Andrew Sullivan, who apparently loves his gay-killing imaginary friend more than his community.
Keep in mind, the success of the Civil Right movement came from Passive Resistance which came from Mahatma Gandhi (MLK visited his region) who got not from Hinduism, but from Jainism.
3. Refrain from using Google when you search. Get rid of that tool bar and download Yahoo's. In fac,t I believe that Yahoo should be the official search engine of freethinkers online.
SOME OF YOU MAYBE FOCUSSING ON THE WAR, THE ELECTION OR THE ECONOMY . THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF TIME WHEN OUR FREEDOMS ARE AT RISK - WHEN THERE'S DISTRACTION:
- THE ECONOMY WAS IN SHAMBLES IN GERMANY AS THE NAZI'S ROSE TO POWER.
- THE COLD WAR WAS AN EXCELLENT COVER FOR THE MCCARTHY HEARINGS.
DON'T LET THEM DO TO THE U. S. WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO EUROPE!
*****************************UPDATE************************************ The REAL reason why Pat Condell was UNBANNED...
Lynn
This was nothing to do with YouTube conscience, but rather a calculated business decision. Basically, the news was starting to leak to the mainstream media with potentially damaging consequences for YouTube.
First to break the story was a Danish newspaper (remember the problem the Danes had with the Mohammed cartoons?):
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS AT AN END
Current mood: disgusted
Category: Religion and Philosophy
"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists." (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (Justice Anton Scalia dissenting).
"Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision — it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual rights. . . . .
[E]ven assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right. . . . it is more likely that States and only States were the direct beneficiaries. Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a particular outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect — state establishments of religion." (Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow).
According to the lifetime appointees of the U.S. Supreme Court, at best only monotheists have religious freedom and states can establish their own religion or church. These are the same sort of justices that John McCain and even liberal Republican Rudy Guliani promised.
Increasingly vocal minority fights the influence of religious groups
By Peter Smith
When she first logged onto an atheist Web site five years ago, Mikel Childers' hands were shaking. Advertisement
Since she was a teen, she had harbored growing doubts about the conservative Christian faith, "but I was so programmed against the word atheist," she said.
When she eventually decided she was one, a "feeling of almost euphoria" descended upon her, said Childers, now 28.
"I no longer had to justify why a good and loving God would allow (bad) things to happen," she said.
Her experience is shared by others who are part of Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers, a loosely organized group that meets monthly in an upstairs room at Kaelin's Restaurant for burgers, drinks, discussions and fellowship. About 35 attended a recent meeting.
"We believe in living for this life and this world and using science and reason to understand the natural world better," said John Armstrong, one of the organizers.
They're part of an increasingly vocal minority of atheists, and other Americans who claim no religious affiliation, who are fighting the influence of religious groups on politics, schools and scientific research.
The percentage of religiously unaffiliated Americans has doubled since 1990 -- rising to 16 percent.
That growth represents one of the largest trends in American religion today, according to a poll released earlier this year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
About 2 percent each describe themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic." Most of the rest say they're nothing in particular -- and half of that group actually still has religious beliefs or practices.
Twelve percent of Kentuckians and 16 percent of Hoosiers have no affiliation with any religion, according to the survey, which didn't provide a breakdown by state of how many describe themselves as atheists.
Those trends coincide with the rise of the "new atheism" -- attacks on religious dogma mounted by such best-selling authors as Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and Christopher Hitchens ("God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything").
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by Muslim terrorists "brought a lot of people here," Armstrong said. "But you really don't even need to go to 9/11 for an example of why religious certainty about things nobody can be certain about is dangerous."
Members of the Louisville atheists group also say they want to combat conservative Christians' political activities in areas ranging from embryonic stem-cell research to creationism to courthouse postings of the Ten Commandments.
Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst of the Family Foundation of Kentucky -- which has worked alongside religious groups endorsing conservative causes such as the 2004 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage -- said he welcomed the atheists' involvement.
"As long as they believe in the legitimacy of people of faith furthering what they believe, I don't see any problem with groups like this furthering their agenda," he said.
Religion and voting
In recent years, religious practice has been one of the leading indicators of voting patterns.
The more frequently people attend worship, the more likely they are to vote Republican.
And while Democrats are struggling to regain some of that voting share, they won the religiously unaffiliated vote by a 75-25 percent margin nationwide in the 2006 congressional elections, according to exit polls.
In this year's 3rd District rematch, Republican Anne Northup leads among those who attend worship frequently, while incumbent Democrat John Yarmuth leads among all the rest, according to a SurveyUSA/WHAS-TV poll in July.
Atheist group member Alan Canon of Louisville, who often wears a pin with a scarlet-letter "A" to prompt conversations about atheism, grew up in a fundamentalist household and was a Bible camp prize winner.
But his family also valued science, and he ultimately couldn't reconcile the two.
"For people openly to say they're atheist is similar to gay people coming out," Canon said. "It's not popular at all for people to say they're atheist, especially in these parts."
Members of the Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers reflect the complexities presented in the Pew survey -- that people with no religious affiliation often have some religious practices.
Some meditate or practice Wiccan spiritual rituals, tied to the rhythms of nature.
Several belong to Unitarian Universalist churches, which have no theological creed but proclaim values of love, justice and truth-seeking.
"We do believe in spirituality," said David Cooper, 59, who belongs to Thomas Jefferson Unitarian Church. "It may not necessarily be a type of theistic spirituality."
Common ground
Religious groups, meanwhile, are responding to the new trends.
The Kentucky Baptist Convention -- alarmed by a 2004 report showing one-third of Kentucky adults with little or no church connection -- has seen many churches work to be more "culturally relevant," said Larry Baker, director of new work and associational missions.
"We have to meet people exactly where they are, respect them as individuals and then share boldly and with clarity about what we believe about our relationship with Jesus Christ," he said.
Others are finding common ground with atheists.
The Rev. David Emery, pastor of Middletown Christian Church, recently led a sermon series on the recent atheist best-sellers.
While he criticized them for ignoring the positive work of religious people for social justice, he applauded them for raising issues of religious violence and the problem of suffering.
"The questions that these atheists raise are questions people of faith have also, that they haven't been given permission to ask," he said.
Reporter Peter Smith can be reached at (502) 582-4469.
X-TIAN YOUTUBER "VENOMFANGX" HAS BECOME A MINI CELEB FOR HIS DUKING IT OUT WITH EVOLUTIONISTS AND FREETHINKERS ON VIDEO.
MANY X-TIANS ONLINE HAVE BEEN UNPREPARED FOR THE RESPONSE THEY'VE RECIEVED, PERCIEVING ATHEISTS AND AGONSTICS AS A MINORITY.
SOME HAVE RESORTED TO CENSORSHIP BY FILING FALSE DMCA CLAIMS (CLAIMS OF VIDEO THEFT), HOPING TO SILENCE CRITICISM.
THIS IS A CASE WHERE MESSING WITH THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CAN SERIOUSLY HUMBLE YOU. I WON'T PICK ON THIS KID, BUT I WON'T BE SORRY FOR HIM EITHER. HE SHOULD SERVE AS A WARNING.
From Levi Johnston's MySpace page, (since has been removed) listed him as being in a relationship, but under his "children" status, Johnston said "I don't want kids." He describes himself as a "redneck" who likes to snowboard, ride dirt bikes, go camping and "hang out with the boys." He also enjoys fishing, and warned that, if you mess with him, "I'll kick [your] ass."
Let's have a debate on the morals of marrying an Alaskan K-Fed!
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has published an interesting study finding that a particular hormone found in humans as well as other mammals plays an important role in encouraging monogamy. The stronger this hormone is, especially in males, the stronger the males' bond is to female partners; the weaker this hormone is, the weaker that bond is — and the more likely the males are to feel unsatisfied with and/or cheat on their mates. A specific gene has been found with strong links to all this, causing people to ask about the genetic and biological foundations for a complicated behavior like monogamy.
This raises a number of interesting issues and questions, both religious and ethical. First, and most obvious, is the fact that humans sharing such traits with other mammals is expected and explainable in the context of evolution but not in the context of creationism. Creationists can offer ad hoc rationalizations for it, but their ideology cannot predict such findings nor coherently explain them after the fact. Even ignoring the creationism vs. evolution debate, though, this creates more potential problems and conflicts for people who rely on allegedly "divine" morality handed down from ancient shepherds than it does for modern, secular humanists. .. -->more-->
The hormone vasopressin affects several body systems, including cardiac and urinary function. In addition, scientists have long studied how vasopressin influences behavior in prairie voles. The mouselike animals, found in the grasslands of North America, are famous for social monogamy. Males tend to be family guys, sticking close to home and helping to raise the pups. Even related species such as meadow voles don't bond for so much as a romantic weekend.
Over years of study, scientists have concluded that prairie vole bonding has much to do with vasopressin activity in the brains of males. Through a series of studies that manipulated vasopressin levels in the vole brain, scientists have even made the animals more, or less, faithful. Vasopressin is not a love potion, though. Nerve cells also have to be equipped with specific receptor molecules that allow the hormone to bind to the cell and activate certain internal circuitry.
The new study examined a gene that codes for a vasopressin receptor in the human brain. In addition, Walum and an international team of collaborators also had volunteers fill out questionnaires to measure their level of "pair bonding" and marital strife. About 500 couples, who had been together at least five years, answered questions such as, "How often do you kiss your mate?" Or, "Have you discussed divorce or separation with a close friend?"
In the end, one particular variation of the gene, called allele 334, was associated with lower scores on partner bonding and greater odds of marital conflict. The effect was concentrated in men. For instance, among men either with no copies or just one copy of the 334 allele, 15 to 16 percent reported a marital crisis in the past year. However, when men had two copies of the 334 allele, the odds of marital crisis doubled, to 34 percent.
Granted, complex behaviors like monogamy, cheating, and pair bonding cannot be fully explained by or reduced to the presence of certain alleles so these findings should not be taken too far. On the other hand, the numbers are far too strong to pretend that they only have meaning out on the margins — this is real and meaningful data. Whatever other factors may be at work in a person's life, having one or two copies of this allele changes the odds about your life than most other factors that we have numbers for. There are also lots of environmental factors involved with cancer, but if you found that you carried one or two copies of an allele that was associated with a significant percentage of cancers, you'd care.
In fact, you might even want to be tested. So should people be tested for this allele? For example, would it be reasonable for women to test their partners to see if they had one or more copies? Positive tests could be put to good use, for example by helping a couple better understand one reason why they might be having so much trouble and hence what they have to overcome in order to save their relationship. It would be like coming to understand that having had a bad relationship growing up with your parents may be a factor in your bad relationships now; you can't change the past or your genes, but you can better understand them and thus know what you must overcome.
Would it be wrong for a woman to refuse to date someone who tests positive? Genetic discrimination sounds objectionable, even under the worst scenario of the man having a 30% chance of bad relationships. On the other hand, don't we all use short cuts and generalizations to make quick decisions about who's worth taking a chance on and who's not? Some short cuts are reasonable (if he treats waitresses badly and under tips, walk away) and some are not. Maybe it's unreasonable to reject someone who has a 2-in-3 chance of forming a good relationship; maybe it's reasonable to reject someone who has a 1-in-3 chance of cheating on you. It's an interesting question.
These are issues which face everyone, but there are extra dilemmas when we start factoring in traditional Christian moral ideas. Christianity promotes faithfulness and condemns cheating in relationships, which is reasonable, but also adds that cheating and adultery are sins condemned by God which might cause you to be punished in hell for all eternity. Leaving aside the immorality of eternal punishments for temporal crimes, it's hard to justify punishing people for genetic problems.
If the very ability to form strong pair bonds depends on particular hormones, but John's brain has little if any of that hormone, how can an all-knowing and all-loving god find him morally blameworthy for failing to be monogamous? We might praise men who are able to overcome it, but that doesn't necessarily entail condemning those who can't. We can and should praise Oscar Pistorius for becoming a fantastic runner despite not having any feet, but this doesn't mean we can or should condemn others lacking feet for not being at least mediocre runners.
One response might be that even if such a person has a lot of trouble with monogamy for reasons entirely out of their control, they can be held responsible for making promises they don't keep and hurting the people they cheat on. That sounds reasonable at first, until we remember that our culture is set up to meet the expectations and preferences of those who don't have trouble with monogamy, just as it's set up to accommodate able-bodied adults, heterosexuals, etc. How blameworthy is a person who tries to live up to cultural expectations they never knew they couldn't do? How blameworthy is a person who tries to live up to traditional heterosexual expectations but fails and hurts others because they never knew they were gay?
Why do discoveries like this create more problems and conflict for religious morality? I think the answer is fairly straightforward: if you try to adhere to a morality you think has been divinely ordained, is eternal, and must be unchanging, then new discoveries and information will often lead to conflict — just as happens when people insist on trying to stick to divinely ordained, eternal, and changing declarations about the nature of the universe. For the rest of us, adapting both our ideas about what universe is as well as our ideas about how we should behave to new information about reality isn't always so difficult. This doesn't mean that it's always easy, either, because some truths may be unpleasant, but if you're going to live in a reality-based community then you accept that unpleasant, uncomfortable truths have to be faced.
There's been a lot of commentary lately on atheist secularist blogs about Leah Daughtry, the Democratic Party leader who declared the Party to be one of "people of faith," atheists need not apply. But just who is Leah Daughtry? Had you heard of her before this latest outbreak of Democratic anti-atheist bigotry? Probably not, since Daughtry eschews the spotlight and doesn't like attention to be directed towards her and her positions. If you've been keeping up with gay-rights blogs, though, you probably are at least a little familiar with Leah Daughtry's name and opinions — and as a result wouldn't blame her for not wanting lots of media attention directed to her positions.
In her role as Howard Dean's Chief of Staff she is, "...responsible for managing day-to-day strategy and operations of the national party." This means that on a practical level, she is in charge of the Democratic Party. She's the head honcho, and this is one head honcho who sometimes looks and acts more like a right-wing Republican than a left-leaning Democratic. Then again, her entire schtick is about promoting faith-based values among Democrats and welcoming "people of faith" into the Democratic Party. By looking at her own positions, we can catch a glimpse of what that might mean: anti-atheist bigotry, homophobia, opposition to gay marriage, promotion of creationism, and promotion of Bible reading in public schools. .. -->more-->
First, is it even legitimate to put Leah Daughtry's religious beliefs under the microscope? Absolutely: her entire agenda is centered around appealing to voters who support candidates at least in part on the basis of religion — they like the religious pandering that a candidate does or they agree with a candidate's policies because they think that's what their religion/and or god tell them. If Daughtry is going support or encourage inquiries into political candidates' religions and religious beliefs, then she should be willing to submit to the same critical scrutiny — and not just from fellow believers who might be expected to treat those beliefs sympathetically.
Second, just so we're all on the page, let's make it clear how religious Leah Daughtry is. This isn't a woman who merely makes a point of getting to church on time:
Daughtry, who keeps an altar at home and devotes a predawn hour a day to prayer and Bible study, is on a mission to narrow the "God gap" between Democrats and Republicans by winning over religious voters who have flocked to the GOP over the last 20 years. ...
Faith has been a constant in Daughtry's life. She sang in the choir at her church, ran its affairs and worked in the kitchen. But she felt God wanted more. "I don't have any more hours in a day," she remembers despairing, but lost the argument. "God doesn't allow me to be bossy with him," she says with a deep laugh.
And what sort of political activism is being driven by this level of religious fervor? Well, a very faith-oriented political activism in which one's faith is supposed to be realized through the political process:
Daughtry says churches, mosques and synagogues are filled with worshipers who might vote Democratic if only candidates discussed their beliefs and how they informed their politics. ...Daughtry is looking past November. "Obviously, you want to win elections," she says. But more important "is the extent to which we allow people of faith to be a vibrant, active part of the party. Because that is a longer-term benefit with greater implications . . . than what one election may or may not yield." [emphasis added]
The New York Times adds:
In her positions as Dean's top aid and the convention's top official, Daughtry, who is 44 years old, is leading the Democratic Party's new mission to make religious believers — particularly ardent Christian believers — view the party and its candidates as receptive to, and often impelled by, the dictates of faith. She sparked this crusade, both to transfigure the party's image as predominantly secular and to take enough votes from the Republicans to win this year's presidential election...
Obama has declared that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause." Daughtry couldn't be more pleased. "As a pastor," she said, "I think it's wonderful. And as a voter, I want to know what makes the candidate tick; this is a core part of his understanding."
It is the core part of Daughtry's. "We were raised," she said, referring to her brother and two sisters, "to believe that we would only experience success — success in the sense of contentment, peace — to the extent that we were faithful to the covenant made between our great-great-grandfather and God." The covenant, her father told me, is "to struggle with and for the people, to make life better for the human family." And Daughtry said that, in politics "at this point in time," bringing about triumph for the Democratic Party is the best way to keep that promise. Her work is God's wish.
...Her acceptance of God's call to lead, to make herself visible and to make herself heard, converged with her commitment to liberation theology, as she exhorted herself and the congregation: "I am on the rise! I am the power and not the pig! I am on the rise! I am the master and not the mastered! I am on the rise!" Her voice seemed to hold no doubt that she was carrying out God's plan. "I am on the rise! I am on the rise! I am on the rise!" Source: The New York Times [emphasis added]
So, it sounds like she is working to transform what is supposed to be a secular political party into a faith-based party in which people believe they are doing God's work here on earth. Gee, that sounds a lot like the rhetoric we've heard from Barack Obama... and George W. Bush. Leah Daughtry certainly seems to believe that she is doing God's work, and even seems to think that God has "called" her to be so heavily involved in politics.
But what about her actual political beliefs? You can't have political activism unless you have particular political goals you wish to achieve. It's not enough to just generally want the Democratic Party to "win," because that's a pretty empty goal unless the Democratic Party is actively pursuing an agenda that matches what you want to see happen in society. So, what does Leah Daughtry want to see happen in society? Well, a whole bunch of things that genuine progressives and secularists should be worried about:
When asked about whether she supports gay marriage, Daughtry replied that she does not. The Pentecostal minister turned politico goes on to explain that same-sex nuptials go against her personal beliefs: "I believe, as the church believes, that marriage is intended for one man and one woman." Daughtry goes on to insist that she keeps her religious beliefs separate from her duties at the DNC: "People know that I am a reverend but it is completely separate from the work at the DNC."
The Blade also points out that Daughtry objected to requisite gay delegates because we haven't faced "historic discrimination at the voting booth". Girl must not remember all those anti-gay marriage initiatives.
Meanwhile, our sources in DC tell us the DNC has asked the judge to seal all documents pertaining to the case. They plan to argue that all the attention has cost them financially. Yeah, the truth can do that sometimes…
Wait a minute, Leah Daughtry keeps her religious beliefs separate from her work at the DNC? What kind of an answer is that? This is a woman looking for candidates whose politics are "informed" by their religion, who is reaching out to voters specifically on a religious basis, whose own religion appears to inform every aspect of her life from the time she wakes up to the time she goes to bed, who is an active Pentecostal minister, who started an influential movement in the Democratic Party to promote religion and faith-based politics among Democrats, who wants to promote an image of the Democratic Party as not being secular, and who seems to believe that God has called her to get involved in politics and do what she is doing now...
...And we're supposed to believe that Leah Daughtry is really a secularist at heart who leaves her religion at the door before entering the office? Please, how could anyone be dense enough to believe such a statement?
A person that dedicated to blending religion and politics, and to getting people motivated by religion to become more involved in politics, does not leave her own religion at the office door before starting work. I might be able to believe it if her job was in accounting or computer programming, but when her job is the day-to-day operations of a major political party plus the active promotion of religion within the party, of course her religious beliefs are not separate from her work at the DNC. Her religious beliefs are a major part of what motivates her work at the DNC.
Isn't the entire push for more religion in politics based on the idea that religious believers can't be expected to separate their religion from their politics? Isn't it awfully convenient that these promoters of faith-based values, faith-based politics, and reaching out to "people of faith" become strict secularists when they are suspected of doing something immoral or illegal while under the influence of faith? Maybe that's how it's supposed to work: strict secularism is only necessary when it comes to avoiding responsibility for faith-based behavior.
Remember, too, that there is no such thing as "religious beliefs" in isolation or in the abstract. Religious beliefs always exist as specific beliefs: beliefs about the supernatural, moral beliefs, beliefs about the nature of humanity and human existence, etc. This means that a person who is influenced or motivated by their "religious beliefs" is influenced or motivated by very specific beliefs; this, in turn, means that they will end up making specific decisions or at least adopting specific attitudes because of those beliefs.
If a person believes that homosexuality is an abomination, that homosexuality is condemned by god, and that a secular state should not permit gay marriage because their rel
angry
blustery
exanimate
distraught
animated
disappointed