choice of the field of battle?

Perhaps the field is a melting pot of just about everything conceivable that can be referred to in a rationalist vs believer argument. Just as many believers cling to their bibles as the only source of truth and reference, perhaps the answer to that is for rationalists to cling to absolutely nothing. This isn’t battling in a vacuum, but is, instead, an acknowledgment that no sole thing defines all truth. It’s a recognition of the fact that everything in existence defines everything in existence, and ignoring 99% of everything in existence to try to define existence is akin to madness.

Regardless of whether I’m right about where the rationalist playing field ought to be, I assert that we need to wean ourselves from what should be considered a bad habit — arguing scripture. Doing so seems to be tossing kerosene on a fire you’re trying to put out. Instead, let their little fires burn in their niche of choice, and let’s start our own bonfire, in the field of everything, and give them the burden of trying to douse our blaze.

Download the Podcast!

StOP

Life and Death

Sunday, November 9th, 2008

The believers among us are most apt to argue about when life begins. Does life begin at birth, at conception or somewhere in-between? The question of when death occurs is not asked often since a fortuitous death by accident or natural death by illness occurs out of the control of the recently deceased.

However, we have had cases where death has occurred somewhere in the middle, leaving a dilemma for bystanders who see medical professionals and grief-stricken relatives arguing about the state of the patient and the likely outcome of a course of treatment. The most well-known case of recent times was that of Terri Schiavo, who existed in a persistent vegetative state without any reasonable chance of recovery and whose sole existence was provided through parenteral nutrition.

Today, we have in the news yet another case of the game of When Does Death Occur.1 A young boy named Motl Brody is confined to a hospital following unsuccessful treament of cancer — unfortunately, Motl’s brain stem has “no electrical function”. Motl is dead. While this case would simply end by the patient being removed from life support, Motl’s parents are Hasidic Jews who follow their religious definition of death: the cessation of lung and heart functions.2 The irony is that the life support system that supports Motl is entirely man-made and without it Motl’s body would immediately cease to function. The religious definition of death has collided with technology.

How long can medical technology keep Motl’s body alive to satisfy the Judaic definition of non-death? Though no one knows for sure, Motl could live another 10 or 20 years before the actual tissues of his heart or lungs disintegrate (Motl is currently 12 years old). Yes, he is being pumped full of drugs that do the things that his endocrine system cannot since there is zero neurological function. Do we allow religious beliefs, however antiquated or insufficient to deal with modern life, continue to rule the rest of us?

With all due respect to grief-stricken families who wish to allow their loved ones to be maintained, in perpetuity, by a machine that replaces all bodily functions while the standard human functions are irretrievably gone, we should demand that logic and reason withstand the emotional pleas or the silly, outdated religious definitions of when life begins or when death occurs. We are a nation of secular laws that continually suffers from the intrusions of those who believe that an ancient book which speaks of an imaginary sky-daddy somehow should take precedence over the intellect of the human mind.

It will now be up the court system to decide if Motl Brody has passed away. If the court wishes to decide that Motl has not passed away, whether by acquiescing to a religious definition of death (a heinous outcome) or by concluding by some other means that Motl is still alive, the court system should also find that since there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitating Motl to a state which can be considered minimally interactive for a human, the family can surely keep the loved one alive if the family is willing to pay for the entire cost.

Though it is unlikely that the court system will find in favor of The Brodys to keep young Motl connected to life support, even if the court system agrees with the religious beliefs of The Brodys there should be no further demands placed upon those who do not share the same religious beliefs.

UPDATE

Motl Brody has died. He was still on life support at the time of his death, so the legal issue of death is no longer present.3

Download the Podcast – Narrated by Huntingdon

  1. MSNBC.com: NY Family opposes end to care for brain-dead boy. November 8, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27603719/ [<]
  2. See Transplantation Ethics, Chapter 7, The Conscience Clause: How Much Individual Choice Can Society Tolerate in Defining Death?, by Robert M. Veatch. http://books.google.com/books?id=aNcbKssW30IC&printsec=frontcover#PPA114,M1 [<]
  3. WashingtonPost.com: Boy whose religious parents battled hospital dies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111601226_pf.html [<]