Expelled the Movie

I'm sure you've all heard the story of PZ and Dawkins going to see a movie by now... I want to make sure I get a link in to the site about Expelled the Movie with Ben Stein somewhere.

lol's

Most people have heard of I Can Has Cheezburger?, now there's also lolcats can has science, and LOLTheist: Blasphemy is Teh Funneh... but don't forget lolhistory....

(This one was so good, I thought I'd save the punch line for the original posting. Check out the title and the tags, if you don't get it right away)

Remember the movie Idiocracy?

In Idiocracy an average man in an Army experiment is supposed to be kept in hibernation for 1 year, but they mess up and he sleeps for 500 years. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.

This is how it starts

Via the DefCon blog comes that news that Texas governor Rick Perry has appointed a creationist to head the Texas State Board of Education.

I’ll give you a moment to clean off your screen. Yes, you read that right.

At first I thought, "No, not even a politician in Texas could possibly do something that dumb, that contrary to reality, that horrifying to their kids. DefCon Blog must have gotten it wrong!" ... continues at BadAstronomy

When the dumbing down is coming from the people expected to educate us...we are doomed.

[Cat wants to make sure you know about the cat picture at the bottom of the BadAstronomy post I linked to]

Brownback's idea of religious liberty

On presidential candidate Sen. Brownback's MySpace page, there is a page for "Brownback - On the Issues". Under the "Religious Liberty" section Brownback says...

"... The First Amendment protects the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice. That freedom is under attack by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, who profit financially from lawsuits brought against cities and towns that display religious symbols. ...."

I'm confused. Is religious liberty something individuals have, or something the government has?

"... I introduced the Public Expression of Religion Act last year to prevent groups like the ACLU from collecting attorneys' fees in religious freedom cases. Our country was founded on the idea that its citizens should be free to express their religious beliefs without government interference. ..."

So we have the freedom to express our beliefs without government interference, but the government should be immune from paying my costs to defend my rights when it does interfere?

"... I will continue the fight to protect that freedom."

Please don't.

What kind of wives can be beaten?

I was doing some Google Video hunting and came across an interesting video....

Types of wifes that can be beaten, according to the Koran

"...and because when you purchase an electric appliance or a car you get a manual...explaining how to use it. The Creator of Man had sent down this book (the Koran) in order to show Man which ways he must choose". Apparently we in the West are still in our "days of ignorance" and can't acknowledge the "wondrous verses" that explain when we can beat our wives.

And then by clicking on the related videos area I found this one...

Cat Stevens signing "Hard Headed Women"

Cat Stevens has gone by the name Yusuf Islam after he converted to Islam in 1977, which explains why it was only a couple related videos away from the other one.

More on chaplains already...

A couple of months ago I brought up the hypothetical situation of a state department employing a chaplain, like the Legislature does. Just today I found out about the case in Indiana where the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) has been employing a chaplain for the last year, for $60,000. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed the case in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on behalf of four Indianapolis resident (only 4!).

This is exactly the thing I was worried about with the trickle-down justification of mixing religion and government. The Congress does it, so state Legislatures feel they can do it, so city governments feel they can do it, and so on... One of the justifications for the program by a FSSA spokesperson was “The U.S. Congress has had them forever.”

The only response from FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob – who is named in the suit – was, “Sometimes you know you’re right by who opposes you.” That's the best justification he can come up with for why the program is legal...this case should be easy. I've been asking since Easter for a good justification for chaplains in the legislature other than 'historical tradition', and I still haven't heard anything.

I hope that this works its way up to the Supreme Court and a ruling is made about all chaplain programs in positions other then the military, prisons, etc (which I mentioned where in a different category).

Chaplains in Minnesota - Part 2

I see that a few people are checking out the post from the "Blog Against Theocracy" about chaplains... There are a few things to correct from it.

Dan Hall is no longer the chaplain of the Minnesota State Senate. The current chaplain, (according to a January '07 Star Tribune Article) is Rev. Kevin McDonough, the vicar general of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. McDonough is also chief operating officer of the archdiocese and considered second only to Archbishop Harry Flynn. McDonough has been a frequent advocate for the church at the State Capitol.

The comment was made to the previous entry that Dan Hall received no tax money for being chaplain of the Senate, but is funded through donations. Maybe you are thinking of his role as president of Midwest Chaplains, which is a 501(c)(3). In it's 2005 tax filling (publicly available on the internet), Midwest Chaplains reported a revenue of $76,906 and it's one paid employee (Dan Hall) made $62,500. I assume he doesn't make as much, if anything, as the leader of the Bachmann Prayer Team, or any of his other ventures. His pay with Midwest Chaplains isn't an issue, I'm not donating any money to him. He can give himself a million dollars if that's what people want to give him.

The House chaplain gets $2000 per year, and $35 per prayer (visiting chaplains receive $35). I'm looking into how the Senate pays it's chaplains, but I'm sure it's a similar honorarium. The Senate chaplain makes $25 per prayer plus milage if requested. The fact that it is very hard to find out anything about the office of chaplain is disconcerting in itself. What's the job description?

Even if the position of chaplain was volunteer and there was no money used to support it whatsoever, there are still issues with government appearing to endorse one religion (Christianity, in this case).

One of the issues I had with the position of chaplain in the Legislature is that the chaplain is proselytizing to state employees (the members of the legislature); by way of the prayers at the beginning of the sessions and, as Dan Hall admits, in their offices. The current Chaplain has also expressed his interest in proselytizing to legislators. In January, McDonough told the Star Tribune...

Q: Any plans to do lobbying on the side?
A: No, this role is not related to my official role with the archdiocese. I'll only be trying to lobby the senators into heaven.

That clearly shows his intent to proselytize on the job...and this article in Politics in Minnesota mentions the lobbying he appeared to do against the bill that would extend the civil statute of limitations for victims of clergy sexual abuse.

Dan Hall and Rev. Kevin McDonough may be great guys. If they feel their calling in life is to proselytize to people, fine...they can walk down any sidewalk and do a Kirk Cameron (I hope they don't forget to bring a Banana), but when they are given an official position in the government, that creates an unnecessary relationship between government and religion.

My original question still stands. As 'awesome' as you might think it is to have a Chaplin[sic] at the Capitol...can you provide any legitimate reason why there should be one other than 'historical tradition'?

Falwell to Obama - A weeks worth of videos

I didn't bother saying any about Jerry Falwell when “He had an attack where his heart should have been”. I would like to think that he is less and less relevant, but I'm afraid his large shadow will loom over us for a long time. At least some things aren't as bad as they were back in the '80s...

Life and Liberty for All Who Believe. 25 min 25 sec

Unfortunately, some things are worse. Joan Bokaer of Theocracy Watch outlines the subtle and stealthy ways that the remnants of the Moral Majority have attempted to turn the United States in to a theocracy with Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism...

Are We Becoming a Theocracy? 41 min 4 sec

Then we have some hope. You would expect presidential candidates to refer to religion as much as possible, be seen in churches, etc... Barack Obama has been throwing around religious rhetoric all throughout his campaign, but in a June 2006 speech that has been equated to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican, Sen. Obama "laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate."

Reconciling Faith and Politics. 5 mins 11 sec

Chuck Norris responds to my attempts to "Outlaw Christianity"

In a recent WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary article by Chuck Norris (yes that Chuck Norris) titled "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 1)", Mr. Norris seems to respond to my earlier entries about theocracy. I'm flattered. Instead of responding he actually confirmed everything I had to say about the insidious us-versus-them'ism that his form of theism advocates.

He also seemed to admit that without government endorsement of religion it would not be able to win the "war for ideological dominance"...

"For these liberal groups to win the war of ideological dominance, they know they must minimize the effects of Christianity, which many are doing (unbeknownst to others) behind the scenes through lobbying and legislation. In fact, two significant actions occurred on the National Day of Prayer just two weeks ago!

The London Telegraph[the local Pioneer Press has coverage of both events in a photo/audio piece] noted that, while American Christians were praying across the land on the National Day of Prayer, atheists were petitioning the Texas Legislature against the civic display of the words, "In God We Trust."

Eroding and erasing theistic language in culture is a growing trend. Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words "In God We Trust" on their edges, but many excluded them entirely! Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism and a public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of society.

I haven't heard of any attempts to "Outlaw Christianity", and lobbying and legislation are hardly going on "behind the scenes".

One of Norris's other complaints, under the sub-title "The tyranny of the state over the church", is about the "legal disgrace" of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He believes that it is a violation of the freedom of speech to have hate crimes laws that restrict Christian leaders rights to incite people to beat up homosexuals and transvestites.

Hemant has also responded to the article.

---

Someone just asked me if the WND article was a parody like the Onion... nope (it's like Poe's Law in reverse).

---

Part's 2 and 3 are now available... where Norris 'proves' the Bible is correct by calling Dawkins, Harris and others fools.

Blog Against Theocracy #3 - Us Versus Them

I'm going to try to anticipate the response to the last post by some people who will say "your claim that using the phrase is illegal is dubious, and it's historical so its got to be okay."

I said that I thought that it was wrong for the government to print "In God We Trust" on currency, but I only went into detail about the legal issues. The psychology of "Us Versus Them" is what really concerns me. By establishing the 'we' (aka us), by default there will be a them. This is unnecessarily divisive. It served a purpose in the 1950's cold war red scare days, but even then it was just as illegal and wrong. I suppose it's no coincidence that atheists are the least trusted and least likely to get voted for minority group. There is an excuse for exclusion being promoted by the government on every piece of currency floating around.

This is part of the Blog Against Theocracy project.

Blog Against Theocracy #2 - In God We Trust

This time we'd like to bring up the In God We Trust on the money issue. I'm not superstitious and neither is Cat, so it's not like carrying around money with a religious message scares me. But I think there is something fundamentally wrong when the government makes a law that says everyone, regardless of there belief or lack of belief must carry and use currency that has a religious message on it. I will skip over the history of the phrase showing up on money...but it was officially made the national motto in 1956. There was a lot of fear of the atheistic Soviet Union at the time and it was felt that it would be a good idea to distinguish the U.S. from the godless commies.

Although it has been challenged in a lower court, the Supreme Court has refused to rule on the constitutionality of the motto or the phrase on currency. The phrase "ceremonial deism" has been used to describe references to God and religion by the government. Deism is a belief in a supreme being, but doesn't specify which...it's like generic religion. Recently we have seen more attempts to use the motto as a wedge to introduce the Christian concept of God as if it is recognized by government. In Indiana there are new license plates with the motto that are free while other specialty plates cost $20. There are Christian groups promoting the use of the motto in schools. There was a resolution in the U.S. House last year (it didn't pass, but it wouldn't have been law anyway) that said things like...

"Whereas the historical fact of the fundamental trust of the American people upon the God of the Bible is irrefutable;"

"Whereas Psalm 33:12 states, `Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.';"

"Resolved...That the Congress...encourages the American people to commemorate the national motto through personal acts of piety, patriotic and sacred assembly, prayer and petition on behalf of the Nation's elected and appointed leaders at the Federal, State, and local levels of government, and through a rededication of trust in God for the good and providential protection of this great Nation."

The Lemon Test is a standard that has been used by the Supreme Court to rule on First Amendment issues. It has 3 test or prongs. If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The three prongs are...

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.

There is no guarantee that future establishment clause cases at the Supreme Court will be tested against the Lemon Test, but if this one were how would it fair? This is my take...

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose... The fact that the majority of Americans consider themselves religious no more justifies printing "In God We Trust" on money then suggesting that since the majority of Americans consider themselves Trekkies, Star Trek should be named the official sci-fi series of the nation.

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; ... There is no question in my mind that the presence of this message has the purpose of advancing religion, and that's not even dealing with the form of that religion. When you look at it closely it's clearly referring to a monotheistic male supreme being that we are expected to trust. This rules out a lot of religions, thereby inhibiting them.

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion ... The fact that the government, by way of the dept. of the treasury, is directly involved in carrying out this law is entanglement. The government isn't simply allowing a violation of the First Amendment through inaction.

My question today is...can anyone think of a reasonable argument for why printing "In God We Trust" on currency doesn't violate one of the prongs of the Lemon Test? Pick one, any one.

This is part of the Blog Against Theocracy project.

Blog Against Theocracy #1 - Chaplaincy

If a department of state government, the Department of Education for example, were to have a religious leader on staff (paid for by the tax payer) who gave prayers at the beginning of the work day, and considered it part of their job to proselytize to state employees and insure that their job was done according to Christian principles (as they defined them)...I think most people would say this was wrong and unconstitutional.

The state legislature on the other hand has chaplains on staff and has daily prayers, which have been very sectarian at times. The argument made for maintaining such positions is that they are 'historical tradition'.

The current chaplain of the Minnesota State Senate, Dan Hall, has said... (from Pastor leads outreach to state leaders)

"...these committed public servants have a need to understand the bigger purpose of life and to know the Lord in a deeper way.”

...and...

"We must pray that they would know God’s heart and have the courage to vote as Jesus would."

I accept that military chaplains serve a purpose of allowing for freedom of religious expression (with limits) to members of the military. Can anyone provide any good reasons (other than 'historical tradition') why taxpayers should be paying for a chaplain for a group of state employees (who happen to be working in the legislature), and not other employees?

This is part of the Blog Against Theocracy project....more pictures of Cat coming soon (I am waiting for her legal people to get the signed releases back to me).

Blog Against Theocracy Part 2 - Blog Against Theocracy Part 3

---

I've added a new post with a correction to this entry and more information.
 

Sylvia Browne

The James Randi Educational Foundation (as in "The Amazing Randi" has recently changed the conditions of the "Million Dollar Challenge". That's the challenge where you can win a one-million-dollar prize if you can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. They used to accept anyone who applied. No one ever passed the preliminary tests. The new requirements are that the applicant must have a "sufficient media profile" and "some sort of academic recommendation". This has been done so that the JREF can spend more time on high-profile figures who are conning people out of a lot of money. One of the current 'targets' is Sylvia Browne who accepted the challenge 5 years ago on Larry King Live, but she has yet to submit to the testing which may only take 30-45 mins. Wouldn't she want the million dollars? Of course she can bilk more money then that out of people in no time...but if she really can do it why not prove it and donate the money to charity? Her Novus Spiritus church is asking for donations.

I put a button on the sidebar to "Stop Sylvia Browne" which has more information about her. Here are some more links...

Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Browne • Sylvia Brown • Sylvia Brown • Sylvia Brown

Cats are evil?

According to an entry on PZ's blog, some people consider cats to be related to serpents, and the cause of all kinds of Biblical mischief.