How to get public holiday displays banned

Many towns and cities will allow displays on public property around the December holidays. They do this mostly for Christians, but other groups have been taking advantage of things lately. In Olympia this led to a banning of all displays after atheists began adding their signs. Now the same is happening in Palisades Park in Santa Monica:

Nativity scenes and other private winter displays will no longer be allowed in Santa Monica’s Palisades Park after the City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to bar them.

For nearly six decades, private, life-size scenes celebrating Jesus Christ’s birth have been a fixture each December in the park that runs along the coastal bluffs. In recent years, displays have also celebrated the winter solstice and Hanukkah and have promoted atheism.

Last year, after requests for display space exceeded the space allotted, the city held a lottery to allocate slots fairly and legally. Atheists won 18 of the 21 plots. A Jewish group that sets up a menorah won another. The Nativity story that once took 14 displays to tell had to be crammed into two plots.

The reason this happened is because the Christian groups that usually win most of the lottery spots (by virtue of being the most numerical to throw their hat in the ring) had petitioned the city to forever deed them 14 of the spots. The City Council members recognized this was a lawsuit waiting to happen because, as it turns out, Christians aren’t to be given some special privileges under the law. (I hate that word, but I had no choice but to use it here.)

So all it takes to get rid of a set of displays on public property is to allow atheists to play. Do that and everyone is going to pick up their ball and go home. How tolerant.

Younger generations doubting God not ‘just a phase’

I have often found myself in debates where I raise the point that belief in God is significantly lower in younger generations than older generations. (We’re also more liberal, too). This often gets waved off as nothing more than a phase. “Why,” evidence deniers will say, “everyone flirts with these ideas in their youth, but everyone always becomes more religious as they age.” Of course, that’s an inappropriate response. Maybe it could be argued that people become more settled in their religious and political views into their 40’s and beyond, but that still doesn’t really cut it. And now it has to end all together because the wiggle room is gone:

The percentage of Americans 30 and younger who harbor some doubts about God’s existence appears to be growing quickly, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. While most young Americans, 68%, told Pew they never doubt God’s existence, that’s a 15-point drop in just five years.

In 2007, 83% of American millennials said they never doubted God’s existence.

More young people are expressing doubts about God now than at any time since Pew started asking the question a decade ago. Thirty-one percent disagreed with the statement “I never doubt the existence of God,” double the number who disagreed with it in 2007…

“Notably, people younger than 30 are substantially less likely than older people to say prayer is an important part of their lives,” the report said.

“Research on generational patterns shows that this is not merely a lifecycle effect,” it continued. “The Millennial generation is far less religious than were other preceding generations when they were the same age years ago.”

There are a number of factors at work here, I think. In no particular order,

  • the Internet
  • higher education
  • Gnu Atheism
  • the Catholic Church

Surely there are far more aspects to this increase in doubt, but I think I’ve listed some of the major factors here.

Not too long ago the Internet was still considered a place for nerds. You blog? Ha! and You’re wasting your time! The latter may still hold some truth, but few people can utter it sans a load of hypocrisy. Facebook isn’t too far off a billion users right now. We’re all on the Internet and that exposes us all to a lot of different ideas. That has to breed doubt.

Next there’s education. This generation is the most highly educated age group in history. We’ve been given some worthwhile tools and access to a lot of different information. Moreover, just like the Internet, college is bringing together more and more diverse ideas. The days of black and white, Christian thinking is coming to an end; there’s nowhere left for religious arguments to hide now that everyone is talking. (It’s worth noting that cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas.)

Then we have Gnu Atheism. It would have been seen as absurd 10 years ago to be as openly critical of religion as so many people are today. Now we have books and bus ads and we’re even getting shout-outs from the President. That, of course, isn’t to say it wasn’t seen as absurd in 2006 when The God Delusion was released. It was. But in just the short time since then things have been changed. Gnu Atheism has worked in reverse to religion: Religious ‘moderates’ have always made space for fundamentalists (regardless of their intention), but now the aggressiveness of Gnu Atheism has made space for those who simply disbelieve but don’t necessarily see religion as a negative force.

Finally (at least insofar as my list goes) the Catholic Church messed things up. They associated religion with child molesters and rapists (all the while using the euphemism of “abusers”). Instead of facing up to their sins, they covered up as much as they could, as fast as they could. They became a meme, inviting mockery to no end. Priest jokes evolved from entering bars with rabbis to entering backrooms and more with choir boys. The idea of mocking a religious institution became more mainstream than ever. That helped, along with the Gnu Atheists, to open all religious institutions to mockery.

So this isn’t merely a phase. People really are doubting religion more and more. And that’s a great thing. I don’t say that simply as an anti-theist, but rather as someone who values science and a scientific way of thinking. Doubt is a good thing. We need to use it more, no matter what the subject. If we allow ourselves to close off an entire area to critical thinking, then we’ve put ourselves in some kind of danger. Why not shutter any other area? Why not put a stop to one line of research or another because it looks too difficult to ever come to fruition or because it conflicts with some group’s idea of ethics? We can’t do that. Without doubt we’ll stagnate. I know this generation is better than that.

At least I think I know we are.

I’m tired of the Andreas Moritz defenders

I get a new comment on my post about what a moron Andreas Moritz is every so often. If they don’t show up on that post, they show up somewhere else or on another blog of mine. I rarely read them because when I do, I come across garbage like this:

Your science is limited to that which can be measured, usually by a machine. It is insufficiently advanced to cope with the whole human phenomenon.

It is immediately evident that this person, just like Moritz, has no formal science background. It would be a greater use of my time to argue with young Earth creationists.

So here is what I am going to do now. Every time I get a new comment, I am going to go to Moritz’s fan page, find someone who is asking him for help, and privately message that person to let him or her know that Moritz is a quack who cannot help. I realize I could simply close comments on the posts I have about him, but that isn’t good enough. Every time someone comes over here to defend the quack, I want to steer dupes/customers away from him. I did it once before – it felt great.

So remember, anyone who cares to defend Moritz is actually taking business away from him. It’s like a Chinese finger trap but useful and potentially life-saving.

In which I admire Matthew Inman

Matthew Inman is the creator of the wonderful site TheOatmeal. He routinely makes hilarious, intelligent comics and that’s why he’s one of the three comic-based websites I have in my bookmarks (the other two are memebase.com and xkcd.com). He has recently found himself in a bit of legal trouble from the horribly ugly, punch-me-in-the-balls-so-I-don’t-feel-the-pain-in-my-eyes-anymore website FunnyJunk.com. Apparently he complained awhile ago about how much of his material the website had stolen. He got a fundamentally dishonest response, but basically moved on from there. As he said:

I realize that trying to police copyright infringement on the internet is like strolling into the Vietnamese jungle circa 1964 and politely asking everyone to use squirt guns. I know that if FunnyJunk disappeared fifty other clones would pop up to take its place overnight, but I felt I had to say something about what they’re doing.

Fast forward a year and FunnyJunk still hasn’t let things go. (That reminds me of someone.) Now they want $20,000 in damages. Take a look at the website. (It’s in image form, so I can’t just copy and paste excerpts. And I’m too lazy to type it all out by hand.) It’s one of my favorite responses to anything ever. In fact, I think it’s only second to Richard Lenksi’s slapping around of Conservapedia.

For people too lazy to click links, here’s the summary: Inman tore apart the details of the threatening letter he received, drew a picture of the owner’s mother seducing a Kodiak bear, then asked for $20,000 in donations so he could take a picture of it to send to FunnyJunk’s lawyer before donating the money to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society.

via theoatmeal.com

via theoatmeal.com. Because citation is not that difficult.

So how has the donation request been working for Inman? Let’s see:

Monday afternoon, he posted to Facebook that his fundraising campaign reached $20,000 in just 64 minutes. At the time this blog post was published, donations had almost reached $53,000 with over 3,700 funders.

And how about now? He’s nearing $113,000. It’s been about 21 hours as of now and he has 15 days left of fundraising to go. I think he’s earned the last word:

I’m hoping that philanthropy trumps douchebaggery and greed.

Flashing your headlights to warn of speed traps is free speech

This is wonderful:

A judge ruled Tuesday that a man who flashed his headlights to warn drivers of a nearby police speed trap was exercising his right to free speech, the Orlando Sentinel reported.

Ryan Kintner, 25, of Lake Mary, Florida, was ticketed last August in Seminole County for what police said was a violation of a state traffic law that outlined appropriate headlight use.

Kintner contested the ticket and sued the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office for violating his civil rights, reported the Sentinel.

The circuit judge hearing the case ruled last October that using headlights for communication didn’t fall under the state law.

After a second hearing, the judge took his ruling a step further Tuesday, saying Kintner was protected by his constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment.

What makes this even better is that Kintner wasn’t merely driving down the road when he saw the cop. He was sitting at home, saw the cop park and pull out a radar gun. He then got in his car, drove a few blocks ahead, and sat there flashing his headlights at oncoming traffic. I’ve always wanted to do something like that. I admire Kintner for his follow-through. Not only did he stick it to ‘the man’, but his actions made sense from a safety standpoint anyway:

At an earlier hearing Circuit Judge Alan Dickey said, “If the goal of the traffic law is promote safety and not to raise revenue, then why wouldn’t we want everyone who sees a law enforcement officer with a radar gun in his hand, blinking his lights to slow down all those other cars?” reported The Crime Report.

Thought of the day

When I really have no desire to do some particular exercise is when I know I should do it.

Hitting your child is abuse. Stop it.

Prov 13:24 has to be one of the most wicked verses of the Bible:

“He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”

This goes along with the idiom “Spare the rod, spoil the child” – which, of course, is total hokum. Literally billions of children have been raised in a hit-free environment without being spoiled. It would be ridiculous to even attempt to claim otherwise. Besides that, the phrase doesn’t even make sense. Just think about it for a second: To spoil a child means to pamper the child, to indulge his every desire and wish. In other words, for a person to spoil a child, it requires something active to be done. Refraining from abuse is the exact opposite of something active. The entire mantra is incoherent.

Of course, incoherency has never stopped people from thinking they can do what they please with their children because, ‘Why, that there child came from my seed!‘. As if children are crops. Corporal punishment is even still legal against schoolchildren in 19 states. Not that a teacher striking a child would go by without a lawsuit in most instances, but this is sort of like when Southern states wait decades to remove anti-miscegenation statutes from their constitutions. A majority of adults know it’s wrong, but so many people are downright stupid about this that it would be a pain to correct such human rights (and moral) transgressions. And don’t even think about outlawing parental spanking. The majority is not right on that one. Not even close. But that isn’t to say there hasn’t been at least a little progress:

A man who was elected to direct a California water agency was arrested on suspicion of felony child abuse after a neighbor caught him on video beating his stepson.

The video shows Anthony Sanchez, 34, playing catch with his stepson. When it appears the boy drops the baseball, Sanchez approaches and allegedly whips him with his belt.

An outraged neighbor, Oscar Lopez, filmed the incident from inside his home and knew he had to step in.

“That’s enough. I’m having a (expletive) problem with you for beating the (expletive) out of him because he won’t catch the damn ball,” Lopez tells the angry stepfather.

Sanchez asks if he knows his son.

“I don’t know your son but I’m watching you. I’m a (expletive) father too,” Lopez says.

A felony charge seems excessive, but I’m not sure what the charge would be if Sanchez was caught hitting any other minor with a belt. If he would get a felony charge for smacking around someone else’s kid, then I have to agree that he should get one here. Take a look at the video:

There are other recent outrages over alleged parent-to-child child abuse. Of course, there was the judge in Texas, but now there is a pastor in Atlanta:

The 15-year-old daughter of megachurch pastor Creflo Dollar told authorities her father choked and punched her, and hit her with his shoe during an argument over whether she could go to a party, according to a police report.

Dollar’s 19-year-old daughter corroborated most of her sister’s story, but Dollar disputed it, telling a sheriff’s deputy he was trying to restrain her when she became disrespectful. When she began to hit back, he wrestled her to the floor and spanked her, according to the police report.

Dollar faces relatively minor charges compared to Sanchez, presumably out of pity for his ridiculous name. If he is guilty, I hope he gets at least some jail time and a long probation period – if he hits his daughter again, I would like to know he would be spending an appropriate period of time in order to correct his misbehavior. Of course, not everyone cares about stopping child abuse:

And they go on and on at the above link. Apparently violence is a solution to a problem when children are involved.

Thought of the day

I can’t stress this enough: feminism and atheism are not linked in any significant way.

June 6

Sorry, Christians, but gays are people, too

Good news has been popping up over the past week or so for the rights of gay Americans:

A federal appeals court in California has denied a petition to have Prop 8 -the 2008 California ballot initiative that defines marriage as between a man and a woman – further reviewed by a larger panel of judges, which means the case likely is headed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In February , the majority of a three judge panel sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop 8 ruling that the initiative “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” The court ruled on narrow grounds specific to California and Proposition 8. It did not find a fundamental right of same sex couples to marry.

Supporters of Prop 8 – opponents of gay marriage – had asked for “en banc” review of the case. This would have meant that the Chief Judge of the circuit along with 10 randomly selected judges would have mooted their colleagues’ decision and started anew. But in a filing today the court said that a majority of judges had voted to deny the petition.

We all know that Political Figure Scalia made his decision on this matter a few decades ago, and we all know that once Political Lapdog Thomas gets word of his lawless colleague’s position he will also be voting against equal rights. But that said, it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court, even with 4 devoted bigots, will ultimately rule against fair treatment under the law. Sure, it took them until the 1950’s to make the right call on the mirror issue of racial segregation, gays in America have been swift with showing just how much of this country they are. Now that over half the nation is ready for equal rights for gays, I think the Supreme Court may be ready, too.

Plus there’s this:

Today’s ruling comes a week after a federal appeals court in Boston struck down a key provision of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In that case, legally married same sex couples argue that the federal government is denying them benefits available to opposite sex couples.

The Supreme Court will most likely consider both the Prop 8 case and the DOMA cases next term.

The tide is a-turnin’.