The Wrightwing

Over on NoGodBlog, the ‘house’ Blog of American Atheists, there is a post and comment thread about an attempted railroading of an Oklahoma Atheist family because their daughter objected to being forced into a prayer circle in her tax-payer funded Public School. The story is chilling in what can happen in America today. It is not just Islam that will engage in oppression and tyranny when it gains hegemony over a community. Without a courageous attorney and the support of American Atheists, and innocent man may have been imprisoned and a family run out of a state, forced to abandon their home and business.

So far, this case has attracted little attention outside the Atheist and Freethinker community. I can find no news sources on Google that mention it. Yet the only things this family did not endure were night riders and lynchings.

Corrupt and lying school officials, police, prosecutors and judges, along with biased and bigoted attorneys seeking to exploit and cheat them. It is a story out of the Jim Crow South. All you would need to do is change ‘Atheist’ to ‘African’ and you could not tell this story from others of that era.

Which brings me to arms.

I spend a lot of time, more than I probably should, on the NoGodBlog discussing and arguing with Atheists over politics, against collectivism and gun control, which many, though far from all, seem to support. At least within that grouping.

But one fellow there had a change of heart on guns, like I did over 25 years ago:

…I used to think as you do. I used to believe that guns were evil and the people that rely on them are cowards, afraid to back up what they say and do with little else but violence.

I swore I would never resort to gun promotion.

Then I took a job that required me to be armed, to take on the responsibility of protecting others. I leared how to safely handle a firearm.

The gun changed in meaning to me. I realized that it was little more than a tool. A tool when, in the right hands, has as much potential for good as it does for evil! Gun ownership did not transform me into a criminal. It did not give me any more desire to use a firearm on another human being than I already possessed.

It made me question the reason a free nation needs such a tool at all. I had my epiphany - arms make and keep humanity free and safe. Our revolutionaries did not merely bander harsh language with a tyrranical, abusive theocracy. They took lives and gave their own because they believed in their freedom!

I know how I must sound to you. Paranoid, delusional, even insane? I assure you that I’d have held those same sentiments not so terribly long ago! But I was an idealist. I believed in our police, our courts, our laws (and for the most part still do).

But I’ve also taken the bitter pill of realism, I’ve stood face-to-face with men that threatened my very life and the live of those I love. I’ve been forced into the harsh light of the truth: we will never, as a species, stop killing one another and we will never live in the utopias we dream of. The only solution to certain kinds of people will always be violence and it can only be met with violence.

There is more. Go and read the entire post and comments. A worthy story to become familiar with.

In my mostly wasted youth I was also very anti gun. I had stickers on my car from Handgun-Control Inc. The ones with a revolver inside an international ‘NO’ symbol, the circle-slash.

Then I went into the Army, (for the wrong reasons and all too briefly), and actually used some: M-16, M-60, M1911, M2, as well as taking the Armorer course, (not intentionally, it was ‘on the way’).

I still thought they should be severely restricted, but also kept reading on the subject, (among many). Being an activist in the LP, though coming to it from the left, for reason of personal freedom such as an end to Drug Prohibition, as well as an obsessive reader, I was exposed to ideas and thinkers from a wide variety of sources.

Having read the arguments on both sides, and having experience with arms, how they operate and their capabilities and just as important, their limitations, my mind was changed.

Everything I have seen, including the tragedies, since then has only reinforced my belief, a belief based on empirical evidence.

Like drug prohibition, gun prohibition is worse that whatever social ills it is supposed to cure.

While gun prohibition is no guarantee of political tyranny, it sets the stage. Every oppression or slaughter of minorities in history has been prefaced by a disarming of the targeted group. Go back in history before firearms were invented and you will see it. Look at modern history and you will see it.

In the past century alone, disarmed populations have been slaughtered in Armenia, Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda, Somalia, Rwanda, more.
The banning of guns has lead to massive increases in crime in Jamaica, Britain and Australia, not to mention cities like Washington, D.C. and Chicago.

Guns in the hands of individuals can lead to tragedies, but they are tragedies limited to what a single person can do.
Guns in the hands of governments, without an equally armed populace to restrain that government, leads to tragedy on a national scale, if not outright slaughter.

Minorities of all persuasions, racial, religious, political, all of them, should always keep arms, and not let the government know it.

The day the government decrees that you must give up your arms is the day you must use them, even if it is just to flee over the border to the safety of asylum in another country.

Why the First Amendment?

This is why:

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they’re suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from “state-sponsored religion.”
…
Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of “killing Christ” and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother’s car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, “Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair.”

In addition:

Special privileges for christian students not available to jews or other non-christians, taunts, physical harassment, deliberate, premeditated violation of law and U.S. Supreme Court rulings by both the school board and a local judge.

Sounds to me there area few folks down there that need to start looking to their Second Amendment rights. And it aint the christians.

hat tip fark

Drudge has two headlines, one right after the other on his front page right now:

THE MONKEY THAT TALKS IN SENTENCES…

Pat Robertson: God Says Tsunami Possible For U.S…

Just too true.

Somehow I think the first monkey, (the little hairy one), has more important things to say than the second monkey, (the larger, balder one).
The first monkey certainly makes more sense.

A question for, and from, my liberal friends and readers:

Why should we teach our children, indeed ourselves, about guns, gun safety and gun use?

This was brought to mind as I was perusing the site of the Spiral Scouts after my previous post about the Boy Scouts. The Spiral Scouts are a scouting organization originally founded by Wiccans, but open to all minority faiths. (I am waiting to hear if that includes Atheists and freethinkers). So this is directed primarily to them.

Update: I received the following reply on 11-May from TJ Smith of the Spiral Scouts:

Thank you for your interest in SpiralScouts. SpiralScouts is open to anyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. The founding group was based with the Aquarian Tabernacle Church, but each individual group is free to incorporate religion in whatever manner they see fit if they incorporate it at all. SpiralScouts is meant to be all inclusive, not discriminating anyone based on any beliefs or orientations they hold. As such, there is no separate requirements for anyone of any subgroup. Hopefully this clarifies things for you, and feel free to contact me should you have further questions or need additional clarification.
Anthony “TJ” Smith
New Charters Coordinator, SpiralScouts International
Tribal Coordinator, Sunshine Tribe
Circle Co-Leader, Emeraldfire Circle #48

So it would appear that each group can choose the policy that fits best. So perhaps Camp Quest can become part of the Spiral Scouts? (chuckle).

They do not list any formal activities or ‘merit badges’ as the BSA does. But they are fairly new, so may not have their program as formalized as it may become in the future.

But I suspect that they would object to any sort of ‘merit badge’ for firearms, similar to the BSA’s Rifle Shooting and Shotgun Shooting badges. I do not know why, but I perceive that Wiccans and other minority religions tend to the leftist/liberal corner of the political chart (take the quiz here). I could be wrong about that, if so, let me know.

So this is for those who think that we should not allow children access to guns under any circumstances. That guns are something that should not be a topic of education for the young.

That, I think, is a mistake. Now, there will be many who will refuse to consider what I have to say, so be it. But for those with open minds on the issue, I ask that you consider my arguments here.

We are a technological species. We extend out abilities in every direction by the use of technology. Whether it is as simple as using fire for heat and cooking, to launching satellites into orbit or exploration of the stars.

Guns are also part of our world. There is probably not modern a human settlement on the face of the planet without them. They are a technology older than the printing press, older than motor vehicles or bicycles, older than electrical systems or modern indoor plumbing. They are, indeed, one of humanities oldest technologies.

Firearms are an extension of the ancient technology of the spear and the bow and arrow. They are a tool, a machine, used to throw a projectile at a target. This target can be a simple piece of paper or wood or some other stationary object. But the intent of this tool is to stop a living animal or human. Usually to kill it. This can be for food to sustain ourselves and our children. It can be an act of defense, to stop, capture or kill an animal or person that is a threat or has done injury to those we are obligated to protect and defend.

And as with all inventions of humanity, they can also be used for evil. But so can a spear, a bow and arrow, a knife, a club, or any of the myriad other inventions we remarkable apes have conjured up in our history.

Guns are things, with no nature of good or evil. That nature lies in the one that uses them. We must teach how to use these tools with good intent and with responsibility, so that the irresponsible and those with evil intent do not rule us.

We can choose to ignore them, and try to raise our children without knowledge of them.
But what has ignorance ever achieved other than tragedy?

I argue against ignorance. I argue that knowledge and responsibility are what should be taught instead. That good intent and responsibility are better than fear and irresponsibility.

Would we send our children off into the world without sex education of some sort? We can argue the nature of it, and yes, there are those that think ignorance of sex is the moral way to spend ones life. But the majority of us, I think, would agree that knowledge of the potential consequences of sexual activity, heartache, disease, pregnancy, responsibility for a child, are all things our children should be aware of before we send them out into the world.

Would we send them out into the world without knowledge of the bad things people can do or the dangers of the world? Cheating when making change for a purchase? Robbing you when you are unawares. Crossing a street full of cars? The dangers and uses of fire?

All of these potential dangers, and more, we teach to our children. And how to handle them responsibly and avoid their dangers.

Guns are a tool of survival. They exist in every corner of human society. They can be dangerous. Our children need to know enough to be safe around them, even if it is just enough to know how to take one away from a child that somehow gets its hands on one. To take it away safely, so that something more tragic does not occur. If just for that, we should be teaching firearms knowledge to our children, even if we intend they never own or handle a firearm in their entire life.

We, as a species, are omnivores. Yes, many of us choose to live a vegetarian or vegan life style, but the majority do not. Firearms are a tool uniquely suited to hunting animals in as humane a manner as possible. They kill faster and with less pain than do arrows, spears or snares. If we choose to teach woodcraft and survival skills to our children, why would we withhold knowledge of a tool so important and useful for survival and for humane treatment of those animals we hunt? Respect for nature includes not abusing it, which I think includes taking animals for food in as least a cruel and painful manner we can use.

We as a species can be violent. While a firearm can be used to commit violence, it can also be used to defend against that violence. We do not pull the fangs of a sheepdog because a wolf eats our sheep with his fangs. We do not pull the quills of a porcupine, because it may injure us should we touch it, those quills are there for a reason, there are considerations other than our own comfort. A firearm is uniquely suited to fending off an attacker before they get close enough to lay hands on you. Something we should all be able to teach our daughters, the most vulnerable of our children.

Many argue that unarmed self defense can be used. But can you teach every person to a sufficient level to guarantee that? Can you teach everyone to the level of a Bruce or Brandon Lee, or a Chuck Norris? Must all our daughters become Lara Croft, and our sons Kwai Chang Cain? And if you do teach everyone those techniques, what is to prevent some miscreant from using those techniques we taught them for evil any more than they would a firearm? And what of those that can not attain this level of skill? Do we leave them to the mercies of the silled? This would lead back to a time when the physically strong ruled over the physically weak. Think hard on that consequence.

We are a species that needs to be taught discipline and responsibility in order to live a good life, a life better than that lived by other animals. There are few things that teach that more than the responsibility of handling dangerous tools like firearms safely around others.

We are a species that needs to be taught how to concentrate, focus, wait patiently and then act when appropriate. Few things teach that concentration and patience better than target shooting.

We are a species that needs a sense of accomplishment to engage a love of learning. Few things do that better than over coming the fear of a dangerous piece of machinery and using it effectively. The smile on a child’s face the first time they hit a bullseye shows how effective marksmanship is at this.

I am not advocating that Spiral Scouts or any other group have kids walking around dressed in camouflage like Marine Snipers carrying assault rifles at sleep-away camp. I am advocating the teaching of knowledge, skill and responsibility.

If you believe that guns should only be held at armories or centralized shooting clubs, fine. But you can still teach the knowledge.

If you believe that only government authorities should have guns, fine. But until that happens, you can still teach the knowledge.

The truth will set you free. Knowledge is power. Ignorance is slavery.

Many philosophies and religions teach these in different ways. I do not know what the various Wiccan groups teach about protecting life, humane treatment of animals, the reponsibility of defending children, the weak and others in general, but I can not imagine most advocate ignorance of firearms the way so many on the Christian Right advocate ignorance of procreation. I can not imagine most would forgo teaching knowledge of the single most effective piece of technology we clever apes have devised to fulfill so many of the responsibilities that life entails.

For all those reasons, and more, I hope Spiral Scouts, and other youth groups like the Girl Scouts or Camp Quest or those of any minority faith that are springing up in response to the BSA’s intolerance, will include some sort of ‘merit badge’ for firearms.

Besides, why let the intolerant and the bigots have all the power, or, for that matter, all the fun?

The Boy Scouts require a belief in a god or supreme being to be a member.

But how about more than one god?

The leader in a room of about 20 Scouts decides to break the ice by showing how religiously diverse the gathering is.

By a showing of hands, he asks who belongs to the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, continuing on until two boys are left who have not raised their hands.
One of the brothers is called out to tell the group what church he attends. He replies, “I’m Wiccan.”

Little did 12-year-old Cody Brown realize how much that answer would affect his life.

They are thrown out by the local Methodist church that sponsored the troop and the Scout Master tells their father that if the boys had lied about their faith there would have been no problem. Is lying in the “morally straight” part of the oath, or part of the Scout Law they pledge to uphold?

The Methodist District Committee over-ruled the local church, but too late, the kids had been booted.

The boys father is a former Eagle Scout and an active duty Army Captain fighting and risking injury and death for the rights of the Boy Scouts. But all of that does not matter.

They are now on the list to see if they can start up a Wiccan version of scouting called Spiral Scouts.

Is this where we are going in this country? Will we need scouting organizations split along religious lines?

Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist, Universalist, Shinto, Buddhist.

Where will it end?

How balkanized will we allow ourselves to become?

All of this because a few bigoted old men in the BSA insist on smearing the good name of the BSA, which has done so much good for so many decades. Smearing it with the stains of intolerance, bigotry and refusal to accept a diverse and changing society.

What a shame. What a sad, sorry shame.

My buddies of at American Atheists nogodblog point to a column in Newsweek by Marc Gellman, entitled “Trying to Understand Angry Atheists”, who asks: “Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?”.

Here is my response:

Mr. Gellman,

I hope this finds you well.

I have just read your column and would like to respond to your rhetorical question: “Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?”.

We are not threatened by the idea of god. We are threatened by YOUR idea of god. Yours and Falwell’s, and bin Ladens, and Robertsons, Roy Moore’s, and all fundamentalists of all beliefs. In the U.S. we atheists tend to gripe about christians because christians are in the majority. And an insufferable majority at that.

But we also gripe about radicals of all religions, judaism, mohammedism, hinduism, what ever ‘ism’ you can name. In India we fight against all sorts of spiritual charlatans and fakirs, mostly hindu, but also mohammedan. In Israel we fight conservative and hasidim parties.

We are not angry with our neighbors over their religion, so long as they are peaceful and non-intrusive. If I visit a neighbor or friend for dinner, I do not ask that they not pray before the meal, if that is their practice. At the same time, I ask that they not try to have a prayer circle at my home, when I have them over. They do not ask that I join their prayers, I do not care if they have a small discreet one at my house. Respect is a two way street, the host and the guest must be mindful of each other.

Which brings us to evangelicals. You mention them as a particular target of our wrath. Perhaps, but not because they are religious, but because, to us, they are a bunch of arrogant, self-appointed butinskis that won’t leave other people alone. Whether door to door mormons, seventh day adventists or others, or the local blue nosed, intolerant censor that wants to rid the local library of Harry Potter books or the works of Darwin. They are like a permanent mother-in-law that constantly reminds you that you are unworthy of being their child’s spouse. Even if they act as if they are all sweetness and light, it is always with a disapproving, condescending, sweetness and light. How would you react to someone that constantly disapproves of what you do in a non-religious context? That co-worker that always remarks on not eating meat in a superior tone, or that neighbor that always harps on those damn democrats/republicans?

We are angry, however, when we read things like “Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse.”.
There may be some that are ‘angry with god’, to paraphrase what you wrote, but not I, nor any atheist I know of. Those that I know are atheist because it makes sense, and the fables and superstitions of our neolithic past no longer fit in a world and universe that we increasingly understand.

We are angry when we hear things like: “How can you be moral without god or religion?”. I have had this, and similar, far more harsh things, said directly to my face.

We are angry when we read junk like the City of Detroit giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to churches for cosmetic improvements to church buildings. Why should we, taxpayers of all beliefs and no belief be forced to maintain a church we choose not to belong to? If the parishioners what the place to look extra spiffy for the Super Bowl, let them pony up the cash.

We are angry when we see George W. Bush funnel money to ‘faith based charities’, in a way that does nothing to ensure these public monies are not used to proselytize those ‘faiths’.

We are angry when the Vice President George H. W. Bush said:
“I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”
As well as :
“I support separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists”

We are angry when supposedly enlightened people like Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, Bill Weir, Star Jones and countless others repeat the slander: “there are no atheists in foxholes“. This is a direct slap in the face of the many non-believers that have served, bled and died for this nation in all of its wars.

We are angry when we see political action by religious leaders that who were supposedly given tax exemption provided they do not engage in political action. We would rather they pay taxes and then engage in political action. The only thing that would change is the taxes, the amount of political action would remain the same.

We are angry when we see religious displays, almost invariably christian manger creche displays, set up and maintained by local governments during holidays, often with only a pretext of neutrality, like a small snowman or menorah discretely tucked away in a corner or half hidden by shrubbery. Often without even that. Those are our taxes to. When do the atheist and humanist displays go up? Or a hindu ganesh or kali? Or a mohammedan mohammed. Oops, forgot, you get killed for putting those up.

Atheists, freethinkers, humanists. We are all over the political map. All over the social map. We are of all sexes, races, national origins. We are conservatives, greens, liberals, libertarians, anarchists, communists, and probably others none of us have ever heard of. We are straight, gay, European, African, Asian and mixes of all of those. We are highly educated, or not. We work with our hands in trades, or with our minds in professions. We are athletes and couch potatoes.

Indeed, in an online poll a few years ago, in an atheist chat list, informal so unscientific, the results showed an almost 50/50 split between those that leaned conservative/libertarian and those that leaned liberal/green. Almost identical to what we see in the general population. The only difference was a higher likelihood of considering third party viewpoints. In other words, we are more likely to be open to alternatives and new ideas. I know atheists that are politically active and politically apathetic. I know atheist gun nuts and gun banners. Atheist pro-lifers and pro-choicers. If you are involved in any sort of civic, social or political group, chances are you talk to at least one atheist at every meeting, whether you know it or not.

So we are not angry at religion, nor are we threatened by the idea of god. We are angry at the actions of an overbearing, condescending arrogant majority that is imposed, often deliberately and with malice, on those of us that choose to believe in a rational, understandable cosmos. We are angry when we are accused of cowardice or immorality because we are heathens, infidels and non-believers.

And like a raw wound, constantly irritated by ill-fitting clothes, never allowed to heal, we react strongly when provoked by things that normally would not bother anyone.

If you want a peaceful society, keep religion out of the secular government that we all pay for, stop reserving special privileges for religion in the public square, stop subsidizing religion with tax dollars and regulations. Maybe then we atheists that you consider so angry, will stop seeming so.

In other words, do unto yourselves what you have done to others, then maybe you will understand what bothers us so much. And then maybe you will understand that golden rule that has been passed down through human societies since before the written word: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In this article it is reported that both Borders Books and Walden Books will not be carrying the current issue of Free Inquiry magazine, due to it containing four of the Danish cartoons of mohammed that so offended mohammedans that they went on a murderous riot spree across Europe and the Middle East.

Borders Books and Music, one of the country’s largest bookstore chains, has refused to stock the latest edition of Free Inquiry magazine because the issue includes controversial cartoons that spurred violent and sometimes deadly protests in parts of Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

A Borders spokeswoman said the company declined to sell the Amherst-based publication this month out of concern for the safety of employees and customers.

Barnes and Nobel are reported to still be reviewing the issue.

Please write to Barnes and Nobel and ask them to stock the magazine. Borders/Walden have already caved in.

Here is a copy of the email I just sent, encouraging B&N to stock the magazine:

Subject:
Free Inquiry magazine
From: Tom Wright
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:17:00 -0500
To: mkeating@bn.com

Dear Ms. Keating,

I read today that there is controversy over the most recent issue of Free Inquiry magazine, due to the inclusion of some of the editorial cartoons from Denmark that sparked violence on the part of religious extremists in Europe and the Middle East.
These same cartoons have not caused such problems here, due, I think, to our long tradition of non-violent political debate, in contrast to the traditions elsewhere of repression, riot and revolution.

Your competitors at Borders/Walden Books have already caved into the fear of retaliation presented by this pogrom of censorship engaged in by the forces of repression.

While I am not a regular reader, nor a subscriber of, Free Inquiry magazine, I am a loyal Barnes and Noble customer, both on line and at the stores. Indeed, I just renewed my Readers Advantage membership yesterday at your Paramus, N.J. store while making a purchase.

I urge you to not give in to these same fears, and to show the reason and courage that a free society demands of its citizenry.
Please stock Free Inquiry magazine in any store that normally does.

Thank you for your attention,

Tom Wright
xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx.
xxxxxxxxx, N.J. 0xxxx

Update: Andrew Sullivan points out:

And if you want to draw a lesson from the entire episode, it’s obvious: violence against free writers and artists gets results. We have all but invited more.

Katherine Harris, the Florida Congresswoman running for U.S. Senate, facing a crumbling campaign, has played the religion card:

In her first major campaign swing since announcing that she would put $10 million into her U.S. Senate race, Katherine Harris got a morale boost from South Florida voters and preached the gospel to hundreds of evangelical Christians.

The Republican congresswoman addressed the Reclaiming America For Christ conference in Fort Lauderdale, where speakers railed against homosexuality, abortion and the American Civil Liberties Union. The title of Harris’ speech was “Bringing Faith to the Public Forum.”

”I can’t imagine public service without faith,” said Harris, amid stained glass windows and American flags. “I don’t know how anyone could serve, absent that enormous strength.”

She can’t imagine public service without faith?

Mohammedans pray for Diseases and plagues to afflict Israel:

The bird-flu virus found in Israel last week was sent by Allah to punish the Jews for being “the worst of humanity” and is the beginning of the outbreak of other diseases meant to destroy the Jewish state within the next twenty years, a Gaza preacher said at mosque services this weekend.

Sheikh Abu Muhammed, an imam at the popular Al-Tadwa mosque in Beit Lahia north of Gaza City, went on to ask Muslims at his Friday night sermon to pray for the sexual organs of Jews to “dry out” so they cannot reproduce, a Palestinian in attendance at the mosque services told WorldNetDaily.

A man and four children lynched and beheaded under suspicion of witchcraft:

A 60-year-old man and four of his children were lynched in the north-east Indian state of Assam over allegations of witchcraft, reports said Sunday.

Police officer A Hazarika told the IANS news agency that the five had been beheaded in full public view by workers in a tea plantation, who then brought the bodies to a police patrol.

The man\’s pregnant wife as well as three other children are believed to have fled, the report said.

The workers had accused the family of using witchcraft to engineer a disease outbreak in which two men had died.

A faith based prison is proposed in Texas:

Tom Green County commissioners gave extra preparation time Saturday to a group proposing a faith-based prison in San Angelo.

A man is under threat of a death sentence for converting his religion:

Despite the fact the hardline Taliban regime is no longer in power, an Afghan man faces possible execution for allegedly abandoning his Islamic roots and becoming a Christian.

“Yes that’s true, a man has converted to Christianity. He’s being tried in one of our courts,” Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the Middle East Times.

Then Vice President George H. Bush:

“I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”

Gee, can’t imagine public service without faith Mrs. Harris?

I sure can.

In fact, it would be a safer world without it.

Wherein I refute a modern connection, and expose an ancient and hidden one.

The recent premier of HBO’s new show Big Love has revived two controversies in conversations of late.

First, of course, is the morality and legal status of polygamy.
Second is the red herring in the debate over gay marriage, that G.M. would lead to all sorts of depravity, polygamy being perhaps the least objectionable.

Addressing these are two posts by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Krauthammer.

Krauthammer starts with:

In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

…

What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.

Sullivan, while stating he believes polygamy is a choice, whereas homosexuality is not, answers with:

I think legalizing such arrangements is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.). I also think it’s reasonable for society to say to a heterosexual polygamist: we won’t let you legally marry more than one person, but we encourage you to marry one.

Althouse points out what so many forget, that marriage is as much, if not more, about economics than about child rearing and love. Volokh chimes in as well.

Homosexual relationships have indeed been accepted, institutionalized and even encouraged in the past. Ancient Greece is perhaps the most well known example. And considering that ancient Greece is one of the foundations of western liberal society, perhaps the US Military should have a rethink about don’t ask, don’t tell. Students of ancient cultures can point to others. While marriage was a child bearing institution, homosexuality was such an ingrained part of Greek culture that it all but a part of marriage. Polyandry is less common, but not unheard of.

What gay-marriage proponents are arguing for is full legal rights equal to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. I can hardly blame them.

But to claim that the gay marriage discussion that is going on now in our society is responsible for the HBO program or any sort of attempt to legalize polygamy is putting the cart before the horse. In todays America, it is apparently often referred to as Polyamory.

Polygamy was legal in Utah before the Church of Latter Day Saints, (LDS or Mormon), hungry for legitimacy and the benefits that statehood would bring, agreed to change it’s own precepts and ban polygamy from it’s canon. This was all done with a wink and a nod, since polygamy was widely practiced behind the scenes by the mainstream membership, and the leadership, for decades after that.

Polygamy has also been part of many cultures throughout history up to today. Currently, only Islamic cultures and fundamentalist Mormon/LDS sects practice it openly. Though there are other small areas as well. The form that is practiced though, is in most cases, an atrocity that is akin to slavery and child rape. This is documented in parts of Under the Banner of Heaven : A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer. A worthwhile read for anyone interested in either polygamy or religious extremism.

Since polygamy existed in this country before any sort of talk of gay marriage arose, and calls for the legalization of polygamy have occurred since the inception of the LDS, I think these are separate issues. They are related in that they both address one the the most personal aspects of life, but in that only.

So: Should polygamy be legalized? Provided we are talking about adults, yes.

Like all peaceful activities driven underground by criminalization, those that continue the activity tend to be those with little concern for laws or how much they may harm others. This is why we see polygamy practiced in the monstrous manner of the fundamentalist LDS adherents throughout the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Since they have no recourse to the law, and also must keep their life style hidden, they also hide abuses. Few, if any, polygamists will report an abusive neighbor for fear of having vengeance taken upon them by others in the community, either directly or by being brought to the attention of the law. So abuses like underage girls being forcibly ‘married’, (raped), traded between ‘husbands’, and even sanctioned incest, can occur. All protected by a climate of fear imposed by a corrupt hierarchy protected by a Mafia-like society that uses fear of the government as a tool of intimidation.

But if this were legalized for adults, that enter these arrangements consensually, with full knowledge of their rights, their legal protections, and with the right to leave the arrangement legally and with police protection of need be, we could all but wipe out the hideous slavery that polygamy often is today.

By legalizing it, we can eliminate the evil practices of those child predators and slavers that infest that community, and protect the weak and vulnerable, adults and children alike.

Now many would argue that monogamy is the norm in human relationships, and I agree. On the surface, at least.

Polygamy is actually going on all the time. It is just hidden under the mask of monogamy.

How so? Well, according to many studies, up to 30 percent of children are not the biological offspring of the men thought to be their fathers:

In the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project in which his students were to find out the blood types of their parents. The students were then to use this information to deduce their own blood types (because a gene from each parent determines your blood type, in most instances only a certain number of combinations are possible). Instead, 30 per cent of the students discovered their dads were not their biologically fathers.

“The classroom was, of course, not the ideal place to find out this information,” said Prof. Dickens, who is often consulted on ethical issues by geneticists at the Hospital for Sick Children.

.

This has led to a surge in paternity fraud cases, where men who have been forced to pay support for children not their own, are starting to rebel.
The truth will set you free! And save your bank account as well, it appears.

So it would appear that monogamy is merely a way for male Lotharios that are successful in the mating game to get cuckolds to bear the expense and effort needed to raise the Lotharios offspring. Much in the same way that a yellow-billed cuckoo or a cowbird may lay its eggs in the nest of another bird, forcing the care of the chicks to someone else.

No wonder there is such a prejudice against polygamy. It might actually force the fathers of children to marry the mothers of all the children they spawn, instead of parasiting off of poor shlubs dumb enough to think that child with hair that does not match anyone in his or his wifes families is really due to a recessive trait, instead of due to the CEO in the boardroom or the neighbor at the local bar.

Is it starting to be time to consider Canadian Citizenship?

Is there nothing in the Constitution this sock puppet will fail to molest?

King George has issued a Royal Edict:

Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America’s social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

via Balko

The Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland has issued a report on sexual abuse of children:

The Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dublin published a report Wednesday that says 102 of its priests are suspected of sexually or physically abusing at least 350 children since 1940…

At nearly the same time, an article appears in the on-line version of an Irish newspaper in he Republic, about a priest who has been campaigning to allow married clergy in the Catholic church, calling celibacy unnatural.

A VETERAN Co. Mayo clergyman is to continue his campaign for married priests stating that the continued celibacy rule is unnatural.

But the Catholic Church continues to demand unnatural, deviant behavior on the part of it’s officials, creating a welcoming environment for people that wish to engage in this unnatural, deviant behavior, which then also seems to attract those with other unnatural and deviant behaviors that are actually dangerous to others. No other organized religion I know of demands this of it’s officials, yet they are able to perform the same duties to at least the same level of effectiveness, as Catholic officials do.

So just how will this church be treated in this case? Here in the US it has been able to avoid criminal prosecution as a whole, while sacrificing the guilty individual priests to the police. While the church has lost many civil judgments to victims, its culpability as a criminal enterprise remains judiciously ignored by authorities, a special privilege not available to other organizations.

Since the Catholic Church claims membership of over 90% of the population, (if not actual attendance), and was once listed as the official church of Ireland in the Irish Constitution, I somehow think it will again escape prosecution as a criminal enterprise.

Any other organization that had hidden, protected and enabled repeated criminal offenses by it’s employees or members, would have been seized and had it’s assets used to provide whatever restitution is possible to the victims. This is what happened in the case of Enron, Tyco and other criminal groups.

In this case, the victims are trusting, vulnerable children. I guess they deserve less protection than do stockholders. After all, children do not vote and do not make political contributions.

Via Andrew Sullivan here is a secular Arab-American woman confronting an islamo-fascist on al-Jazeera TV, and ripping him a new one, in defense of western liberal values and condemnation of islamic terrorism and tyranny.

Link to video.

Transcript on jihadwatch:

Wafa Sultan, a psychologist from LA, here speaks with Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor — this was aired on Al-Jazeera on July 26, 2005. Sultan starts out by asking him why Muslim men become suicide bombers. She speaks plainly about the role of Islam:

Wafa Sultan: [...]In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse: “They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off,” regardless of this verse’s interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time – you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist…

Astounding. Possibly suicidal. While here in America we have seen very few killing over things like this, or honor killing of women over family honor either, an action this brave and defiant by a woman may be more than some extremists can bear.

I hope she has made provision for security and self defense, though if she lives in California her rights regarding self defense are oppressed by the state. I would rather hear her voice again, than here of her being martyred on the altar of liberal democracy.

Ya know, things are getting crazy enough, what with a born-again christian dominionist in the White House, who has just turned over the operation of six of our largest east coast ports to a company owned by a government run by fundamentalist islamo-fascists, that I have dusted off my old paranoia-day evasion plans, where I hide my atheism in the general population by joining a church, in much that same way that Jews in Spain did during the Spanish Inquisition.

Since it is outdated I started checking it out and realized my original plans to join the Unitarians or perhaps the Universal Life Church might need updating.

So I looked at FSM, which would be my preferred church, I suspect, but there is no organization, so that is out unfortunately. Then I read an article about a woman being stripped of custody of her son for being a member of a church I had forgotten about, and realized they were still around.

So for now I have added, as a Plan ‘B’, membership in the Church of the SubGenius.

These guys seem my type, and any group that can unhinge a judge that much, probably has much to recommend it.

Then there is the Church of Reality, which has IRS recognition. As a recognized, bonafide, verified Institution, they have the legal presence of the Unitarians, but also seem to have the dispersed organization of the ULC. Plus they are Internet based. But they are also new enough that their ideology and world view is not yet formed, at least to me. The last thing I want to do is join a church that might demand that I vote for Ralph Nader or, even worse, John McCain. So I will put them on my consideration list, perhaps as a Plan ‘C’.

So for now, if it looks like a pogrom against Atheists, freethinkers and unchurched folks, I will go with either the Universal Life Church or the Church of the SubGenius. If it looks like a pogrom against not just those, but also members of dissenting churches, then I will go with the Unitarians and possibly the Church of Reality.

I am open to alternatives, but for now I am also considering ordination in one or more if them as well.

Via samizdata we find the dissident frogman has produced graphics in support of Danish free speech and against mohammedan insanity.

He has released them publically, and I have copied them to my flickr account so we do not eat up his bandwidth.
You can access the originals on his site or my copies here: Wrightwing.net flickr images.

I have placed one on my sidebar, please do the same on your site.

Give me a frickin break!

Christian asshat complains AOL’s new slogan takes his gods name in vain:

America Online is now acting like God – using what some consider to be His very name in a marketing pitch for e-mail, voice chat, video chat, instant messaging, text messaging and other forms of communication.

AIM’s new slogan is “I AM.”

Millar wonders if any of AOL’s marketing and planning directors ever went to Christian Sunday school or attended Jewish services.

He points out to AOL executives that “I AM” is the English translation of YaHWeH, the self-proclaimed name of God.

“He is the Creator and Savior of the world,” explains Millar. “He alone is to be worshipped. To take His name in vain, or use as a common thing is blasphemy, a vulgar sin of offense. Perhaps you have not read the Third Commandment, since they have removed it from so many public monuments in the last decade. But breaking it as a means of marketing your products offends the mind of everyone who worships Him.”

So why no protest over Popeye the Sailor? Oops. Too late. Looks like they already decided to spell it “I Yam” way back in the 30’s.

MSNBC has an item detailing online consumer review sites for the worlds oldest profession. No, not politicians, but close.

Before review sites came along, hobbyists had no way to protect themselves, said David R. Elms, president of The Erotic Review, which began in 1999 and claims that it gets 350,000 unique visitors a day.

Prostitution has gone on for as long as there has been humanity. There is no culture or civilization we have found where it has not existed. Attitudes towards it have varied, from complete condemnation to complete acceptance. Yet no matter what the attitudes or laws, it had continued.

And from the prices listed in the article, I am both the wrong sex and in the wrong business. Someone could retire after only a few years, as opposed to the decades required for most jobs. Maybe that is also why it is illegal. No sense in letting women get that financially and personally independent, especially by exploiting men.

And from the comments on Fark, where I first saw this, this is nothing new, nor uncommon, with resources like this in the US, Canada, the UK, and no doubt elsewhere.

Of course that is tax free. And there are the police and probably organized crime to deal with.

So why is it illegal? I do not know, though oppressing women is probably part of the reason. But I suspect it is primarily due to Abrahamic religions, since other religions do not seem to have so much of a problem with it.

If anyone can give me non-religious reasons for it to remain illegal, please let me know, but read what follows first.

It exploits women. Really? Who pays the money and who gets the money? Men pay, women keep it. Pimps and madams only get a cut when it is illegal, or legal but highly repressed as in parts of Nevada. So keeping it illegal actually CAUSES the exploitation of women, as well as men. Legalizing it shifts that exploitation solely onto the woman.

Women are trafficked into. Yes, that is horrible. It is the closest thing the chattel slavery that exists in the world, outside of the Sudan. But if it is legal, how would this occur? If we create minimal licensing, we can ensure that those involved are doing so voluntarily. No business or customer would want to be involved with what amounts to kidnapping and slavery if they can avoid it by working with legal establishments. And all the penalties for kidnapping and slavery would apply to the illegal operations.

Children are involved. Yup, when it is illegal we have no controls. A case is going on now in Pennsylvania, involving a 17 year old from NJ. But if it was legal and licensed, we can make sure all involved are adults.

Drugs are involved. Probably, though whether they are involved more than in any other part of society, I do not know. Probably so. But again, if it is legal, this can be controlled. What employer wants a drug user on the payroll? What patron wants to patronize a drug user if there is a safe, legal, alternative?

It spreads disease. Yes, it does. Part of licensing can be periodic health checks. Can you do that now, while it is illegal? In Nevada, the last I heard, there has not been a single case of a licensed sex worker contracting a Sexually Transmitted Disease. Yet what is reported for illegal sex workers in NYC is HIV infection rates above 50%. This should terrify us. ( I can not find a link, sorry). Further more, even if you are not patronizing prostitutes, can you guarantee those you know are not? Your girlfriends previous boyfriend? Your boyfriend? The date you have planned for this weekend? How about them? Do you know every one they have ever had sex with? Again, from the comments on Fark, marriage is no shield.

Keeping it illegal spreads disease, exploits women, encourages the trafficking of women and the involvement of children, enriches criminals and corrupts society.
Over all, keeping it illegal makes it far worse than it needs to be, for everyone.

I do not know if the Nevada model is the best, or if there are other models, such as those in Europe or elsewhere that may work better. But something needs to change.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating legalizing streetwalkers. I do not want them in front of my house any more than you do.

Here is what I propose:

License it off the street, behind closed doors, away from homes and schools. By licensing we can also make sure minors, illegal aliens, trafficked women, and people with disease or a history of crime or violence are kept out of it.

So legalize it, regulate it, license it and make it safe for everyone, but, most importantly, for those of us not involved with it.

Comments welcome.

Political, theological and fanatical twins:

The television evangelist Pat Robertson and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not agree on much, but both suggested yesterday that the severe illness of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was deserved. Both men’s comments were immediately condemned by religious leaders.

Speaking on his Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club,” which says it has 1 million viewers, Robertson said God was punishing Sharon for dividing the land of Israel. Sharon, who engineered Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip last year, suffered a massive stroke Wednesday.
.
.
.
Ahmadinejad, elected in June, previously made headlines by calling the Holocaust a myth. “Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Chatilla has joined his ancestors is final,”

Fanaticism: It’s what’s for armageddon.

I’ll betchya a beer none of those religious leaders condemning this are mohammedan mullahs.

I have a love-hate relationship with David Horowitz. Much of what he says is spot on, much just pisses me off.

In this, he is spot on: FrontPage Magazine’s Woman of the Year: Oriana Fallaci

After spending most of the last century fighting against fascism, Oriana Fallaci continues to demonstrate the enduring grip of Orwellianism: she is to be tried in Italy for thought-crime. For spending her childhood fighting Hitler and Mussolini, and for dedicating the last four years of her life to rousing the West to the danger posed by Islamofascism, she more than merits designation as FrontPage Magazine’s Woman of the Year.

Oriana Fallaci has rebelled against fascism most of her life. She is not an ideologue, bound to implement any given ideology. Hers is a defensive mission. She is, by her own designation, neither a conservative nor a leftist, finding defects with both.
.
.
.
The plaintiff, Adel Smith, president of the Muslim Union of Italy, could as easily be charged by the loose anti-religious discrimination statute that has snared Fallaci. He calls on fellow believers in the Religion of Peace to “eliminate” and “die with Fallaci.” He also refers to Christianity as a “criminal association” and has demeaned the Crucifix as a “miniature cadaver.”

However, Europe is Europe, and now for refusing to live according to Shari’a law, a woman who helped free Italy from Il Duce is on trial for speaking her conscience about the next impending, Islamofascist threat.

Read the entire thing, to learn about this courageous woman. It is about one solid print page long, 5 minutes is not too long to spend.

Islam is a vile, evil superstition that is inherently violent, that preaches slave-like submission to authority, the enslavement of women as property, and treatment of children as livestock.

Unlike all other religions currently extant in human society, it embraces violence and death. When members of other faiths commit acts of violence using their faith as a justification, they are condemned by the majority of those of the same faith. When Pat Robertson utters the insanities he does, 99.9% of self-professed christians condemn him.

Not so islam. The worshipers of mohammed and their version of the abrahamic god they call allah. When a self-professed mohammedan commits an act of violence using his faith as a justification, he is applauded. His parents rejoice if he is killed, since it guarantees his entry to paradise and supposedly paves their own way to paradise. It is rare for ANY mohammedan to condemn him, let alone any recognized leader that would influence others. Most of the time there is nothing but cold, menacing, silence.

Islam must be destroyed, peacefully or forcefully, but it must be destroyed for the sake of the human race.

One more piece of evidence:

With a copy of the Quran and a Palestinian flag in his trunk, a Jordanian-turned-U.S. citizen crashed his car into a Home Depot in Arizona where he formerly worked, igniting an explosive blaze in the stores’ paint section and causing $1 million in damage.

The Dec. 18 attack in Chandler, Ariz., by 24-year-old Ali R. Warrayat was a carefully planned “personal statement,” the East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Ariz., reported.

While disgruntled former employees going nuts is not news, up to now they did not use their deity as a justification.

All forms of fanaticism are dangerous. But fanaticism is a religious behavior. Look at the atrocities of christians throughout the dark ages and the inquisition. Look at the atrocities of socialism and its fundamentalist aspect, communism, where belief in an omnipotent, benevolent, mythical god was transferred to a belief in an omnipotent, benevolent, materialistic state. Look at jewish history, as claimed in their ancient writing where they slaughtered entire populations. The wars between hindu and sikh, animists and mohammedans. The list is endless.

All fanaticism is evil: supernatural:natural, religious:atheistic, spiritual:materialistic, religious:political.

But right now, at this point in history, islam is the single greatest threat humanity has ever faced. We face a religion that, unlike all others, embraces death as a tenet of faith. Unlike all others, where fear of death can make opposing parties settle disputes, mohammedans will actively seek to die as a way to paradise.

Add to this, the weapons capabilities that have only become possible in that last century, and new weapons being developed now. Unlike previous waves of fanaticism, where the greatest weapons to hand were swords and firearms, we face fanatics potentially armed with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that can destroy entire cities at a single blow, infect entire populations with disease, and destroy entire economies in mass fear.

If we wish free, liberal, democratic civilization to continue, we need to destroy those fanatics that threaten it. This includes the mohammedan fanatics that infest a swath of the planet from north Africa across south central Asia to the islands of the south Pacific.

This includes the political and atheist fanatic currently subjugating North Korea.

This includes the fanatics currently infesting the two old political parties in the US, and elsewhere. In the US, the Republican party has been suborned to the interests of a small, fanatical sect of fundamentalist christians, and the Democrats are controlled by a small bunch of radical socialist/progressives. But both parties do contain a few people that are rays of reason in the political darkness, but they seem near powerless.

It may seem hypocritical for liberal and tolerant societies to go to war to destroy others, but a healthy body can not abide the cancer that will kill, the poison that will weaken it, or the predator that seeks to eat it alive. Cancers must be cut out, poisons washed away and predetors hunted down and killed.

Self defense is the right of all animals on this planet. It is the right of free people to defend themselves against those that would enslave them.

I am both a libertarian and a Libertarian, but I am not a pacifist, nor an isolationist. The idea of going to war like this raises a lot of issues for the libertarian philosophy as I understand it, that I need to think about. The Libertarians will remain the party I identify with, since the Republicans have a large theocratic streak and discourage secular and atheist people from membership, and the Democrats have a large socialist authoritarian streak that I find distasteful to individual liberty.

But I will look at whoever runs to replace Corzine as Senator, and whichever sacrificial lamb the Republicans put up against him. If either of them understands the danger liberal democratic civilization faces, and is in turn not a religious fanatic in turn, they get my vote. The same will go for House Rep, state Senator, state Assembly and Governor.

When I vote, I will vote for any non-fanatic, Democrat or Republican, that understands this danger. This leaves out anti-gun socialist Democrats and born-again neo-con Republicans. It also leaves out most of those few Libertarians that show up on the ballot in NJ, but they will remain my default choice. But I will vote, one way or the other.

To paraphrase a meme going around some of the blogosphere, which I first saw over at the Smallest Minority:
Islam Delenda Est

Happy New Year.

South Park ran an episode that seems to have offended some catholics. Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League:

… I asked Joseph Califano, a practicing Catholic and member of Viacom’s board of directors (Viacom is the parent company of Comedy Central) to issue a public condemnation of the ‘Bloody Mary’ episode; I also asked that he do whatever he could to pull any scheduled reruns of the episode.

So Comedy Central has bowed to pressure from a religious extremist group.

South Park has skewered many people. There was an episode where atheists and excreting feces from the mouth were equated. I know a lot of us were annoyed at that, but we did not complain or try to censor South Park.

There have been episodes that have skewered every one imaginable, so why is the Catholic League so different? Poow wittow baby hurt his feewings?
What a bunch of pussies. Can’t take a some one skewering you over your penchant for hysterical claims of miraculous crying and bleeding statuary? Too bad. Why does that give you the authority to demand someone censor a show?

Imagine if they were in charge of the country? There is a reason for the First Amendment, and this is it. While it does not apply to private companies, it does prevent the Catholic League, indeed any religious tyrant, from controlling our press.

Remember that the next time you ask for a christian country. You may not like who is in charge and what they do about YOUR version of christianity.