Posts Tagged ‘Kansas’

Sean Tevis is Back

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Back in July, 2008, I alerted State of Protest readers to the novel way Kansas resident Sean Tevis used the Internet as a political campaign tool in order to make an incredible attempt to oust the obsolete incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Regardless of the fact that the outcome was not in Tevis’ favor, he created an historic moment for the record number of donors he acquired as well as the uniqueness of his technologically progressive approach.

Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.

So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.

Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.

Rachel Maddow Gives Props to FSM on Darwin Day

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Rachel Maddow celebrated Darwin Day tonight by calling the FSM movement a “perfectly brilliant challenge” to the popular idea that the Christian god created everything (i.e., the assertion that religion needs to be taught alongside science). She noted that when creationism (or “intelligent design“) was being proposed as something that needed to be taught in schools, the “inventor” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bobby Henderson, challenged the Kansas State Board of Education. Henderson stated that if creationism were to be taught, then the scriptural basis for creation showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything ought to be taught, as well, and that it would be offensive if the teaching weren’t done in proper Church of the FSM garb — full pirate regalia.

Maddow also cited the 39% of Americans believing in evolution Gallup poll (25% not believing in evolution) before interviewing Edward Larson, Pepperdine University (affiliated with the Churches of Christ) Law Professor, who stated, “If people are given the choice between God and Darwin, most of them will choose God.”

Rachel, you rock.


Lies, Damn Lies, and Creationism – Redux

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Book Review- Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes

Book review by L.Grey, with permission.

In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.

Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.

Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95

What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?

You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:

Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]

The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.

While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.

The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.

This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.

While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.

One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.

-Philadelphic

Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…)
(more…)

We Need 3000 Sean Tevises

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Look up rational activism in the encyclopedia, and you should find Sean Tevis. If not, slip his bio in there.

Sean Tevis

Last week (on or about July 16), Sean created a web page with some stick-figure action figures resembling Frank Miller’s “300.” These stick figures were yelling something about how the Internet could change the face of political history. Well, it did, and it’s still going strong.

Arlen Siegfreid is a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Although Representative Siegfreid seems a shoe-in for the next election, Sean, a non-politician “Information Architect,” wants to run against him.

With a common sense platform, mostly designed to oppose Siegfreid, Sean readied himself to play the political race game, until he stumbled upon a hurdle that would seem insurmountable for most would-be activists: he needed name recognition cash. According to Sean’s entertaining stick-figured explanation of the situation, 93.4% of the time it’s the candidate with the most advertising money who wins an election. It’s mid-July, and Sean asks, “How much do I need?” The verdict: $26,000. By July 28.

Game over, man! Game over!

No, not for Sean! See, Sean is an educated man. Sean knew that it would require 52 donors, donating $500 each, to meet his goal. However, having spent some time learning basic math in school, Sean figured that he could reduce the amount of individual donations required by increasing the number of donors. Brilliant! Reminds me of the idea I had as a child to send a letter to every resident of the U.S., asking for them to send me a dollar each. I’d have been a millionaire for sure! Except that I wasn’t so great at math, and I didn’t account for the fact that it would actually cost me money to send those letters, and I would have to offset any earnings made by the cost of those letters, and I wasn’t guaranteed to get any money. Even if half of the U.S. sent me a dollar, I’d still end up with a negative return. But, as Sean says, This is the Internet!

Instead of trying to find a handful of very generous donors, Sean would seek out great gobs of very slightly generous donors, via the Internet, which is practically free.

His goal was to acquire 3000 donors, donating $8.34 each.

He drew his stick-figure story, and posted his request website page, with a little button link to donate via PayPal. He even listed the basic campaign finance rules and a list of perks for higher than requested donations (campaign t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Kansas flags, among them).

And then he waited. (I’m sure the waiting involved a bit of “alerting the press”)

BoingBoing (one of my favorite must-visit-daily websites), and a few others got the word. I got the word from BB, and spread it to the Atheist Think Tank forum. I monitored Sean’s website, watching the donors increase slowly. I was getting worried. When I first started watching, he had only acquired a hundred or so. But, probably because of all the latency created by the flood of visitors to his website, I was likely not seeing what was really happening. My forum friends informed me that they had either donated or that the website was sluggish. We started passing out Sean’s direct email so that we could donate via PayPal without going through his website. We sat and watched and cheered and rallied. And, apparently, so did a hell of a lot of others.

And today, July 21, the number of donors is 5,298.

That’s five-thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight donors.

Screw 3000, make 6000!

Apparently no state representative in Kansas history has ever had more than 644 donors.

WIN!1

But you know what has gotten me really excited about all this? It’s not Sean Tevis specifically, although I think he’s established himself as a hero. It’s that this has given us an example of how we can use our resources to make progressive change, to rally against the incumbents who want to tell us that the way to live our lives must conform to their twisted ideologies. It shows us that there are people out there who give a shit, and although they might not all individually be able to stand up and fight, they sure can click a button and send a real representative a few bucks to help do something about this strangulation we’re enduring. And that representative can do what needs to be done without worrying about not being related to an oil tycoon. If you want to phrase that in popular terminology (that, in its spiritual sense, doesn’t necessarily correspond to my rational belief system, but is a close enough word), it gives us rationals some hope.

Sean Tevis needed 3000 of us to help him kick some ass.

What we need is 3000 Sean Tevises.

[Update: At the end of July, Sean had nearly $100,000 in donations. According to his Weblog, he's made more money than his opponent, and since his money hasn't come from lobbyists, he's not tied down by promises that would shaft the voters. Great job, Sean!]

First, go visit Sean Tevis by clicking these words, and see what he’s done, and maybe donate a little.

Second, do something about something. I can’t tell you exactly what to do. All I know is that if we even had ten, twenty more people like Sean Tevis, we could start reversing this trend of government-sponsored, taxpayer funded perniciousness. Donate to a Sean Tevis, run your own campaign, start a local paper or a blog, get active.

  1. or “PWN!” if that suits you [<]

Mourning Cards and Tornadoes

Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

The father of a co-worker on a different floor died the other day, and another co-worker got a card and started a collection for flowers for the funeral. No big deal. Passed the card around. I was one of the later persons to receive the card to jot down something. We do this all the time for birthdays, and it’s fairly easy to come up with something to say for a birthday. “Happy Birthday!” “Best Wishes!” “Hope you get laid!” You know, something like that. Cheery or morose, doesn’t matter for a birthday card. “Hey, at least you still have your hair! Most of it, anyway!”

Well, for a “Your father died. I didn’t know him. I barely know you. I’m sorry he’s dead, but only in that faintly ‘we’re all humans here and share some sort of emotional bond’ sort of way” card, it’s not so easy. I was the 16th or 17th signer on the card. I glanced casually at the other notes, just to get an idea of what others were saying. And what I saw kinda shocked me, although perhaps it shouldn’t have.

Out of 16 notes, 12 used the word “prayer” or “prayers” and 1 used “God.” Yes, I know that for most people, “you’re in my prayers” really only means that “you’re in my thoughts.” Which, of course, makes the use of both redundant but perhaps more encouraging? “You’re in my thoughts and prayers.” What’s that really mean? I’m thinking of you, and, oh, by the way, I’m thinking of you. It’s worse when it even remotely means actual prayer. What, seriously, is prayer going to accomplish in that situation? What, exactly, are these people praying for? “I pray your daddy comes back from the grave so you can say your final farewells.” “I pray that you die soon so that you can see your dad in heaven.” “I pray that you understand that God really loves you and your dad, and death is just His way of showing it. Really.”

Many State of Protest readers are former Christians. Here are some questions for you. When you told someone that they were in your prayers, what did you really mean? And then what did you do? Did you ever actually pray for someone after you said you would? Did you clasp your hands together and close your eyes and start praying with that person in mind? And, if you did, what did you say? For what did you pray?

And why does it so utterly disturb me that so many of my co-workers are praying for someone who just lost a father?

If, say, a member of my immediate family were to die, would I take the assertions of prayer by others as insults or just innocent ways of expressing their attempt at shared mourning? In other words, is someone who knows that I’m atheist intentionally infringing upon my beliefs by stating that they will pray for me, for my family member?

It reminds me of a classic dead-end conversation:

Theist: “It was nice talking to you. God bless!”

Atheist: “I don’t believe in God.”

Theist: “But He believes in you, and He wants you to know that He loves you!”

Why do we dislike salespeople who knock on our doors on Saturday morning, or who pester us in stores while we’re trying to look at something? Because they won’t take “no” for an answer. They’re rude, imposing, and have absolutely no care about your feelings, your thoughts, your beliefs. Same reason we don’t like evangelicals. Now, these 13 or so co-workers who felt the need to indicate (out of piety or self-righteousness) that they were praying for the card’s recipient probably wouldn’t consider themselves evangelical. However, aren’t they?

Are prayers useful? Apparently some prominent people would like to continue to encourage that belief. Some frighteningly prominent people.

In 2000:

At the White House, President Clinton said he was “saddened by the terrible loss of life” in Georgia, and asked Americans to pray for the victims.1

The vice president [Gore] told tornado victims they could count on the prayers and resources of the nation.2

In 2003:

I express my sincerest condolences to the victims of the tornadoes that ripped through Arkansas and Kansas and Missouri, Tennessee, Nebraska and South Dakota. Our prayers and I hope your prayers are with those who — the loved ones who lost life or those who lost their home. The federal government, the local state and local authorities need to know the federal government will be moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide help where help is needed, and where help is justified. Nature is awfully tough at times. And the best thing to do right now is to pray for those who have suffered.3

In 2007:

I bring the prayers and concerns of the people of this country to this town.4

Today:

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday offered prayers and disaster relief to the victims of dozens of tornadoes that killed at least 48 people and injured hundreds more in southern US states.

“Prayers can help, and so can the government,” Bush said. “I do want the people in those states that the American people are standing with them.”

Twenty-four people were killed in Tennessee, 13 in Arkansas, and seven in Kentucky, officials in the three states said.

US media reported hundreds injured, and CNN said four people were killed in Alabama. Local authorities were not immediately available to confirm that death toll.

“I’ve just called the governors of the affected states,” said Bush. “I wanted them to know that this government will help them, but more importantly I wanted them to be able to tell the people in their states that the American people hold those who suffer up in prayer.”5

I’m stymied. Does Bush, does anyone really, honestly think that it’s more important that victims of natural disasters are “receiving”6 prayers from fellow Americans than it is for the government to help?7 I suppose knowing how the government “helped” after Hurricane Katrina, people might be somewhat distrustful of such intervention. Also, from the look of the trend — these tornadoes aren’t stopping — it would seem, from a rational point of view, that not only do the requested and given prayers not work, but from a corollary perspective, might even be the actual cause of the perpetuation of these wretched storms. Well, it’s just as realistic as the conjecture that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality.8

I find prayers devoid of usefulness. Ten million Americans can go home tonight after work, hold hands with their loved ones, and utter a solemn, moving prayer. They can go to church this evening, if they’re Catholic they can receive an ash cross, they can mass pray for the victims. They can close their eyes, and ask God in the most imploring inner voice they have to help the victims. All this accomplishes is the exact same thing it accomplished in 2007, 2003, 2000, and all the years between and since — absolutely nothing but the smug satisfaction of those praying that they somehow advocated on behalf of the victims. That they’ve done something useful. Heck, if the president says it’s more important, it must be.

On the other hand, ten million Americans can send a dollar each to a victims’ relief fund. Ten American entrepreneurs can send a thousand dollars each. Five American corporations can send a million dollars each. People nearby can send themselves. People at a distance can send canned food, fresh water, or organize relief donations that maximize what the victims actually receive.

I’m going to pray to President George W. Bush to explain why he thinks that prayer is more important than the myriad other ways these people and all other victims of disasters and war can be helped. I doubt, however, that such a prayer would ever be answered.

—————————–

Follow up!: Apparently “Prayer is among the increasingly creative ways that schools and the community are encouraging Central Florida students to excel on the annual FCAT….”

Perhaps the highest stakes, though, are at Evans High, where students hope to avert another failing school grade.
This week, FCAT prayers will be said at home. Next month, however, when students tackle the reading, math and science portions of the test, Kimbrough of Rising Sun Baptist plans to have church members walking, kneeling and joining hands in prayer on the sidewalks outside Evans and its ninth-grade center. The vigil is intended to last throughout test-taking.

There’s even a special FCAT prayer service March 2 at 3 p.m. at the Evans ninth-grade center that’s open to all. The faithful will pray for good grades but also that the students stay focused and confident.

“God could care less about the FCAT, but he cares about his people,” Kimbrough said. “He cares about what concerns his people.”9

If I were a kid failing a standardized test, would I want my parents and community to help tutor me or stand outside and pray for me? Perhaps they’re doing both. However, this is certainly violative of the First Amendment in addition to creating a form of intimidation for non-Christian students. Oh, and it’s “God couldn’t care less…” Apparently the praying hasn’t been working.

  1. Death toll rises to 19 from Georgia tornadoes, CNN, February 14, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/14/storms.05/index.html [<]
  2. CNN, February 16, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/16/storms.04/ [<]
  3. Transcript of President George W. Bush, CNN, May 5, 2003, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/05/wbr.00.html [<]
  4. President George W. Bush, Bush visits Kansas town flattened by tornado, CNN, May 9, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/kansas.bush/index.html [<]
  5. Bush offers prayers, government help for storm victims, Yahoo, February 6, 2008, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080206/usa/us_weather_tornado_bush [<]
  6. What is the process by which someone receives a prayer? How would someone know a prayer has been made on that person’s behalf unless the pray-er informs the recipient? So, are prayers really just modern-day condolences, with no real supernatural affiliation? If so, why push prayer in school? [<]
  7. If I went to the site of the devastation from those tornadoes, and I walked around to each victim and asked them to choose: I would either give them $5,000 in cash for recovery or I would have 5000 affiliates pray for them, which option would the victims choose? Which would you choose? How is prayer effective again? How is it more important than government assistance? [<]
  8. 23% See AIDS as God’s Punishment for Immorality, Pew Research Center, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=311; see also Jerry Falwell quotes, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jerry_falwell.html [<]
  9. Physical, emotional and spiritual support pumps up kids for FCAT, Orlando Sentinel, February 10, 2008, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/consumer/orl-prayforgrades1008feb10,0,7753098.story [<]