Posts Tagged ‘journalism’

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.

Spreading Democracy?

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

That was what we were told by our elected and/or appointed leaders when we invaded foreign countries. The United States is “spreading democracy”. Exactly how do we do that?

I realize that members of Al Qaeda plotted to attack symbols of the United States (World Trade Center, Pentagon) in the attempt to undo the foundation of our country, and that the controller of the plot was a potentate located in Afghanistan. Our invasion of Afghanistan was for the purposes of finding Osama bin Laden and for weeding out the taleban who ruled Afghanistan and who afforded bin Laden a safe haven. Spreading democracy was not likely the first or second goal we had, but how is it doing as a third goal?

In our primary goal to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice, we have failed completely. We continue to be mocked by bin Laden whenever he chooses to issue a video update. His exact whereabouts may or may not be known, but the longer we go in capturing him not only points to our own impotence but bleeds time, energy and money from other things that could actually help our country. In our secondary goal to weed out the taleban from Afghanistan, we have largely failed. Sure, the taleban may not be in direct control of the government any longer, but the taleban cannot be eradicated. The taleban, however organized, represent a thought process. They can control from the top down, the bottom up or from the side. Apparently, the taleban continue to control Afghanistan from the side. A deep thought process still alive and well.

In the examination of our third goal, the spreading of democracy, we have failed once again. Today, we have in the news the story of Parwez Kambakhsh,1 a college student in Afghanistan who has been prosecuted for … guess … no really, take a guess. Oh, c’mon, what do you think he could be prosecuted for? Rape? Drugs? Theft? Securing materials to make bombs? No, no, no — nothing that exotic. No, today we have learned that Parwez was convicted of free speech. That’s right! What we consider the bedrock of democracy, the right of free speech as granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, has completely passed by the Afghan courts. They have convicted Parwez of blaspheming Islam because he asked questions about womens’ rights within Islam in a university class. I know what you are thinking — Parwez must have done something else, something more extreme? Well, yes, he did. He printed an article from the Internet that asks many of the same questions and [illegally] distributed that article.

What the hell is happening here? Our government spends billions every month to occupy two countries for the purpose of spreading democracy and we have yet another example of how the basic tenets of democracy that we cherish are flagrantly ignored by the courts of another country. We have been in Afghanistan for seven years — just how long does it take to instill in another culture the basic civil rights and basic premises of democracy? Worse, and as a matter of high protest, the courts in Afghanistan can take action on a blasphemy of religion. That’s not just a violation of the First Amendment, it’s a repudiation of it. This is what religion offers. There is no equality in religion. It is impossible. The Afghan courts are essentially arms of the taleban — we didn’t weed out the taleban, we just moved them over to the side and put them in a place where they can control the law.

We need to get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq) as quickly as possible. We obviously are completely incompetent in meeting any of our goals and we are wasting money that we could desperately use for ourselves. A friend of mine used to say frequently when faced by an impossible circumstance, “You can’t teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you and it annoys the pig.” Let’s stop trying to teach the pig to sing.

Spreading Democracy

  1. Afghan court spares life of inquisitive journalism student, CNN.com, October 8, 2008. [<]

Photography Laws, Photographer Rights

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

Yesterday, I asked a hypothetical question about how you would react to a police officer demanding that you delete your photos or hand over your camera after you’ve taken pictures of public buildings while standing in a public place.1 I also linked to a number of articles that provide ample evidence that photographers are being targeted by overzealous police and security personnel “for reasons of national security” and otherwise.

Today, I’m going to offer up some links to resources that you might find beneficial if you ever decide to take a photograph outside your own residence. Considering that so many cell phones have their own cameras, and that cameras are becoming more and more portable, it’s likely that anyone reading this has a camera, and can probably benefit from a bit of knowledge about what freedoms and restrictions exist in the realm of photography.2

The Photographer’s Right: A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

Photography Bay — Photography Laws

Photo Attorney (look for the “Photography Not Allowed” posts for more examples of harassment)

Legal Andrew: Photo Law – Your Right to Take Pictures in Public

PhotoPermit.org

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

PhotoSecrets: The Law For Photographers — A free, online guide to the rules of taking and selling photos.
PhotoSecrets Links page

Covington & Burling memo to the National Press Photographers Association regarding Rights of Journalists on Public Streets, August 15, 2005

In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad
prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law,
including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the
basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may
constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.

The basic rule of thumb is that if the general public has access to a public forum
and may operate cameras within it, the press may do so as well.

Photo Junkie: Photographers Rights

Photos & The Law: The Legality of Urban Exploration Photography

Andrew Kantor: Legal Rights of Photographers
Kantor’s USATODAY photography rights article

Student Media of North Carolina State University: Photographers’ Manual

U.K. Photographers Rights

Canadian Photography Laws

Feel free to include suggestions of your own in the comments.

  1. Why, you ask, is a blog devoted to rational activism posting articles regarding a photographer’s right to take pictures in public? Quite simply, State of Protest is dedicated to the elimination of all aspects of irrational, fear-based oppression, whether it be from religious organizations, political factions, neighborhood lynch party groups, or school boards. The photography issue has escalated since 9/11, and we’re all harmed by the misconception that restricting photography somehow ensures national security. While we, as a nation, criticize countries like China for restricting blogger, journalist, and photographer ability to capture and disseminate media critical of the government, we simultaneously create a false requirement of the same restrictions on the basis of national security. All the while, the government continues to increase its ability (and legal right) to invade our privacy with wiretapping, cctv, and other methods of information acquisition.

    “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

    – James Madison. Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, 1788. [<]

  2. Note that I am not affiliated with any of the individuals or organizations behind these links. I’ve derived the links from my own searches. I’m not being paid to provide any of these links. I am not providing any legal advice, and I am not suggesting that any of the links provide legal, proper, or correct advice. I am not your attorney. If you need legal advice, consult an licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. [<]