Also see What is Terrorism? by Mojoey
Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’
Through the Lens of Righteousness [StOP Comic 20]
Saturday, November 7th, 2009
Do Atheists Get Happy When “Bad Things” Happen to Christians?
Friday, September 18th, 2009Has this happened to you?
Have you read a Tweet by someone that says, “Mayor who wanted to erect ten commandments tablets in front of City Hall loses in court,” and smiled? Or even smirked, or said “awesome!” to yourself? Have you ever cheered when hearing about a teacher getting suspended for trying to force school children into daily prayer? Do you ever laugh at a Christian who tries to debate Richard Dawkins and fails miserably?
Those things are “bad” to Christians and other believers. Of course, the concept of “bad” is relative (for those who reason), but it’s generally accepted by believers (or, more specifically, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and even a lot of moderates who care) that failure to influence others with regard to their chosen religion is a bad thing. It’s losing ground in the “fight” against the heathens, the godless, and sin. It’s also quite often an emotional experience for believers to lose, for they hold close to their faith, and are empowered by it.
Is it right for atheists to revel in victory? Is is honorable, rational, or productive to laugh in the face of a fallen opponent? Have centuries of oppression and fear caused us to suffer from nervous laughter syndrome, whereby our repressed emotions and need to express ourselves manifest derision and ridicule at even the slightest slip by our oppressors? Is it healthy or beneficial for us to perpetuate such reactions? Do we threaten the already tenuous relations between believers and non-believers?
I don’t ask all of these questions rhetorically. I’d really like to know what others think. I, myself, am guilty of feeling pleased, perhaps in an act of self-righteous justification, when I read about court decisions that interpret the First Amendment the way I think it should be interpreted, despite the fact that somewhere, there is a person who lost that case who cared deeply about it. Do I owe that person a modicum of respect? Do I really disrespect that person or show some sort of evil “true colors” if I choose to cheer when I think justice has been done and freedom from religion is further secured? With these thoughts I am struck.
The DC Civil War Has Begun
Friday, May 22nd, 2009As predicted by Marion Barry, the first volley of attacks has occurred in the DC battle over gay marriage.
The attack comes in the form of a bill with 30 initial co-sponsors, notably including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), that directly opposes the DC Council decision earlier this month to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. The “DC Defense of Marriage Act” states that for all legal purposes, “marriage” means the union of one man and one woman. If it passes, it will undo the DC Council’s decision as well as preempt any DC marriage equality bill.
Conservative opponents of gay marriage in the District continue to claim that the majority of DC residents oppose gay marriage. Religious and other leaders plan to petition the Council for a citywide referendum. Again, the suggestion is made that a black-majority, traditionally made up of notably religious Democrats, opposes gay marriage and any attempt to recognize same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions. Until the referendum shows otherwise, that appears to be the type of hype and speculation that keeps naysayers like Bishop Harry Jackson of Lanham’s Hope Christian Church in the media spotlight.
Not only is this a gay rights battle, but it is also an example of the states rights conflict that sets DC apart from every other jurisdiction because, despite having a council, it lacks its own legislative representation. In other words, regardless of a decision made by DC local rules, the federal Congress can intrude with its own agenda.
Put succinctly by Jeffrey Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, a group that represents gay residents of the District:
The disappointing thing is that here we are fighting to govern and pass our own laws in the District of Columbia, and Bishop Jackson chooses to run to Capitol Hill to stand with congressmen to impose their will upon the residents of the District of Columbia.1
Of course, none of this will matter if Mr. Broun of Georgia, and company, get their way… (yes, unlikely in this Democrat-heavy Congress, but why again are we paying the salaries of people who waste time trying to pass such amendments when the economy is still tanking, people are still dying in distant and pointless wars, and so many other problems in this nation exist?)
May 7, 2009… Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. TIAHRT, and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article–
`Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.
`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.
Police Hunt for Boy Fleeing Diet and Exercise
Thursday, May 21st, 2009Forces nationwide on alert for mom, son who are on the run.
(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.
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?
- 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. [<]
- 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. [<]
Andrew Sullivan Still Doesn’t Get It
Thursday, April 9th, 2009I politely jeered at Andrew Sullivan in my last article for not going “straight” on religion. However, I revel in his attacks on his conservative brethren, because Andrew has the ability to be unforgiving. In this case, the target of his indignation hits close to home: gays. Andrew correctly states that conservatives of the NRO are saying that “homosexuals can go to hell”. Too bad Andrew fell short again.
But, here we are in front of the same issue as before. Is this really a cultural issue? Maybe. Everything that goes on in our society is in some way, culture. Culture comes from cultivate or to grow. Anything cultural stems from whatever growth we experience as a society. For to grow as a society, we must grow as a culture.
In his article, Andrew correctly identifies the stereotypical, culturally conservative position that is magnified in the NRO’s editorial as not giving a damn about homosexuals. They definitely don’t. However, again, Andrew misses the point. No wonder Andrew doesn’t accept comments on his blog.
The NRO editorial exemplifies the impact of religious culture in our society, even though the NRO never mentions the word religion. There is no reason to deny homosexuals any number of rights, privileges or recognitions in our society, and there never has been except for religion. Oh, the NRO mentions “social institution” and “public policy” as the reasons to deny homosexuals the right of marriage, but the NRO is intellectually bankrupt because the same arguments were used to keep blacks in slavery. You see, the only basis for denying homosexual marriage is religion. If the abrahamic faiths didn’t exist, very likely neither would mores against homosexuals and homosexual acts. Anti-homosexual positions may exist in non-abrahamic faiths, but Judaism, Christianity and Islam have done, by far, the most damage to homosexuals, among others, by sheer size and clout.
I must shout to Andrew over and above the din of mad clicking activity that happens at his blog to make him aware that while I agree with his view of the NRO editorial, he is yet again falling short on the real subject: religion has caused the anti-homosexual social practices, attitudes and laws that he is fighting against. Andrew can’t see the forest for the trees.
When will Andrew Sullivan give up on his religion and recognize it for the shortfall it has created in his life and others?
Update: Andrew, Andrew, Andrew … Deal With It, Maggie? Here it is, “But I can note that as one of the first and longest campaigners for marriage equality, my own commitment to religious freedom in America is as ferocious and as impassioned as any Christianist’s”. Andrew, you want religious freedom but you fail to understand that your desire to have religious freedom means that nobody gets any freedom from any of it. Christianity, above all faiths (just barely), requires proselytization, which means you must submit to my will. Do you get it yet?
