A Man Said To The Universe

Elizabeth Dole has hit a new low. She is running to retain her North Carolina seat (and at this point she is apparently failing) against the Kay Hagan. Her latest smear ad dives into the muck and attempts to paint her opponent as an atheist because she had the temerity to treat the non-believing as actual constituents and humans.

"A leader of the Godless American PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor."

A secret fundraiser? Isn't that a little bit oxymoronic? And considering that the donations must be publicly reported, just how secret could it be?

"[Kay Hagan] hid from cameras and took godless money."

So Ms. Dole has never had a private fundraiser? She has made each and every instance where she was shilling for money a public affair? And I hate to break it to you Libby, but percentage-wise, it is likely you have gotten money from atheists too.

"What did Kay Hagan promise in return?"

Well, my guess is an endless supply of delicious babies for us to eat. Or perhaps to treat us fairly and listen to our concerns. Maybe, my mind staggers to even think it, Ms. Hagan might see the value in the separation of church and state and therefore can understand and even agree with some our concerns. She doesn't have to agree with us on everything and we can respect that. But atheists are citizens (much to the consternation of Bush #41) and we expect to have our public servants listen to our positions.

Interspersed in the ad are also clips of atheist activists like Ellen Johnson, who I am not exactly a fan of. (Hey, Ellen, I thought we weren't supposed to vote..ya big idiot). These clips speak of removing god from the pledge and money and are clearly intended to inflame.

So the implication is that Kay Hagan is an atheist or, at the the very least, in league with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Well, there are two problems with that:

1) She isn't - According to reports Ms. Hagan is quite churchy, which makes here all the more impressive that she is meeting and accepting funds from atheist organizations. It means she is trying to be an actual representative of all her constituents as opposed to only those of her faith.

2) What the hell is wrong with it if she is? Like Colin Powell, in his endorsement of Barak Obama (yay!), the right answer isn't "She isn't an atheist, she is a christian" but rather "What is the difference if she is?"

This is really a despicable desperation ploy by Dole's campaign.

Via Pharyngula I came across this column(?) from a Bishop Hermann posted on the St. Louis Review Online.

In his column, the Bishop goes on about how judgment day is coming and you better vote based on abortion, blah blah, religious blather, blah. That is all to be expected (and wrong) but then he veers into some personal info.

My parents got married about one year before the stock market crash of 1929, and yet they raised 15 children in the midst of the Great Depression. They had no money. My mother made her own wedding gown and her own bouquet of flowers. I have my parents’ wedding picture on the wall of my office, and I am reminded every day of the sacrifices they made for life.

We had no money, but we had each other! My parents were at home with us for three meals every day. We had plenty to eat because we raised almost all of our food. We seldom got new clothes, but we wore hand-me-downs, unless my mother would buy materials and make our clothes. We lived in poverty, but we learned the value of hard work. We had no running water or electricity. We had no TV, Internet or cell phone. Yet, we were very happy because we had life! We had each other! Today, all 15 children in my family of origin are most grateful for the sacrifices Mom and Dad made so that we could have life. Making sacrifices for each other brought us incredible joy and enhanced our dignity, because it gave us a chance to participate in serving each other!

Okay, Bishop. I think I have something you need to hear, and you may not like it so you might want to sit down.

Your parents didn't necessarily like children. They liked fucking. And they bordered on being completely irresponsible. Lucky for you that your family grew enough food. And I am betting that your sepia toned memories are softened versions of the reality of your youth.

Uh oh. Sen. Ted Stevens has been found guilty. I guess he might have to start worrying about some other kinds of tubes getting filled now.

BZZZZZZZT!! Comedy in poor taste alert! Move way from the blog...

So much of the Right's message is fear. So much of it is insular. So much of it is hollow patriotism. So much of it is Orwellian double speak.

One of the things Barak is offering is optimism. He may not be able to deliver, but he wants, as I do, us (as a country) to be better than we are. He understands that pointing out a flaw isn't attack, but the first step in correcting that flaw. He is a rational man who approaches problems with reason. I don't expect him to get everything right or to agree with him on all things, and I assume at some point I will call him a "complete dumbass". But that is simple disagreement. I am comfortable with putting my country in this man's hands as from everything I have seen from him convinces me that he wants what I want. A country to be proud of. And his history proves to me that he is wise enough to gain my trust.

These last 8 years have been almost painful. Watching the values and ideals of our fine nation, discarded and trampled. Once a beacon to the rest of the world we are reduced to a joke and a bully. The Bush administration's complete and utter disregard for the foundational ideals of theConstitutionn and blatant corruption has damaged our position on the world, and now as it turns, out our economic fundamental. We cannot continue down this path without risking literal destruction. McCain's uneven temperament and aggressive nature can only drive us further down.

So much derision has been piled on Obama's 'eloquence'. Am I the only one who craves a leader who can speak to inspire? Has the cackling, functionally retarded cowboy set the bar so low that people cannot remember what it is like to have someone who can inspire us to action with his words? The reason they attack Obama on this is because it is a strength they do not possess and their only possibility of defusing it is treat it as though it has no value. But the people are smarter. 100,000 people showing up at rallies to hear him demonstrate this and show that people want to be inspired.

And if they can be inspired to come see him speak, they can be inspired to other action. We have significant, serious problems facing our country. To fix them it is going to take action and sacrifice. And if we can approach these problems as a 'we' instead of a country of 'I's, we can overcome them and perhaps not inflict the results of our mistakes upon our children. Barak Obama has the ability to do this.

And there is even the issue of race. It's the icing on the cake. I want an African American elected to the presidency. Not solely because of his race, but by getting him there I can help move this country forward. One more barrier broken, the circle of inclusiveness widened, the definition of "us" broadened.

When it comes down to it, I am not a democrat, I am a progressive. I think we should constantly strive to be better. And the man who has my vote offers me real hope for real change. Reality will impose itself soon enough and there will be hard decisions to make. But for now, I relish the feeling that we can change the direction and make things better for everyone.

Just one of those little thoughts that strike at strange moments.

There are childrens' bibles and bible story books and videos and things like that out there. And normally these contain sanitized versions of the stories, you know without all the killing, maiming, and incest that is so rampant in the regular bible.

Who is the audience for these materials. Well, a large audience are the seriously religious, many of whom take the bible as the literal word of god. But those sanitized versions omit stuff. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to edit what your believe your deity wanted to you to know? It isn't like there are age ratings on parts of the bible.


Revelations- no one under 17 admitted due to violence and drug references.

Where does it say in the bible that "you should only tell your kids some of this stuff until they are old enough"? Nowhere. So where do they get off. Why can they not see just how hypocritical it is?

[editted 10/27/08 1:48PM - thanks paul!]

Now McCain comes out and blasts the Bush administration and the republicans for their damage to our country and their wild excesses of the last eight years. Ol' Maverick John hit 'em hard! There was just one thing wrong....everything.

Senator McCain, I know you are getting old and maybe you forgot, but you were there. You have been party and an active participant pretty much from the beginning. Did I hear you speaking up? For the most part no. There are a few areas, I will give you that, but you squandered any good you did there by turning your back on all those positions now, in your sad desperate bid to get elected. You have traded all the good you did in order to pander.

You can't play the outsider now. You know we have records, right? And them video things. Both on the VCRs and the intertubes. You have been anything but a maverick or reformer. You had your chance to show different. And your proposals for the future are just more of the same. Remember the time you gleefully claimed that you voted over 90% with Bush's desires and how that was more than a lot of senators?

On top of that, you have made it abundantly clear that you are out. You have nothing new to offer, no solutions. Why do I say that? Because you have resorted to the refuge of scoundrels, patriotism. All this "real America" crap. Just more of the divisive fear-mongering right wing desperation tactics. Mr. McCain, you are spent.

So why don't you try to go out with a least a little honor. Discuss issues for your last ten days as candidate. Float ideas, raise the level of discourse. If you care so much about "Country First", how about doing everything you can to unite it rather than attempting to set parts of it against each other. You won't though. You can't. You simply don't have it in you.

Speaking with regard to religion, though this applies in general as well, two things:

1. You have a right to believe whatever the hell you want.


2. You do not have the right to make everyone else respect your belief

You don't have a right to nobody saying anything bad about your imaginary friend, treating your little totems or foodstuffs as special, or to fuck with other people's lives based on your belief.

Let us turn to our old friend analogy to help up explore this:

Let us say you have a neighbor. Further, lets say that your neighbor is a tool (oops, prejudging. nevermind).

Anyway, your neighbor decides to paint his house an unpleasant shade of purple. Now he doesn't think it is an unpleasant shade of purple, he thinks its awesome. So much so that he has obviously invested a goodly portion of his sense of self worth in his belief that purple houses are awesome.

Should your neighbor have to paint his house some other color? No, of course not. He likes it, it doesn't hurt anyone else (beyond, perhaps, their sensibilities) so why should he? Happy neighbor!

But does your neighbor have the right to expect that nobody can walk up and say "Holy crap, Bob!" (Apparently the neighbor's name is Bob. Who knew?) "What the fuck were you thinking? What could have possibly possessed you to paint your house that hideous color? Are you a complete idiot?". Again no, of course not. Just because neighbor Bob likes it, nobody else has to. And nobody else has to even pretend it was even vaguely a nice color choice. They can, but they don't have to.

Now I need you to understand just how much neighbor Bob likes his new paint job. He really, REALLY, REALLY likes his purple house. In fact he likes is so much that he thinks everybody else's house should be purple. Can he go next door and say "Hey, Phil" (Bob lives next to Phil) "Paint your house purple. It looks great!" Yep, sure can. Phil can also call him a tool and slam the door. Can Bob go to the city council and tell them that all the houses should be purple? Sure. They can also call the seargent-at-arms and kick his nutty butt out, but it is within his rights. Hopefully the council would not take his request seriously. But can Bob go and just paint Phil's house the color he wants? And for the third time, the answer is no, of course not. Bob is welcome to have is own beliefs, but he does not have the right to impose them on others.

Did you enjoy our little analogy play? Good.
Everybody get the moral of the vignette? Good.

Now run along an play and don't get all pissy when somebody calls you on a stupid.

The Supreme Court stands near a dangerous tipping point. To allow it slip further into the highly ideological right wing cesspool it teeters on the edge of would cause extreme andirreparablee damage to our nation. And I do not consider that hyperbole or fear mongering. That is the simple, plain truth.

Currently the court is 4-1-4 and that is problematic for several reasons. One, it places too much power in the hands of one man, the swing vote. The other 8 are useless half the time as they are entrenched. Second, the two sides are both bloc votes for the most part (the left generally showing more independence). The judges are supposed to be independent voices, not the muscle of an ideological viewpoint. And I would happily trade out some on the left if I could be assured of an independent thinker taking their place.

Just take Scalia for example. He is of the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted from the viewpoint of the framers. How much more conservative can you get than ignoring all progress and change since the time of its writing? Seriously, if the framers had intended the Constitution to be so rigidly interpreted, they sure did the right thing by making it flexible, cchangeable and vague.

McCain has already said that he would appoint to the court more judges like Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. That is not just conservatives. That is far right ideologues with some seriously warped views on the Constitution. Do you think we as a country can become or regain greatness when interpretation of the Constitution only ever looks back?

I would consider the Supreme Court to be the single biggest satellite reason to vote for Obama. You should too. The stakes are too high.

After a great deal of internal conflict, I recently let my boys join Cub Scouts.

I was a Scout, and had a great time. I was both a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout (though I was never much of one for the merit badges). Even so, I have many fond memories of Cub Scout activities and still carry many of the skills I learned in Boy Scouts. I had a kick ass troop leader for Boy Scouts that was an EMT and was big into teaching first aid. And he didn't pick the easy hikes/campouts/etc. We took a killer winter hike and slept in a 3 sided shelter during a blizzard, we went caving, and went canoeing on the Chain-of-Lakes out to BFE*. Some awesome trips. And I learned a lot of self sufficiency, survival, cooperation, etc. on those trips, and my time in scouting.

But in recent years, the religious aspect has been ramped up. When I was in, it was never an issue. I would just bypass the religious references when possible, and just say them when I needed to (like when leading in front of a group). But outside of the oath/pledge/whatever, religion was NEVER once mentioned. But now the organization thinks it so important that it would eject an Eagle scout, the epitome of scouting accomplishment, simply because he realized he didn't have an imaginary friend any more. And according to the BSA, the need for belief in an imaginary friend trumps all else. Everything done to achieve Eagle scout status is meaningless in comparison to professing a belief in a creator god. How completely asinine.

I had my hopes when I took them to the "join up" meeting. After some intro info they split kids and parents and we went out in the hallway with the guy from the Council and I was about to ask about the religious aspect when another mother asked the same question. He hemmed and hawed a bit, but finally stated "the one thing we pretty much demand is belief in a creator god and expressing thankfulness to him." Crap. Dickhead just had to say it. Sigh. One of the heavily involved mothers later expressed exasperation with the religious elements and assured my wife that she does to best to keep "that stuff" out of things, but that still doesn't speak for the BSA.

I cannot in good conscience be involved with such an organization. But if I ban my boys from scouts I am limiting them based on my viewpoint and something they don't care about. They want to be in to make a Pinewood Derby car, mess around with their friends, and get patches. So what can I do?

Well, my compromise is that I will not outwardly be involved. I will not attend meetings, go on hikes, etc. Stuff I can do behind the scenes like help them build their cars, I will do. I do craft projects with them anyway so it is not like there is anything really different going on. It really kills me though. I would love to go on hikes and a little part of me (from whence it comes I do not know) even pines a little to be a den leader. The thought of doing science experiments or building a trebuchet or whatever with them and their friends is kind of intoxicating. Its that internal voice that says "You can influence them, you can turn them towards reason...".

So am I wrong? The organization that helped in a small way build me has gone astray. I know there is the view that you change from the inside, but I don't think I have that kind of fight in me on this issue.


I really would appreciate any comments on this!

*BFE: Bumble Fuck, Egypt

PS: I am aware of other scout-like organizations but they really aren't an option. All (or at least lots) of their friends are in Scouts, that is one of the reasons it is so attractive to them.

"A Man Said to the Universe" has been added to the Atheist Blogroll!

So why, after happily toiling in obscurity, did I finally take this small step at promotion? Well, primarily because of what is going on with Possummomma and the currently dark "Atheist in a Minivan" blog. Rather than rehash everything again here, Calladus has what is probably the definitive rundown on the situation.

I have been reading Possummmomma's blog for some time and have always enjoyed it. And I find it mind boggling that people would resort to this type of behavior towards a blogger. So I understand why PM has withdrawn and wish her all the best and hope she feels she can resume a public blog later. But her withdrawal has left a hole so I thought it was time to step up. Not that I can replace her, or even blog about the same topics, but in the sense of another voice being heard. She has been silenced for now, so I will start talking. We cannot allow this type of behavior to prevail.

I current have the system set to moderate all comments, as I have not spent the time to set it up better, but I do not plan to censor any real comments (as opposed to blog spam). I will lookinto up updating the comment system to make it more user-friendly.

The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Well we are down to just about three weeks to go, and apparently the desperation has already set in for the McCain camp. This last week we have all seen the videos of the the ugliness on display at the Republican rallies. Rather than going after policy or offering solutions, the McCain campaign decided the best thing to do was to dig up the dead. "Hey, the Ayers thing didn't really stick the first time, lets try it again!" the McCain strategists cried. So back around it came. Only a funny thing happened. It didn't stick much this time either.

Oh sure, for the rabid right, this was red meat. But to every else, it had the aroma of flop sweat. The connection between Ayers and Obama is tenuous at best and a majority of it involves boards of charitable organizations. So Obama was supposed to not participate in causes he found worthwhile because a guy whose past it didn't know was also involved? Its not like Ayers was trying to get the charitable organizations to go bomb government buildings or anything. Which I why this whole line of attack doesn't really work. But unfortunately for the McCain campaign, it appears to be the best thing they have. Which means they got nuthin'. But that doesn't stop Caribou Barbie from lying to the faithful. This doesn't stop Ol' Honorable John from running the dirtiest campaign in our lifetimes.

Now some could say (ooh, I hate those "some" always causing trouble) that Obama is taking the same route by bringing up McCain's association with Keating. And to a small degree they would be right. But lets look at some differences. Fact check organizations have pretty much given a thumbs up to the accuracy of the Obama charges (though rightly saying that it tries to heap a little too much on McCain) but at the same time calling McCain's claims untrue. And I think the Obama camp considers this as a "shot across the bow". If the McCain camp wants to go there, they can play that associations game too.

So take a moment and consider. Do you want this campaign decided by ideas or dirt? With all that is wrong right now, all the things that need attention and fixing, all the very serious challenges that face us is the right way to decide this race to consider character attacks? Well the man who promised to run an honorable campaign has flip-flopped (like on every other issue he claimed to hold dear) and gone down the road of desperation. Now to his benefit, McCain tried to change the tone a bit at the end of last week, but that is just damage control as it became clear that all the hatred was just reflecting poorly on him as opposed to doing damage to Barak. But I think it is clear that McCain has nothing left. He is spent. He can't get movement on policy as his policy is clearly just more of what got us into this sorry state, and he doesn't have anything substantive on Obama's character.

I am sure that won't stop them from trying though.

I wanted to try to distill some points about the McCain/Palin ticket and figured if I can limit myself to one facet at a time, I can actually get something said, so hence "Just one reason".

McCain is all about national security. At least according to him. But there are some problems with his views.

First, national security != willingness to be an aggressor. There is no connection between the strength of an army and the security of a nation. Oh course a strong military is an excellent deterrent but the minute you start throwing your weight around it can become a detriment. This bunker mentality we have slid into (out of fear) where we rattle our swords against any threat is costing us dearly and McCain is of that ilk. Forget building respect for us abroad, forget good works to help others, just go for a show of strength. I mean seriously, how do people react to a threat? Well they cower and hate the threat or they make threats back. Neither are productive. And I think McCain has clearly shown his views with his support of the war, his stated position of being unwilling to deal like an adult with anybody who disagrees with us, and "Bomb bomb bomb Iran". It is a childish response of striking back in anger rather then addressing the problem.

And what can be said about Caribou Barbie, Mrs. Palin? She has only the viewpoints that have been fed to her by the right and has, in fact, displayed an dismaying and frightening lack of understanding of world affairs. She has little exposure to the world beyond her own little tundra fiefdom. And by picking her, McCain is spitting in the eye of national security. To pick this political neophyte as the second in line to a cancerous 72 year old is nothing but plain and simple ineptitude.

I case you haven't heard, last Sunday was Pulpit Freedom Sunday where a group of 33 Christian right churches openly violated the prohibition against churches endorsing political candidates. There has been the expected outcry from the atheist population that has learned of it. It is dressed up in the trappings of a legal challenge with the hopes of taking it to the Supreme Court and getting the prohibition overturned.

But I think many are missing the actual point of this. Sure it is dressed up in a legal challenge that they would like to win, but that is not what this is about. Its about getting the endorsement out to their flocks this year. Nothing more.

Lets look at what can happen:

• They actually get a case up to the Supreme Court and they win. Yay for them!



• They actually get a case up to the Supreme Court and they lose. Do you really think that they will actually be stripped of their tax free status immediately? No. They will be given a bye and told not to do it again or else. But they still got to tell their sheep who god says they should vote for. Yay for them!



• They actually get a case up to the Supreme Court and they lose. The government strips them all of their tax-free status. Sad for them. Until they just set up another church and sidestep the problem. Yay for them!

I really don't see an actual lose situation for them on this. Hell, some of the wackier ones probably think they are going to be raptured before anything can happen anyway.

If it was a legitimate legal challenge, wouldn't it make sense for them to hunt down some churches that would endorse Obama (I am assuming they all went McCain, please correct me if I am wrong) so as to remove the partisan element from the issue? But they didn't because it is not actually about the legal issue.