Seems Like a Subliminal Confession

It's hard to believe, but in 1973, this was the logo of the Catholic church.
I wonder when they retired that logo.....

You're anti-abortion? I don't believe it. If you really wished abortions to disappear you'd allow them.

The more difficult it is to get an abortion in a locale the more abortions will happen, the more women will die, the more children will be left motherless. All you theoretically antiabortion people, unless you are actually helping reduce the number of abortions by providing comprehensive sex education and contraceptives you are evil lying creeps who hate women and only care about punishing them for imagined misdeeds involved with them actually having (vapors) sex, but not with you. So there.

Utah is not really all that pro-choice. So we find have a young girl who paid someone to beat her up to induce abortion. Fun, huh? Here's the story.

Want to prevent abortions? We know how to do it. We just have to follow the Netherlands' lead. Their rate of abortion is 11% that of ours. That's right. For every 10 abortions in the US, there's one in the lowlands. 10 to 1, hmmm. Maybe they're doing something right. Plus, there's plenty of peer-reviewed studies that show that, paradoxically, the more difficult abortions are to get, the more of them happen. Read about it here.

So, what was this post about again? Oh, yeah. It's painfully clear that the way to prevent abortions is to give females access to both birth control and abortion. The way to create way more abortions and way more dead/harmed/destroyed females is to outlaw it.

So all you anti-abortion folks--you don't care about actual abortions, you just hate women. Suck it up.

Dumb and Dumbest

This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while, and I live in a country with the likes of Coulter and Palin.

In Ireland they have just narrowly passed legislation that makes it illegal to blaspheme. They have defined blasphemy as any statement, written or spoken, that offends a substantial number of adherents of any particular religion. The fine for such behavior is 25,000 euros.

Naturally they have a good reason to want to suppress religious hate speech as they try to put their past behind them. But their writing of the law is so vague that it is completely open to question what sorts of speech-----or books!-----would be considered criminal. Would a book of philosophy that includes essays about the existence or nature of God be criminal? What about a book about evolution? Many Christians find that offensive.

The ironic thing here is that they seem to think that they are protecting religions from blasphemers. But really, all religious claims are in effect blasphemous to other traditions. Can a pastor say that only through accepting the sacrifice of Jesus can one attain salvation without offending Muslims, Hindus or Jews? Can priests say that Protestants are doomed to Hell without committing blasphemy according to this new definition? Can anyone in Ireland object to the practice of stoning adulterers (rape victims?) to death without offending Muslim traditionalists?

According to the new law in Ireland, police can forcibly enter your home and confiscate materials (books?) that have 'offensive' material in them.

I see a book burning coming on. I hope they can tap that energy source for cap-and-trade tax benefits, or nothing good will have come of this.

Is there life on Mars?

The magic is in the grooves.

I haven't heard the album version of Hunky Dory since I was eighteen ish, (casettes and CD's for me, baby) when I was at (shudder) BYU. There was this awesome and beautiful girl on the first floor of my dorm (I was on the second floor) that had a copy; I'd go down to her room and listen to it. Until now, I'd totally forgotten about that particular section of my life; but it reared its ungainly head this evening when George played his newly bought extremely early version--all those memories unlocked. I can't remember the girl's name; but she was from Boston, looked Jewish, had a devoted boyfriend who wasn't Mormon that she refused to entertain. I wonder what happened. Is there life on Mars?

How come my crayon set didn't come with "flesh of Christ?"

Worthless Wingnut Resolution In Oklahoma Legislature

This is the actual text of the resolution introduced in the Oklahoma legislative session. Don't feel like you have to read all of it, but I will highlight some words in boldface to make skimming it easier. Basically they are saying that our economic woes are because God is displeased with Obama's leadership of our debauched country. This resolution is basically a prayer of contrition so God will forgive us and make us prosperous again. Of course there is no acknowledgment that the economic troubles began before Obama took office.

Honestly, this whole tract is so religious in nature that it seems completely inappropriate to be a resolution in a legislature-----even in Oklahoma!

We the People of Oklahoma, Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of Liberty; to secure just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.

WHEREAS, "It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon
which Freedom can securely stand" (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by Religion and Morality" (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, "Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people" (John
Adams); and

WHEREAS, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the
power of government...but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" (James Madison); and

WHEREAS, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that
belongs to us by the laws of God (Benjamin Franklin); and

WHEREAS, "God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are of the Gift of God" (Thomas Jefferson); and

WHEREAS, "Whether any free government can be permanent, where the public
worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state" (Joseph Story); and

WHEREAS, "We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the people...the
free and undisturbed exercise of their religion" (Roger Sherman); and

WHEREAS, "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians"
(Patrick Henry); and

WHEREAS, "When you...exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be
impressed upon your mind that God commands you to choose just men who will rule in the fear of God" (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, "The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and administrations
are to be drawn from the Bible" (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the
Creator of the Universe; and thought secure when we have removed

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national
moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,
pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and
many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking
the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused
to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of
Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States
disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His
only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord," and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our
Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment,
and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

Signed on the second day of July in the year of our Lord Christ Two Thousand and Nine.

Social Conservatives--made not born?

Here is an article that compares Israeli chidren sent to orthodox schools compared those sent to secular schools.

The kids who thought that god created race, ethnicity, and gender were significantly more likely to think that this categories were created for a purpose and also that they were stable (you can't change from one to another). Although they thought that socio-economic status and animals were also created for a purpose, but weren't more likely to think that these categories were stable.

[Modified for a stupid spelling error.]

Happy Darwin Day!!!!

Today Darwin (or at least his bones in Westminister Abbey) turns 200. It is also the 150th anniversary of the publication "The Origin of Species," the book above all others (there might be a bit, but just a bit of hyperbole here) that changed my life.

I grew up Mormon. To save the feelings of family members that might, just might, read this blog, I will not mention the nightmare that this was for me as a child, but basically, I could not get the world to make any sense at all. Here I was, a child, faced with a world controlled by a nightmare of a supreme being (any surprise that I was afraid, among other things, of my closet?)--God has a tissy fit and drowns everyone but a single family? God hardens Pharoh's heart? Then why, if God caused it, is it Pharoh's fault? And what's with Job? That, combined with my father's rather more than dangerous line of work (he was a navigator in the air force, friends of mine regularly disappeared off of the air force bases we lived on when their fathers died) gave me a vision of a world that was a darker place than I could handle.

I was 10ish. And severly depressed; which my parents, due undoubtedly to the time and their own fanaticism, didn't recognize as an illness; rather, I was trouble. An honest assesment for a mormon family, which has a very narrow range of "trouble." In their own defense, I think I read much more fundamentalism into my childhood than actually existed. But, you see , I paid obsessive compulsive razor sharp attention at church ( a feat that has served me well in other aspects of my life, just not this one) and believed that my parents must believe all the wacky stuff I heard over the pulpit. I also didn't trust them enough to ever (ever! My mother died without a heart-to-heart with me) tell them my difficulties, due to the fear I had of being thrown out of the house if I dared express any sort of insufficiently rah-rah-nature to the totally alien world I was born into--I was a coward. I blame myself.

But, my parents had a copy of the "Great Books" in its own bookshelf in the house. This saved my sanity, or quite possibly my life. One of the volumes included both "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man," by the man--Darwin-- himself. I read them. I devoured them.

It was odd, my uber religious family was so pleased that I'd pick up and actually absorb such awkward tomes. Perhaps they were more accepting of my plight than I understood at the time. I'd sleep with the two books and wake up with bruises.

Those two books changed my life. Evolution! The world was beautiful and finally made sense. Monsters there certainly were, but understandable non-omnipotent fickle ones without an odd taste for goat meat smoke and a hankering for smiting.

Thank you Darwin, thank you Mom and Dad.

With all my love to the living and those that have passed on;

Djinn

I'm planning on worshipping Darwin

Suggestions for headwear?

Merry Christmas! My Christmas wish, listen to more Pogues and skip church, for the children.

First, the most beautiful Christmas song of modern times--The Pogues, live, inexplicably, on St. Patrick's day, singing "Fairytale of New York." Shane Mcgowan is a world treasure.


Second, looks like churchgoing may make you less honest. So, once a year, month, week, skip church and have fun with your kids instead!

Here is an enjoyably impudent piece of research from Innsbruck University. People were observed buying newspapers, using an honesty box to pay. They were interviewed later - so the person with the clipboard seemed unconnected with the newspaper purchase - and asked about age, occupation and attitudes. Men cheated more than women; people over 50 cheated more than the young; higher education made no difference; and by a long chalk churchgoers cheated most. This may be a statistical anomaly. But we all know one thing: religion no more makes people good than lack of it makes the rest of us bad.

From The Guardian.

And to get everyone even more in the spirit: "Christmas 1979" by Billy Childish and the Musicians of the British Empire. Not to give the plot away, but "Merry F****** Christmas to you all."



And as a final Christmas present, yet another Pogues song, live, "If I should fall from grace from God." My youngest, Snapdragon, listening to the Pogues when she was all of, what, five? Said "Irish Punk is just like normal Irish music, only faster."

Next Year or 2024. When Gay Marriage will be ruled a constitutional right?

My, sez Djinn, prediction. Next year. Or 2024. It's a long post, I know, but this is as short as I can make it. Want more info? Just ask.

California put on its ballot, this year, a citizen initiative to change the California constitution to declare marriage as allowable between only a man and a woman. The famous Proposition 8.

Subsequently, the California Supreme Court declared gays a protected class, subject to strict scrutiny; which means under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they have a right to marry.

All discrimination is not created equal. In US law, there are three distinct categories, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational relationship.

Strict scrutiny, as you may be able to ascertain from its name, is the strictest, and only applies when a fundamental right is infringed, or when a "suspect classification" is used. Race is a suspect classification. Under suspect classification, for example, blacks and whites cannot have separate water fountains, "separate but equal" does not win.

The California Supreme court has determined that Sexual Orientation is a "suspect classificaion" with the effect that laws applying to sexual orientation must be justified by a "compelling government interest," must be "narrowly tailored," and must be the "least restrictive means" of achieving the compelling governmental interest.

Gays in California used to have, and currently have the option of entering into "domestic partnerships" which have most, but not all, of the benefits of marriage at the state level. They have no benefits at the federal level.

Under "strict scrutiny," such "separate but equal" rights are clearly disallowed. It's why you or I cannot put up separate water fountains for blacks, or whites.

So.... The people of California have amended their constitution (with only 52% of the vote! But that's for a different rant.) to require marriage (this is a completely civil right, in that the benefits are granted totally by the government) to be between only a man and a woman.

But, under strict scrutiny, there are only two possible ways to handle one group being denied rights granted to another group. 1. Give the rights to the denied group (integrate schools, no separate water fountains) or, 2. Take the rights away from the privileged group. Bang, Zoom, thank you m'am, or sir.

The California constitution, by disallowing marriage between two people of the same sex, has now invalidated reason 1 of the possible solutions. Gays cannot be given marriage rights. However, reason 2 is still open; that is, Marriage can be denied to all. This is, I suspect, what the actual outcome will be. There is 3; another choice, the amendment could be declared a "revision," and thus subject to stricter standards to pass, that is 2/3rds majority in both CA governmental houses and a vote by the people. This would invalidate it, but there is very little case law to determine the probability of this, so let's think of the exciting possibilities.

Assuming the court doesn't choose revision, the only option available is to deny Marriage to all Californians, and give them all civil unions. This has serious consequences, as civil unions are not recognized by the US government, which would deny those couples now able to get married that right.

That is an important point, because state constitutions can add extra rights not guaranteed by the US constitution, but cannot subtract rights guaranteed by the constitution to all.

So, when (or if) California declares all marriages invalid under their constitution, we will be in a unique situation. For the very first time, the issue of Gay Marriage will be "ripe" to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Currently there are four almost 100% probable no votes for gay marriage, one unknown vote (Kennedy, the only vote that counts, because he is the swing) and four at least potentially probable yes votes. So, there's probably even odds, if the Supreme court hears this issue, that they will say "No."

However, Kennedy wrote the opinion in "Lawrence v. Texas," the ruling that gave gay people the constitutional right to have sex (in 2003!) and so is at least a probable "yes" vote.

In Lawrence, Kennedy penned that

"our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." ... "Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Sounds like he sees Gay marriage as a fundamental right. If so, then Americans might soon have a constitutional right to gay marriage, fueled, (ouch. My irony meter just broke...back to the shop.....) by the diligent efforts of the "Yes on 8" people in California.

Scalia, in his angry dissent in Lawrence agreed, stating:

Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.

Assuming Kennedy votes "no", I ran a statistical analysis on the ages of the conservative justices to determine the average year one would die. (I possess such superpowers; but, to compensate look somewhere between silly and stupid in a bodysuit and cape. Not true, I can rock the cape, but no bodysuits or tights for me.) It's just about 16 years from now. If there is a Democrat in the White House in 2024, and an interceding Republican administration hasn't installed an anti-gay conservative (bit, uh opinionated, Djinn? Hell Yeah!) we, after every single other country in the first world (assuming we're still in that group) will finally decide that gay people have the right to get married. Pretty depressing.

Postscript. There are only five conservative justices, so the error bars on my prediction are pretty wide, but I used what material was at hand for my prediction. So there.

Punk Rock Friday! The Monks.

(Pay no attention to the fact that it is actually Friday, please.) Imagine Sonic Youth crossed with, uh, the Sex Pistols before they figured out how to play. I sense, perhaps, a problem here.

Anyway, as the story goes, these are four American servicemen in Germany circa 1965 who shaved the top of their heads. (Tonsures? on Monks? Get it?) Also check out the totally groovy keyboard. It looks like something from an especially cheezy Dr. Who episode. I love them. So, perhaps, beware......

The song is Monk Chant, and the only downside is you don't get to see the punk Banjo. I leave it as an exercise for my dear listerner(s). Plus bonus German "dancing."

Important life change for Djinn

I've just learned about Anioa, the Goddess of things that get stuck in drawers. Sorry Ceiling Cat, I'm converting.

A personal statement on Prop 8 by Djinn

My family is Mormon. I grew up Mormon. A huge portion of the people I love are Mormon. I am horrified that the Mormon Church has decided to spend so much time, energy, and members' money on trying to pass California's Proposition 8, which would invalidate marriages between same sex couples. Why Mormons have decided to make this such an issue I find deeply confusing, because Evangelicals, who agree with the Mormon position that Gays are bad bad bad, still won't like them, while the Mormon brand has now become associated with homophobia and bigotry. Who are Mormon missionaries going to teach?

At the same time, as this article , this article, this article, and this website show, just because someone is Mormon does not mean they hold the same position as the Church at large. Knowing that someone is Mormon does not also impart the knowledge that they have difficulty with gay people.

The Mormon church has a website, which gives reasons that they feel that people should be against allowing same-sex couples to be wed. Unfortunately, it turns out that most of these reasons are, to put it harshly, lies. Below is a paper, signed by rather a large number of law professors, showing why.

No on Prop. 8 lawyers statement on marriage - Upload a Document to Scribd

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government...

-Doctrine & Covenants, 134:4

"Campaign 8 stop these Lies and stop the exploitation of our children"

h

As a bit of background, some parents arranged for some students to meet to their well-loved teacher after her wedding to her same-sex partner on the courthouse steps after the wedding.


The yes on Prop 8 people now have pictures of the children at the wedding up on commercials, without permission of the parents, who are horrified, or the owner of the tape, the San Francisco Chronicle, I believe. The point of the commercial seems to be that passage of prop 8 may require your loverly son or daughter may be forced to be exposed to such horrors themselves.

Yet again I've got the vapors. Children weren't required to go, the event wasn't even arranged by the school, the problem seems to be that some parents (probably quite a few related to me) find it horrifying for their children to find out that people of the same sex can (for at least awhile) in California, get married. Furthermore, the school was a chartered arts school, the kind created to allow the parents more leeway in the sorts of education their children will be getting. So, I'm guessing here that this school was known to be gay friendly, so a gay teacher would not be a shock to the students or the parents.


All you nervous parents, take your kids out of the public schools and enroll them in strict Chrisitian ones... now that forbid the eating of shellfish, the mixing of linen and cotton, the enforcement of a widow to sleep with her brother-in-law, (levirate marriage) and so forth. Oh, oh, oh, and the killing of unruly sons. Everyone will be happier. Well, maybe not the sons, but it's too late for them

***all rules from the BIble.
Post updated to note that parents, not the school, arranged the outing. Thank you Patrick, from the comments.

Jesus, straight as an arrow?

To set the stage, Jesus is at the Garden of Gethsemane with his apostles Peter, James, and John, the apostles asleep. Roman soldiers led by Judas (suddenly former apostle) come and take Jesus away after that famous kiss. All of Jesus' apostles flee. Then there are these two verses:

Mark 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
Mark 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

What is going on? Naked boy, apostles asleep? The only one to try to save him from the guards? Hmmmm........... Hmmmmmmm............. How often did Jesus preach against Homosexuality? Let's see. That would be ZERO.

A valuable lesson on how not to judge

Step 1: Proclaim loudly that you are not judging.
Step 2: Judge.
Step 3: (refrain) Proclaim loudly that you have, not, in fact, judged.

Here, let's obvserve a master:

Sarah Palin on Gay Marriage:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

My deepest regrets (to my dear reader(s) and Italians alike) to being forced to wade through that spaghetti prose.
Plus a shout-out to Banksy for the adorable policemen, whom, I'm sure, speak the Queen's Engish, unlike she who shall not be named.

What scientists don't want you to know

What happened when the Large Hadron Collider really went online.

Click at your own risk!!!!!

If the destruction of the Earth as you know it has you feeling icky, just watch this video, and you'll feel so much better.

Shortest Possible Religious Post (Sorry for the length).

(We've already established that I. Have. Issues.) Anyhoo- on to the post.




Religion (or Christianity, at least) = Backsies!!!!11!!1!!










Oh, and that business about swearing off Ceiling Cat? I lied. Sry. Srusly. Sry. And, pay attention to Ceiling cat. Don't hook up with the krazy kitteh down teh street. No matter how sweeeet her collar.



The Rev. Gary Davis; The Angel's message to me.

Bush misquotes Jefferson on the 4th.

Thomas Jefferson said:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

Bush, in quoting, said:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

Shall we assume Bush is for "monkish ignorance and superstition?"

Stolen, shamelessly, from Ed Brayton. Thank you.