Oh. So if you simply think the idea that there is a Great Cosmic Voyeur who wants to control your genitals is absurd, that makes you a fanatic? I can’t be too concerned about the opinions of a deluded true believer who can’t tell a fierce bearded guy with an AK-47 from a tweedy academic with a word processor.
Source: Pharyngula
Seen on Salad is Slaughter: Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion. The best bit:
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.
Say that again? “Religious freedom”?
Yes, it’s that distortion again. Do these people even know what “freedom” means? When you’re deciding on something that affects mainly others, it’s not “freedom”, it’s power. The power over others, to dictate on what they can and cannot do.
“Religious freedom” is being able to have the religion you want – even if it’s “none”. It’s being able to act according to those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. It’s not being persecuted (as in “jailed” or “fed to large felines”) for your beliefs. That’s it.
“Religious freedom” has nothing to do with being able to oppress others, force your beliefs on them, or dictate their actions by turning your religious commandments into the law of your country, affecting everyone – even those who don’t share your beliefs. All of those are a matter of power – of having power over other people.
If you don’t have that power – even if, historically, you are used to having it it – your “freedom” is never in question. You can still do what you want. But so can others… and that’s what you can’t accept, isn’t it?
The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.
The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.
I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it.
– John McArthur, Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement
Reading the comments on Hemant’s Questions for Anyone Who Voted for Proposition 8, I found, naturally (considering the blog), that most people supported equality, but there were a couple of people who thought that they were acting morally when trying to ban gay marriage. One comment included the following:
I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.
Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?
I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.
However, that person, though possibly unaware of the fact, has a problem with definitions. Because it’s not about (his) freedom at all, but about (his) power.
I think it was Richard Stallman who once wrote that the difference between a freedom and a power is that the former is being able to decide something which affects mostly yourself, and a power is to be able to decide something that affects mainly others. Now, when you, a religious heterosexual, can (and do) decide what others (gays) can and cannot do, which is the case? It takes an especially convulted and twisted mind — not to mention incredibly selfish and egocentric — to claim that whether gays can marry or not affects you more than it does them1. To decide that they can’t marry is not a question of your freedom, but of you having power over their freedoms.
Also, losing a power you once had does not constitute a “loss of your freedom”, because none of the latter was affected. Christians love to claim that their “religious freedom” is being attacked, but no such thing has ever happened (unless, possibly, in Muslim theocracies), because their freedoms are unaffected; what they are losing is the power they’re used to having — and which they always had, through history, unjustly, and often through physical force.
Thank you, America. The rest of the world breathes in relief.
Instead of pointing you to his victory speech, I’ll celebrate with a previous one, which still brings a tear to my eye when I watch it. Especially the second half. You’ve probably heard it before, but…
I can’t, what with not being American and all that. But most of the people reading this can.
Now, if we’re thinking about not voting because “none of the candidates really represent my positions” or “they’re both the same”, I leave you with two quotes for you to consider. Please do so.
Let’s say you’ve decided to sit out every election until you finally encounter the candidate who’s a left-handed green-eyed atheist libertarian who will institute the flat tax and can sing classical opera. I can guarantee you that you, my friend, will be sitting out every election of your entire life.
But let’s say a candidate finally comes along who’s a right-handed green-eyed agnostic libertarian who will institute some kinds of tax reforms (not the exact ones you want) and plays the tuba. And let’s say the other guy in the race is, hmmm, Fred Phelps. Are you really telling me that you’re going to sit out on principle because you only like southpaws?
– Kazim, The Atheist Experience
and, of course:
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
– David Sedaris, The New Yorker
In case you haven’t heard, there’s a guy running for president named Barack Hussein Osama Nobama. This Nobama was born outside America and secretly schooled in Islamic terrorism at a Wahhabi madrassa. He then moved to the United States to take up the radical ’60s teachings of the Weather Underground’s Bill Ayers, while also organizing for ACORN, a subprime-lending, voter fraud-committing collective of affirmative-action welfare queens. All this happened before he became an elitist celebrity advocate of socialism, infanticide, the sexual abuse of children and treason.
An exaggeration, right? Nobody could possibly really believe such idiocy?
Right…
The prosecution rests. 
Conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, naturally, are ignoring all of Colin Powell’s stated reasons, and saying he’s endorsing Obama only because they’re both black. Which, they say, amounts to racism.
Does that mean that they are voting for McCain only because they and McCain are white? The racist bastards!
In fact, if we take this absurdity to its logical limit, the only non-racists out there are the whites who’re voting for Obama, and the blacks who’re voting for McCain. Everyone else is just voting according to skin color, nothing more. Racists!
And to think these creeps have millions hanging on to their every word…
Just saw the link to it on Peter David’s blog. It’s hard to believe it was written in 2001, instead of 2008 with the advantage of hindsight.
Some gems:
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
And, naturally:
Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman’s right to give birth."
"Soon, with John Ashcroft’s help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."
Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
The Onion: prophecies 10,000 times more accurate than any book written by Bronze Age desert nomads.
According to RealClearPolitics, Bush currently has, in the U.S., a job approval of 24.6%. On the other hand, 69.3% disapprove.
To me, this is impossible to even begin to understand, unless I lower my appreciation of the human race even more. How can anyone who’s not a major partner of an oil or weapons company approve of Bush’s presidency? Think he’s doing an acceptable job? From fighting the wrong war to ruining the economy, from supporting Creationism to vetoing stem cell research – twice –… how can anyone with half a brain support him?
The only – scary – explanation is that about 25% of Americans – or about 76.363.250 people – would support Bush (or any other Republican) even if they saw him, with their own eyes, eating babies – because, no matter what he’s done, at least he’s not a lib’ral, doggone it!
If this is not something to keep one awake at night, I don’t know what is.
You’ve probably read the news by now (and, if you feel like being disgusted, read the comments at the bottom of this page: the number of Republicans who didn’t even listen to Powell’s reasons and are accusing him of supporting Obama just because they’re both black is simply scary), but I couldn’t let this part of Colin Powell’s statement pass by:
I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer’s "No, that’s not America." Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
Kudos to Powell for having the guts to say that (remember McCain’s (paraphrased) “no, he’s not an Arab,” (meaning “Muslim”, really), “he’s a decent family man”, thus implying that a Muslim can’t be one?). The implication, which probably shocks and offends the Religious Right like few other things in recent memory, is that being a Muslim is somehow not inferior to being a Christian, that being a Muslim (or a non-Christian in general) doesn’t disqualify someone for the presidency.
What next, they may be asking? “Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country?” 
I’m betting, of course, that the media will focus on “Powell endorses Obama”, and ignore this small bit of what he said, but, to me, that was the most important part. I can easily imagine Powell saying the same thing about any other religion, or about the lack of one, and these things need to be said, to combat the Religious Right’s dream of religious tests for high office (which, of course, you’d only pass by adhering strictly to their exact branch of fundamentalist Christianity).
Incidentally, it’s strange that I haven’t seen mass conservative cries of “Obama is an atheist”, since atheists are even more demonized than Muslims in the U.S.. I guess it’s the old “there are really no atheists, as deep inside everyone knows God exists” thing.
Subscribe to this blog
