The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that a major tax scam had finally been “exorcised.”

Apparently, banker George Michael’s $3 million mansion that he claimed was a member church of the Church of Spiritual Humanism was initially deemed exempt from its $80,000 tax burden before the Illinois Department of Revenue decided that it was a sham.

It was a sham because some guy got himself clergified by an online church, and then claimed that his mansion was really a church, and since he had a few buddies over (in a “congregation”), that justified the exemption. How dare some rich guy in Illinois try to get away with scamming the government like that!

In other news, Senators Ensign, Sanford, and others are happily residing in their C Street frat house mansion, I mean “church,” which is, of course, tax exempt.

What the fuck?

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!

Regarding the question of whether the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp should be closed, and Cheney’s justification of enhanced interrogation techniques (“torture”), Col. Wilkerson cited Cheney’s ambiguous catch phrases, such as “recklessness cloaked in righteousness.”

That’s a perfect description of the Church of Cheney. Where Cheney’s our Lord and Savior, and Rush Limbaugh’s his First Disciple. This is the Church of Darkness. So, he’s frightened and he’s trying these very Orwellian tactics of using his own techniques and his own results and accusing his opponents of having perpetrated these techniques and results. It’s insanity.

Insanity, indeed. Here’s the full clip:

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.’.

1. The Washington Post

So, congratulations to Urs² (with a close second going to PhillyChief³ ). Although Urs’ caption ran a bit long, I laughed out loud every time I read “Jesus spores.” I think there’s a shirt somewhere in that. And yes, the content of that photo regarded reaction to the Swine flu outbreak.

Here’s this week’s contest. Thanks to Laura for finding the pic.

Caption this photo:

1. Note: If the words “raging” and “hard” in the same sentence made you giggle, it was purely unintentional, I swear!
2. With: “Many Christians were having trouble adjusting to the Catholic church’s more eco-friendly solution to serving communion – Jesus spores. Apparently, breathing the body of Christ is less preferable to eating him.”
3. With: “So condoms spread disease yet masks prevent them?”

“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.

Today, in the land of corn fields, and amongst the meadows and barns dedicated to animal husbandry (how ironic), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that gays should have the right to marry. This is IOWA! The gays invaded the heartland and won a victory. It’s a rather hollow victory. All that victory does is secure the civil rights gays have long sought to put them on par with heterosexuals. That’s all. No big deal.

But why? Sure, there are a host of social benefits in acknowledging formalized homosexual relationships (even the informal ones), but to what end? There is something very wrong with teh gays. Teh gays, many of them at least, still believe in the bible. They believe in religions of various kinds that don’t just dislike gay people, which should be sufficient, but no, their holy books call homosexual interactions an “abomination unto the lord” (or some variant). The cure normally is death to the perpetrator.

If you are gay, and you believe in the bible, particularly the Christian Bible — my favorite being the King James Version — why on earth do you actually believe in that god? In that religion? Why do you attend a church whose very words and practices do more than simply insult your existence, they often require the extinguishment of your innate characteristics and attributes from reality?

Oh, that’s right. Many of teh gays attend a gay-friendly church, like MCC. WHY? Because Jesus loves them. Yeah. Well, Jesus didn’t love teh gays enough to really come out in the New Testament and say something wonderful and loving and uplifting that would erase all the prior hate-filled scriptures. NOPE! But, teh gays love Jesus anyway.

WAKE UP QUEER FOLK!! THE TIME HAS COME TO STOP PLAYING THE WRONG GAME AND STRAIGHTEN UP YOUR LOGIC!!

GAYS NEED TO GO STRAIGHT! FUCK AN ATHEIST AND YOU’LL BE TURNED ON BY REGULAR LOGIC!!

Andrew, I know you really want to go straight and fuck an atheist. I have seen you sit on the fence many times, looking as though you really want to break on through to the other side. If you already fucked one, then maybe it wasn’t the right one. Just go to Dupont Circle and ask around. You’ll find one. It’s okay.

IF YOU ARE GAY AND DON’T KNOW AN ATHEIST, VISIT AN ONLINE FORUM LIKE ATT OR WWGHA, FIND AN ATHEIST AND THEN GET BUSY GOING STRAIGHT.

It’s sad to think that we’re so antisocial or unnurtured that we crave something imaginary to make up for it. It’s like a child’s imaginary friend — always there, always loving. A pity that adults feel the need to do this, as well, but it’s also realistic. The world is a harsh environment, despite our luxuries. Not only are people generally cruel and unforgiving, but the actual environment is also unrelenting — people freeze and starve to death, and it’s 2009! It’s pretty easy to think how someone might wish to think that there is something out there better than this, and that the creator of everything is more than just a fairy tale. It might very well soften the pain that this world gives us.¹

While standing there, in the metro train, trying to hold on to a handlebar straining my reach while simultaneously trying to avoid getting butt-bumped by the people behind me and trying not to shove my groin too far into the faces of the people sitting in front of me, I gave up my feeble attempt to read the morning paper. I looked up and saw the following advertisement: “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God. Come find out more. Maybe-its-God.org”, with an image of a church, emblazoned with a bright white star. At the bottom, “Archdiocese of Washington.”²

I didn’t grimace. I didn’t frown. My eyebrow may have shot up in curiosity, but my first thought was, “I might have easily had missed this. I really need to look around more and pay attention to my surroundings.” I groped for my camera and shot a few seconds of the poster while not caring what anyone else had to think about my behavior (which is unusual for me — I like my religio-curious anonymity). After putting the camera away, I read the poster a few times. How did I feel about it? Did it anger me?

I’ve written a bit about these pro- and anti-god posters on public transportation, and I insist that everyone has an equal right to say what they think — censorship of one is censorship of all. So, unlike many of the religious people protesting the atheist signs, I don’t condone judging on the basis of content whether a statement can or cannot be made. However, that doesn’t prevent me from having my own feelings and opinion about the content of these ads. An earlier ad, near the holidays, suggested quite sternly (using a paraphrasing of a bible verse) that since I am an atheist, I must be a fool. I didn’t much like that one. It’s name-calling, rude. Although ads like that might depict honest perspectives, such callousness is not necessarily beneficial for either side.

Taking that into consideration, this new sign was actually quite well done, and believers and nonbelievers alike can learn a bit from it. First of all, the sign doesn’t point fingers. It doesn’t accuse, and it doesn’t assume anything about the reader. If you’re not longing for something, it’s not speaking to you — perhaps your life is filled with the joy of astrology or pet grooming or even biochemistry; it allows for that and doesn’t pass judgment. If you are longing for something, it’s speaking to you, but it’s passively offering a suggestion — maybe it’s God. Certainly. It may be that you are, indeed, longing for God. Plenty of people do long for some sort of spirituality, divine connection, keen insight into the whys of the world. God, to many, fits that description. Of course, I don’t personally think that God is the answer to any longing I may feel, but who am I to deter others from taking that path or testing it to see if it’s right for them?

An ad like that is simple, compelling, non-judgmental, and, most of all, it’s true. I’m not saying that God exists, but I am saying that the statement “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God.” is not untrue, and the gentleness of its delivery, with the added “Come find out more” is a hook quite difficult with which to find fault. This is what is missing from many other pro- and anti-god ads, and something that should be seriously considered by advertisers.³

One example of a potentially neutral, possibly inviting message is that of the atheist billboard campaign started by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (“PhillyCOR”), stating simply, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

This is a straightforward, not untrue message, offering a bit of social comfort to those who think similarly. Although it’s not as immediately inviting as the Archdiocese ad, it’s not harsh or bitter like other ads from both sides. Anyone should be able to look at the ad, answer the question, and then either ignore the ad or read on for more information. “Don’t believe in God?” Yes, I don’t believe in God. What now? I’m not alone? There are others out here in the world bold enough to call out to me on a billboard? Now I’m interested! In the alternative, if I did believe in God, I could just stop right there, theoretically, and this billboard, just like the Archdiocese poster, doesn’t demand that I continue. Most importantly, neither make accusations about my morality, intelligence, or eternal soul if I do read on.

A more holiday-oriented atheist ad states, “Is belief in God necessary? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” suggesting that morality is pre-religion, either genetic or just a result of reason, or both, and that one can be good without God. This sign got a lot of flack in the media. It’s the “controversial atheist sign.” The perhaps subtle difference between this and the previous sign is that the former was passive, while this sign preaches. Yes, I said preaches. What I mean by that is that it is effectively telling you what to do — “be good” — and why — “for goodness’ sake.” Although I might agree, it’s still an imposition. It’s not unlike an evangelist telling me that if I don’t repent, I’ll go to hell. That’s making a factual assertion. Despite the fact that I fully agree with the idea that God is unnecessary, the idea that I must be good for goodness’ sake (if I’m to be good at all) is not something I can fully back, and not something I think is supported by science.

What in hell is goodness, anyway? Yes, it’s just a play on words, I know that. But, again, it’s someone telling me what to do, and why. That rubs me the wrong way, as, apparently, it did for various religious complainers who tried to have DC metro remove anything with an anti-god message (kudos to DC metro for refusing). Some religious organizations, on the other hand, responded in kind, offering up a twisted retort⁴ — Why believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – GOD.

Although those advertisers should get a hell of a lot of flack from their own side for being so arrogant as to put words in God’s mouth, they do get a modicum of credit for wordplay from the atheist ad. It might have come off as less abrasive had it taken a different perspective other than from God’s own lips — for example, if it had said, “Why believe? Because God created you and loves you, for goodness’ sake.”, then it’s slightly less self-righteous. However, still, it’s making a factual claim — this is the way things are, period. That feels almost threatening to me. It reminds me of the fire and brimstone sermons of the south, where I lived much of my life. It’s not inviting at all, and it presumes that whoever created it is a literal spokesperson for God, or that the person is, indeed, delusional. Contrast that with the first atheist campaign ad I addressed that merely asks a question, and then comforts the reader, suggesting that there are others who don’t believe. No forcefulness or coercion. No threats. No accusations. Also, no promises or questions of fact. That makes it appealing.

Considering what might be a set of positive characteristics for any ad, atheist or religious, a good response to the newest pro-God ad could borrow the original pattern, but make it inviting.

Here’s my humble attempt:

—

Longing for something?

Maybe it’s science.
Come find out more.

—

What do you think?

—

UPDATE: I’ve gotten a lot of “longing for science? doesn’t lift up my skirt” comments. Is the idea that God takes care of some emotional need that science or other worldly pursuits cannot match, or is it just that out of all the categories to choose from, “science” just isn’t appealing in a way that would ever reflect “longing”?

Fine. Here’s my new one:

Longing for something?

Maybe it’s sex.
“Come” find out more.

1. You might be thinking that rich people feel no such pain; they have every luxury, whatever they want, they get. However, that would be overlooking the fact that we’re all very emotional beings, and similarly limited in our physical and mental capabilities. Rich people feel physical and emotional pain, and they eventually die, like the rest of us. There’s no reason to think that a rich person wouldn’t feel the need for a special friend, as much as anyone else.
2. Head to the Archdiocese website for more information, an explanatory video from Archbishop Wuerl, and the suggestion that the ad is focused mostly on former churchgoers. It’s evident that church attendance is constantly in decline, and that obviously worries religious organizations that are fueled by donations and popularity. The Archdiocese site even says, “If you have been away from church for some reason, I invite you to come back again to pray and to attend Mass.” Honestly, one of my first wicked thoughts upon seeing the poster was, “What, are you longing to have your children sexually abused?” But I found that unfair. Although the Catholic church should be brought up on charges (and its tax-exempt status revoked) for its reprehensible mismanagement of the sexual abuse situation, every individual in the church cannot be blamed for the acts of a few, just as we cannot blame an AIG administrative assistant for causing a financial disaster. Unfortunately, the church does create the conditions where sexual deviancy thrives, and it perpetuates falsehoods about sexuality in ways that endanger entire nations. So, why am I not riled up at the advertisement? Because I endorse individual choice and responsibility as well as free speech. Which is why I think maybe an ad that departs significantly from my suggestions in this article might be appropriate in response: “Longing for something? Please don’t let your path end at the Catholic church. It stands for tyranny and injustice everywhere, and it harbors dissatisfaction, distrust, and doubt even within its own ranks regarding its adherence to medieval doctrine and sexuality. Go there and learn all you can about it, though, and make your own decisions. When you want to learn the facts about life and not some old man’s perverted vision of the truth, come back here, and we’ll talk.” Perhaps that’s too harsh.
3. See http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/156393.asp for a quick take on the Washington State controversy over the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s anti-religious sign; also see the Atheist Bus campaign at http://www.atheistcampaign.org/ for Ariane Sherine’s “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” bus ads. Is this another imposition, or is this message somehow carefree and friendly?
4. that’s extra-twisty for you linguists

Although there is a degree of dissent among nonbelievers regarding the creation of humanist organizations modeled after religious organizations, it’s nice to know that such communities exist at all, that secularism is touted by these communities as being a positive thing, and that there is a choice in the matter. Unlike the mainstream religious who assert that to be a “good” believer, one must regularly attend church, if you don’t go to one of Epstein’s so-called “congregations,” it doesn’t mean you’re being a bad nonbeliever.

The article, written by Jay Lindsay (AP), was unbiased, well-written, and informative. Although it focused primarily on Epstein, an ordained rabbi (via the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism), former Reform Jew with a master’s degree in Judaic studies from the University of Michigan and a master’s of theological studies from Harvard Divinity School, the article reinforced the idea that people don’t need God or religion to get together and do good things. It was surprising and satisfying to see this article in a paper that regularly features pro-religious articles and advertisements. I am curious as to how people will react to the article, and whether secular organizations will gain more favor in mainstream media.

—

Note that the Express version of the article is abridged, and can be found at the Express Night Out website. Download the PDF version of the paper. The article is on page 31.

The full article can be read at Newsvine, with the original title “God-less ‘congregations’ planned for humanists.”

What the FUCK?

First, why is this man speaking, let alone speaking on behalf of one of the most populous organizations in the world? Second, why is anyone listening to him? Why are we giving him the attention and quite often the deference he so craves?

This is a follow-up to my post on If the Pope Changes His Mind…

Here are some updates regarding how the Pope is an idiot, and how, despite that fact, he’s still “in charge,” and the media keeps giving him attention and, indirectly, credence:

UPDATE: More evidence and support of my notion that people rely way too heavily (which is any at all) on what the Vatican has to say has been cited by PZ Myers on Pharyngula:
Eluana Englaro has been in a vegetative state for 17 years, and her family has finally won the battle to take her off life support. Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi consulted with the Vatican to impose an emergency decree blocking the suspension of life support, based on the excuse that she is “in the condition to have babies.”

This is a great example of why religion should not be respected by law, and how people still view the Vatican and Pope as some supreme authority on morality and other issues.

UPDATE 2: Pope declares that condom use increases AIDS problem.

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

That’s a classic Pope line. Even John Paul II thought similarly about sex. But what really pisses me off is that the richest church in the world, to which its members tithe 10% of their income, has this to say about the economic difficulties facing those members:

The pope also said Tuesday that he intends to make an appeal for “international solidarity” for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.

He said that while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give “spiritual and moral” suggestions.

Describing the current crisis as the consequence of “a deficit of ethics in economic structures,” the pope said: “It is here that the church can make a contribution.”

Fucking bullshit.

Common Sense Catholics need to get off their duffs and boycott this angry little man, and, in turn, perhaps the media will start ignoring him.

UPDATE 3: Vatican edits the Pope.

But yesterday the Vatican website published an edited text changing his words to say that the use of condoms “risks” aggravating the problem.

Reporters who taped the Italian-language interview said the Pope, who speaks fluent Italian, did not say the word “risks” on Tuesday and he was unequivocal in saying that condoms aggravate the epidemic.

Hell, in my previous article, I asked What if the Pope changes his mind? Today, I have to ask, What if the Vatican changes it for him?

Oh, how I would love to see the Catholic church dissolve in my lifetime.