…to The Liberal Cup in Hallowell on Dec 7. I’m going to be co-hosting the weekly trivia game with a friend that night. Bring your friends, put down ten bucks for trivia, buy a few beers (The ‘Cup has the best around), and see if you can get any of my awesome, awesome questions. One special hint for FTSOS readers: no answer is going to “evolution”. That would be lame and probably too easy.
Heck, you can even argue with me in person if you want. But I don’t recommend it. My alcohol consumption will not be considered “light”. Or maybe that would make me all the more formidable. Try your luck.
There is a sign by American Atheists in New Jersey that says, “You KNOW it’s a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON!” I personally disapprove of the capricious capitalization, but the message has reportedly been making an impact.
Mr Silverman said despite the fact that the billboard has only been up for a few days, he and his group are calling the campaign a success.
‘We’re getting a lot of response from closeted atheists saying: “Thank you for putting it up.”’
I’m sure it’s also causing a lot of discussion, and that’s always good for a minority position when it is the minority that is directing the initial talk.
“You know it’s real,” the newer billboard tells drivers passing the corner of Dyer Avenue and West 31st Street in Manhattan. “This season, celebrate Jesus.”
That capitalization in the Catholic sign is better than in the atheist sign (and not as depicted in the news article), but it could be improved.
But I digress.
Look at how the signs match up. The Catholic sign, intentionally placed on the other side of a New Jersey-New York tunnel as the atheist sign is suppose to be a direct response. The atheist sign says (ignoring its particular capitalization), “You know it’s a myth”, with the Catholic sign responding, “You know it’s real.” Okay, fair enough. That’s pretty straight-forward. Not really all that great or especially effective since it doesn’t distract from the atheist message, instead implying that the atheist message is worthy of some sort of attention, but it’s at least not terrible. But then the next line in the atheist sign is, “This season, celebrate reason!” And how do the Catholics respond? This season, celebrate Jesus.” While I appreciate the decision not to use an exclamation point, do they really want to imply there is a contrast between reason and Jesus? I mean, of course they aren’t trying to do that, and of course there really is quite a stark contrast, but anyone comparing the two billboards is forced to conclude that there is a divide between the two – and the Catholics surely do not want that.
But I guess I shouldn’t expect the Catholic church to offer a thoughtful response.
An Indiana judge has issued a ruling stripping a father of joint custody of his three children. One of the reasons cited by the judge was the lack of religion of the father.
[Judge] Pancol’s order says [Craig] Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training that the (mother) exercised and that (Scarberry) was agnostic.” Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends.
Watch this short news report.
Of course, there’s certainly more to the story, but all that’s out there right now is that Scarberry’s lack of Christianity is a contributing factor in why he is not allowed to retain joint custody of his children. There is no evidence of neglect or abuse, nor any accusations of any sort of thing.
The main issue for the ruling (and then affirming) judge is this:
The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.”
So why give benefit to the mother? Both parents were given joint custody; that communication is difficult due to religious differences does not mean the Christian therefore wins the legal battle. There is no reason to presume the Christian is better – in any way – than the agnostic. Besides, the ruling is blatantly unconstitutional.
A secondary issue in all this is the right of the father to have a fair hearing in these cases. In the past, the father was considered the bread winner and there were financial and practical reasons for granting more rights to the mother. Except we aren’t living in a dysfunctional episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show anymore. For that reason, Scarberry has this planned:
A Navy veteran and health-care worker, Scarberry has obtained a permit for a demonstration in support of fathers’ rights for Dec. 16 at the Madison County Courthouse.
Scarberry, of course, will also be addressing his (non)religious liberty, or lack thereof. His case is a good one and his fight is for all the right reasons. I’m just worried about all the inherent and undeserved respect religion is getting in all this.
“I wasn’t interfering in their right to be brought up in a Christian environment,” [Scarberry] said, noting that the children still attend Christian school and church services as they have done in the four years that he has had joint custody.
It’s bad enough that both the ruling and affirming judges are letting their personal and cultural biases seep into the court room, but Scarberry doesn’t need to do it too. Or maybe he does. After all, the man is fighting for his children; what it takes, it takes. But ideally, he should not need to let undue respect squeeze its way in: children don’t have a “right” to be brought up in a particular religious environment. That sort of right goes to the parent. There is no such thing as a Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or…) child, much less one that wants to exercise its right to be brought up in a particular religion. Saying otherwise is like saying there are Democratic and Republican children. There aren’t. And to compound the whole mess, Scarberry cites the attendance of a Christian school and church services by his children. Again, the man is fighting for the children, so he has no higher concern, but the indoctrination of his children should not be looked upon as a good thing.
Maybe if the judges just read the first and final chapter of The God Delusion, they would get it.
In a seismic shift on one of the most profound — and profoundly contentious — Roman Catholic teachings, the Vatican said Tuesday that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.
The position was an acknowledgment that the church’s long-held anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn’t justify putting lives at risk.
“This is a game-changer,” declared the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit writer and editor.
The new stance was staked out as the Vatican explained Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms and HIV in a book that came out Tuesday based on his interview with a German journalist.
The Vatican still holds that condom use is immoral and that church doctrine forbidding artificial birth control remains unchanged. Still, the reassessment on condom use to help prevent disease carries profound significance, particularly in Africa where AIDS is rampant.
It would be nice if the next time I go to Africa, my travel doctor doesn’t specifically tell me, “Don’t have sex with the locals.” That’s a long way from happening, but at least the Vatican is doing less to make that dream stay so distant.
A nobody pastor from New Jersey has told married members of his congregation to stop using Facebook. He says the site too often leads to marital trouble.
‘I’ve been in extended counseling with couples with marital problems because of Facebook for the last year and a half.
‘What happens is someone from yesterday surfaces, it leads to conversations and there have been physical meet-ups. The temptation is just too great.’
It isn’t that surprising that religious leaders are struggling with change. It virtually always is religion that stands in the way or at least in opposition to progress. And every time, people eventually realize the strength of change and just brush past religion.
The fact is, Facebook is one of the most important creations of the past decade. It has contributed to the fundamental change in how we interact with each other, and I think it has done so for the overall good. While one of its drawbacks happens to be the use of the system by inept older people, this is also one of its strengths. But take note: when I say “older people”, I’m not simply referring to age. I’m talking about an “old person mindset”. That’s a mindset that dismisses new facts for old tradition. If anything does that, it’s religion. Facebook and other social media have the ability to bring people with old, obsolete perspectives into reality.
But two more points: First, it’s a load of garbage that this nobody has gotten so much attention. Provided that he has no formal training and is merely a Reverend goes to the point Gnu Atheists are always making: we give undue respect to people based upon religion. This guy appears to have absolutely no qualifications for giving marital advice any more than any random scrub does. I want a reason why I should listen to him, not an appeal to unearned respect.
The Rev. Cedric Miller didn’t need Facebook to be part of an extramarital affair. The pastor who banned Facebook had three-way sex affair.
Miller, 48, who gained national attention this week when he banned his church’s leadership from using Facebook because he said it is a portal to infidelity, had himself engaged in a three-way relationship with his wife and a man a decade ago, according to testimony he gave in a criminal case.
While entertaining, who gives a shit? If there’s anything I despise, it’s this persistent fallacy of dismissing arguments from people who are hypocritical. We have plenty of reasons to dismiss Miller’s points about Facebook. We don’t need to try to ignore his arguments by attacking him personally. Unless we have a reason to think he’s just making it all up and lying, Miller is irrelevant to the strength of the points being made.
The U.S. and Russia have long had a deal – dating to the Cold War, in fact – where they have allowed ground inspections of the other nation’s nuclear arsenal. This helps to ensure the other side doesn’t have a secret buildup happening. This deal adds meaningful weight to reduction treaties. It also contributes to security for both sides – but especially the U.S. – because there is more transparency in terms of where nuclear arms are being sent around the world, if anywhere.
One of President Obama’s top foreign-policy goals suffered a potentially ruinous setback when the Senate’s second-ranking Republican said the U.S. nuclear treaty with Russia should not be considered until next year.
The statement Tuesday by Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) stunned the White House and Democrats, who scrambled to save the pact. It came just days after Obama declared that ratifying the treaty was his top foreign-policy priority for the lame-duck session of Congress.
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) needs 67 votes to pass. Because of Democratic losses in the midterm elections, it would be harder to approve next year, requiring at least 14 Republican votes rather than nine now.
Kyl is making a political stand designed purely to embarrass the President. His actions serve no purpose – especially since Obama has already done a little backscratching by committing money to modernizing the country’s nuclear complex already, as requested by Kyl. The toolsac just wants to make a political move.
Kyl, of course, is taking his cues from Sen. Mitch McConnell. You know, that’s the guy who said the Republicans Party’s number one goal over the next two year is to kick Obama out of office? Yeah, that guy. For once a Republican wasn’t bullshitting. This is really their whole plan – do whatever it takes to embarrass the President. And then when the economy starts to recover as a result of natural growth plus all the Democratic policies put in place that have strengthened our country, they will take credit for that. I promise that when we start seeing good growth and shrinking unemployment over the next 18-20 months, the Republicans will start taking credit – despite getting nothing done by being the Party of No.
But let’s not bother to inspect Russia’s shoddy nuclear complex. I’m sure no weapons will end up in the wrong hands. What reason do we have to be distrustful of that nation, anyway?
At one point Morrison may or may not have exposed himself to the crowd, leading to his arrest a few days later for indecent exposure. Morrison died before serving his six-month sentence, and a contingent of Doors fans have been lobbying for his posthumous pardoning ever since–which brings us to this week, when outgoing Florida governor Charlie Crist hinted that he may at long last clear Morrison’s name before leaving office.
“Candidly, it’s something that I haven’t given a lot of thought to, but it’s something I’m willing to look into in the time I have left,” Crist told The Hill in a recent interview. “Anything is possible.” The reporter adds that “Crist said he won’t make the decision lightly, noting the many complexities surrounding the 41-year-old case. Numerous sound recordings from the show exist, for example, but Morrison’s defenders say none of the scores of photographs from the show prove the exposure charge.” The reporter quotes Crist as saying, “We would have to look into all of that.”
I love when politicians come down to their final few weeks in office. If they aren’t doing somethingawesome, they’re at least doing something interesting. That’s the case with Crist. In the end, this isn’t really that important. But it is a nice middle finger to the ultra-conservative bias against that new rock and/or roll music all the kids seemed to like back then.
Harry Reid is promising to bring to a vote a repeal on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell soon. The legislation will be contingent on the president and top military commanders certifying that doing so will not harm the effectiveness of the military. And what does an assessment by the Pentagon say about it all?
A draft of the 370-page assessment has found that the ban could be lifted with little harm and that most troops don’t object to the change in personnel policy, according to officials familiar with its findings.
Of course, it isn’t that simple.
But it also found that some troops had serious concerns with repealing the law.
Military officials have warned that even scattered resistance to the change could pose logistical and discipline problems for field commanders.
That is true. But desegregating the military had the same issues. We need to take a pragmatic approach to this. It’s clear that gays ought to have the right to serve the United States of America. No non-bigot doubts that. The question is how doing what’s right will impact our fighting and defending capabilities. The leak of the report indicates that the change in policy isn’t going to be much different from when we finally allowed minorities and whites to fight side by side. The obvious conclusion is that DADT needs to be repealed so that we might better our military with a broader pool of intelligent men and women.
Facebook is one of the greatest tools with which the Internet Age has supplied us. One in every 14 people in the world use it; 90% of those in Indonesia have accounts. It is the reason I can talk about Mark Zuckerberg without linking to who he is. Facebook has become a part of life – whether young or old. And speaking of the latter, Queen Elizabeth has joined up.
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has joined Facebook, adding a presence on the world’s most popular social network to the royal family’s accounts on Twitter, photo-sharing site Flickr and YouTube.
The British monarchy’s Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/TheBritishMonarchy) does not allow users to “friend” the Queen or to send her messages, but offers updates on royal news and diary events.
By midday on Monday, a few hours after the page went live, 60,000 people had clicked to signal they liked it, meaning they will receive updates on the royal family’s activities in their Facebook news feeds.
The page does not display personal details such as the Queen’s relationship status, interests or political views.
Britain’s royal family prides itself on keeping up to date with new technologies.
I’m not sure the royal family can point to joining Facebook in 2010 and say they’re really on the technological ball, but I am glad to see more and more people joining the site.
“The WOA did not have nor continues to have any intention to fine, take away games or deny pay checks to any member due to wearing a pink whistle,” Stordahl said in a message on the WOA website.
He said the WOA “completely supports” many worthy causes, such as breast- and prostate-cancer awareness, but added there is “a process to follow.” Representatives from the two organizations will discus that process at an upcoming meeting.
“The last thing we want is to be at odds with each other,” Stordahl said.
For the Sake of Science 