You Made Me Say It...

Another Preacher Can't Handle Obama win

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:41:00 +0000

I recently had a post where I showed how some people are having a problem with Obama being President-elect. Well now this is extra special and to no surprise, from yet another Christian minister, this time from the Protestant side. Pastor Mike's has a big sign out front (which looks to me like a strip mall sign) which reads:
AMERICA WE HAVE A
MUSLIM PRESIDENT
THIS IS SIN AGAINST
THE LORD! EX. 20:3

Now what's amusing is this bit from the news report:
"The sign is staying up despite the fact that Obama is a Christian."

So THAT'S what's wrong with the sign, that Obama isn't a Muslim? See, I was thinking of other things, like:
• There's no religious test for office in America
• That this smells like an IRS violation of his tax exempt status, if his church has one (and odds are good it does)
• That technically it's not a sin if there was a Muslim President since, in fact, Christians and Muslims pray to the same god of Abraham
• That it should read "...this is a sin against..."
• That it advertises both that the church is intolerant of other religions and that it's grossly ignorant
• That they've inadvertently admitted that you don't need Jesus' help to become President. (Ok, so this one isn't what I'd call wrong. More like deliciously ironic.)

Now of course the sign begs the question, what will be the result of this sin? Now let's just pretend Obama is a Muslim. Ok, so he thinks it's a sin to be Muslim. So? That's something he'll pay for after he dies according to the belief, right? What's that got to do with you and me? What's that got to do with the country? Are you suggesting that he may be punished while President? Well ok, Biden's not a bad backup. Are you suggesting that your wickedly vengeful god would also punish America? Wow, what a dick! Perhaps only those who voted for him will be punished? Such ambiguity!

Allah Wins!!!

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:29:00 +0000

Great, so your Jesus can help you find your car keys or maybe appear in your toast but how about make you as strong as 30,000 men? Giving you the ability to rip coins in half with your bare hands, lift cars, pull trains, never need sleep, and most incredibly, be able to have sex 15 times a day? Well for that, you'll need Allah!

Of course Allah is incapable of keeping you from getting bald, for that you'll have to perform a 240hp comb over. Also, I would think these wives should be tested as well for clearly they have super hips and vaginas because if this guy can't shake your hand for fear of crushing it, how could anyone withstand his 240hp jackhammering? They must also be blessed by Allah!

Voted for Obama? No Cracker for you!

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:32:00 +0000

Some people REALLY have a hard time dealing with losing. What we're seeing in America is a lot of people who, for whatever reason, didn't want Obama to be our next President really taking their loss hard. You have people hooting about maps this which show the US being mostly red (too bad for them open plains and farm animals can't vote). You have people running out to buy guns. You have parents teaching their children nursery rhymes which include lines like "assassinate Obama". You have schools in Mississippi refusing to allow anyone to mention President-Elect Obama. You have a sign advertising a free public hanging of Obama in Idaho. Of course you had Obama effigies hung at good Christian schools before the election, so it should come as no big surprise people are having trouble with the loss.

For some time now, the Republican party has been the party for Christians. Why, I have no idea since Republicans are for fucking those in need and helping themselves, often at the expense of others, while being avid warmongerers, which isn't what Christians claim their belief system is all about, but I digress. Many church leaders have done what they can to get their flocks to vote Republican, with some who simply violated the prohibition on them and openly endorsed McCain from their pulpits. Well none of their efforts were enough this time. In fact, some failed to even get all of their flocks to vote Republican, and that's got at least one priest really steamed.

Jay Scott Newman, a priest in SC, has become the cracker nazi. Voted for Obama? No cracker for you! Yup, that's right, he said if you voted for Obama, you shouldn't take the cracker until you've done penance for supporting "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president." Now it seems he can't actually deny anyone a cracker, which must really have him even more steamed. All he can do is suggest that you not get a cracker, well at least until you've sufficiently flagellated yourself, or whatever is the going penance for voting for "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president." Hopefully penance doesn't include letting him babysit your kid. You know how that usually goes.

In Defense of Same Sex Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:17:00 +0000

I want to take a moment and address some of the arguments against same sex marriage. I've argued with different people at different times over some of these arguments, but I thought I'd try and compile as many of them as I can in one place. The inspiration was The Chaplain's great post about the conservative agenda to ultimately devalue marriage by denying same sex marriage.

98% of the world’s population does not recognize same sex marriage, and the 2% that does has only done so very recently.

I fail to see the point. Something isn't right because the majority of the world doesn't agree? Was self governance, free of any overseeing monarch, less right when our Constitution was ratified because the rest of the world didn't agree with that form of government? Is conservation less right today because most of the world doesn't practice it? Is the freedom of speech not right or not worth protecting because the majority of the world doesn't have or protect it?

Marriage (female/male), has persisted across all cultures of the world for thousands of years.

So has arranged marriage. So has polygamy. So what? Also, considering how long heterosexual marriage has persisted, I would think that it will probably continue to do so, regardless of the existence of same sex marriage. How can something that has existed for so long be so fragile? The assertion undermines the argument.

The main advantage of traditional marriage is that it gives a child a mother and a father. Where a child comes from is very important to a child.

As someone who was adopted, I can say that "where I came from" really doesn't mean shit to me, especially compared to knowing that I had a home and a family that loved me. Sadly, there are some kids who weren't adopted and can't say that. The point though is having a loving family, even if that means just one parent, is what's important for a child. There's nothing barring a same sex couple from providing that to a child.

A child needs both a mother and a father

So what, we should outlaw single parenting? Should child services swoop in and take a child away if that child's parents divorce or worse, one dies? Perhaps the surviving parent could have a grace period, say 3-6 months to remarry, before child services takes the child and places it in a foster home?

Statistically, children raised by both biological parents fare better then average then any other arrangement.

Well once again, this ignores adoption. Second, simply assuming that the statistics are true, my guess is a large percentage of single parent homes are, to be polite, economically challenged. In such a situation, there are far more factors involved than simply the absence of a second parent, like for instance a lesser education. Aside from being able to provide a second parent, a same sex couple, statistically earning far more that the median US household income, can greatly increase the chances for success of a child by providing access to a better education, and even a better diet which is very important.

I don’t see much evidence where same sex parenting has benefitted children.

Research shows that families headed by gay and lesbian parents are as healthy as traditional families.

The point of marriage is procreation.

Then should couples be mandated to pass a fertility test prior to being granted a marriage license? Should there be a time period, say within 1-3 years, that a couple must procreate before rendering their marriage null and void? What about elderly couples who marry for companionship and mutual assistance? Should they be denied as well since marriage is simply about procreation? Perhaps these people who can't procreate should be forced to take in the children from the families that divorce or where one parent died and the other failed to remarry within the alloted time?

The majority of Americans are simply not ready for same sex marriage.

• At the time of the Revolution, perhaps a third of the people wanted Independence.

• At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln was still hesitant to outlaw slavery because there was not enough support in the North when that would mean reconciliation was impossible. It was only later, after the North was resolved to see the war through to the end and, more importantly, to ensure the British would not support the South, that he then made the Emancipation Proclamation.

• It took "activist judges" in 1954 to "legislate from the bench" against the majority opinion of the people to rule segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, and federal troops and the National Guard to ensure 9 black students could go to high school in Little Rock in 1957, again, against the overwhelming opinion of the people in AK, and probably beyond.

• "Activist judges" once again, in 1967, made bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional, against the opinion of the people of at least 16 states.

Right is right, whether you're ready for it or not has no bearing.

If gays are allowed to marry, what's next? Polygamy? Bestiality?

Has that happened in countries that have gay marriage? How about in the states that have it? The suggestions are ridiculous. Bestiality doesn't even warrant a response, and polygamy? The arguments against polygamy don't change. Same sex marriage is still a monogamous union.

Same sex marriage will undermine the sanctity of marriage.

First, I would think that having so many people clamoring for it would reinforce it's sanctity, if by sanctity you mean importance. If instead you mean some religious thing, I wasn't aware the government was supposed to play a role in enforcing religious beliefs on everyone. Now I know that, for instance, when I discover a little known food or band and then later everyone finds out and gets into them, I feel a bit sad, but that's a selfish sentiment, isn't it? I mean, the food doesn't taste different because others are eating it too, does it? Does a song sound any different on your iPod if 10 million other people have it on their iPod? The sanctity, the value and importance of something is not diminished by allowing more people access to it. Quite the contrary, it increases it.

If same-sex marriage became the norm in our society, we would get less traditional marriage.

I would think such a high divorce rate in America today does more to dissuade people from getting married than allowing more people who want to get married do so.

Gay sex is immoral and repulsive. I don't want my children exposed to that and told that's ok.

And teaching children it's ok to deny equal rights to people they personally find repulsive is fine? Teaching hatred is just fine? I have to tell you, I find hatred, violence and ignorance far worse things to have children exposed to. Furthermore, I personally find it repulsive to imagine most people I meet having sex. Most couples I see aren't that pretty but hey, who am I to deny them happiness?

Well gay sex is unnatural.

So are eyeglasses, polyester, vitamin supplements, and artificial insemination. Should we outlaw those, too?

Kids raised by gay couples will end up gay.

Yes, like how kids raised by straight couples always end up straight.

Same sex marriage will change the foundation of society.

I think the internet has had a more profound effect on changing society than same sex marriage will, but so what? Americans can't adapt? Less than a hundred years ago, travel by automobile was pretty scarce and airplane travel? Forget about it. Did we manage to adapt to those changes? Is change always bad? I think truly providing equal rights is the kind of foundational change worth embracing. The ideas of separate but equal, of some or more equal than others, and of course that your value, your "specialness" must come at the expense of others are repugnant and make for a piss poor foundation for society.

Don't Question, Don't Impose

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:56:00 +0000

I read a great post today by the Spanish Inquisitor, about science vs. magic. No, it's not about Harry Potter, but rather about the inherent discrepancy between religious belief and science, between "spiritualists" and "naturalists".

During most of my life there was a variant of the 'don't ask, don't tell' game for religion. Call it 'don't question, don't impose'. Religion was afforded it's place and it stuck to it. Sure, it stuck its nose into social issues, but science? No, that was off limits. But over the last 20 some years, there's been a rise in the extremist views of religion. In other words, before, even though things didn't make sense in religion, it was just given a pass and no one pushed a lot of its beliefs to their logical conclusions. The extremists changed that.

The extremists did go to those ends and saw their beliefs were incompatible, if taken literally, with science, so they began attacking science, hard. The thing is, they've wanted to have their cake and eat it too, meaning they wanted to maintain the 'don't question' part while eliminating the 'don't impose' part. The arguments for this one-sided deal usually take some form of "you're not respecting my beliefs" and amazingly, they've gotten some good mileage out of that. It's a slight of hand trick and preys on the sentiments of diversity, relativism and democracy, where people's rights are respected, including their rights of freedom of opinion, belief and speech. The slight of hand has been to shift that respect from the rights to the actual opinions, beliefs and speech made, and in recent years that's even extended to actions, where they've tried to argue that acts of discrimination and defiance of rules and laws are permissible as exercises of belief, and belief must be respected.

Well, the gig is up. Our President-elect has promised to do away with Bush's perverse idea that religious anti-discrimination standards for hiring meant denying companies from hiring only people of the faith the company subscribes to was discriminatory. Abstinence only plans have been put under the microscope and found to be ridiculously ineffective and counter-productive. Soon, the ban on federal funding for stem cell research will be lifted so people such as this, with research that not just showed future potential, but near immediate potential, can finally get going again after 8 years of being on hold due to ridiculous religious objections. The Dover trial served as a blueprint for exposing the ridiculousness of Creationism (under its new label of "ID") and why it has no place in science classes.

But still they push, and of course why wouldn't they? It's not like their beliefs can change, and the scientific method, with its reliance on observation of reality, of the natural (since there's no evidence there's anything else) has yet to be shown to be ineffective and thus, has no reason to change, then literal religious belief will always be at odds with science. Now if the extremists continue to butt heads with science, then their beliefs MUST continue to be scrutinized for what they are, irrationally held and often at odds with reality and thus, unwarranted to supercede science. In fact, unwarranted to share the stage with it as well (which has been their other tactic, cloaked as "teach the controversy" when it comes to getting Creationism into science classes along side of evolution). That's the deal. If they impose, then we question, and that questioning can never result in anything good for them, but we MUST question or the results will be bad for all of us. The respect for reality, for humanity, can never be superceded by some misguided respect for irrational beliefs. Just ask little Madeline Neumann. Oh right, that's no longer possible.

Evolution of Technology

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Very cool German commercial, with a fun evolution theme. Of course an ad like this in America would probably get some creationists all bent out of shape, and there'd be boycots of the store and any channel airing the ad, blah blah blah.

More info can be found here about the project.

"Inclusive", huh?

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:17:00 +0000

If I hear "inclusive" one more time, I'm gonna fucking hurl. Am I the only one who noticed that prior to Obama giving his speech Tuesday night, some minister went out to the podium to lead the crowd in prayer? Yeah, that's inclusive alright. I wonder if he managed to keep from invoking Jesus, something chaplains in VA and those defending them claim to be an impossible task for Christians (more on this). I wonder if that guy was a proud member of the Obama Prayer Team.

Let's also remember that many went out to vote yesterday in favor of propositions which deny a sizable portion of Americans equal rights. At the time of this writing, propositions to ban gay marriage won in FL and AZ and look likely to win in CA. It absolutely sickens me that the majority of Americans feel their happiness depends upon keeping certain other Americans under heel. Yeah, that sounds inclusive to me alright.

It's easy to be euphoric about the end of many evils of the Bush/Cheney Presidency, but there's still a looooong road ahead for us, and I don't mean the one Obama spoke of, I mean the road towards true inclusiveness, for equal rights for all. This election saw perhaps the highest degree of religiosity than most of recent memory, truly creating a de facto religious test for office. In NC, don't get too excited by the loss of evil cunt Dole who ran ads vilifying Hagan for associating with atheists, since she didn't lose because people were disgusted by fomenting such hatred, division and dare I say persecution of one group based upon their religious opinions. Oh no, instead Hagan made every effort to declare she wasn't an atheist and paraded her Christian credentials like Obama had to. Even the so-called "liberal" media condemned Dole not for her divisiveness, but rather for calling Hagan such a pejorative.

Until "atheist" isn't a generally accepted pejorative, there can be no inclusiveness. Until there's no religious test for office, there can be no inclusiveness. Until the wall of separation between church and state is restored, there can be no inclusiveness. Until all Americans are afforded equal rights, there can be no inclusiveness.

There's an old saying that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step. Last night saw an important step, but for many of us, that step hasn't been taken yet. In fact, we may have taken a step or two backwards, so I think we all need to become more proactive today and not wait two or four years from now and then just whine and complain again. No, that journey needs to start today. Please, get involved with local and national groups who are working to advance along that journey (some links are there in the top right of this blog). If this election is truly about inspiring hope, and proving change can happen, then let it inspire us. I too would like to experience a moment of true inclusiveness and victory that can move me to tears like many were moved last night.

Update: A lesson learned.

Remember Caesar Rodney, and viva Delaware!

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:14:00 +0000

I just returned from voting. Actually, I just returned from voting and stopping at my bank. 20 minutes of errands to start my day - vote for the next leader of the free world and other local leaders and go deposit a check. Pretty quick and simple. Quite a far cry from the effort of Caesar Rodney, a lesser known Founding Father from Delaware who is best known for his 80 mile dash on horseback to Philadelphia to cast his vote for independence from Great Britain in July, 1776.

Just up the street from where I live is a middle school and that's where I went to vote. The parking lot was a flurry of cars going in and out, political signs outnumbering autumn leaves on the grass, and several volunteers from various campaigns handing out flyers, smiles and handshakes. Entering the school I had to find which of the two rooms, one for each district, was for me. Each had 3 voting machines. When I arrived, there were 4 people in front of me and 3 people voting. Average time under the hood was about a minute. The ballot, a huge X/Y grid with party affiliation across the top and political office down the left, imo was idiot proof. Although Delaware may be more open to a variety of political parties, most parties only had one or two representatives up for positions. In fact, the last 4 positions only had one party field candidates, the Democratic party. Welcome to a Blue State.

After my 5 minutes of exercising one of the most precious rights in the world, it was off to the bank. On the way, I passed a church which was the site of another polling place and then once at the bank, I saw the school behind it was yet another polling place. My bank is about a mile or two from my house, so that's 3 polling places within perhaps a two mile radius that I know of. Maybe there were more. So when I see on the news the sight of people waiting in lines for hours to vote, and of course that ridiculously small and complicated ballot from the 2000 election in Florida with its infamous chads, I'm quite perplexed. Are we all in the same country? It hardly seems so. What the hell is the problem? True, Delaware is small, but if this wee little state can so accommodate the voting public, what's the excuse for the bigger states, and what's up with the ridiculous ballots?

Now fully aware of how lazy Americans can be, it doesn't surprise me that such grief associated with voting in other states acts as a deterrent for many from voting. Now don't get me wrong, I want to leave the supermarket too when I see every line 6 full carts deep and many of those pushing them are grannies who you know will argue about prices because they can't understand how the register calculates discounts and then top it off with spending 20 minutes writing a check, but you know what? We all suffer through it, don't we? For some tasty snacks and maybe a week's worth of food we'll suffer through that but for helping to decide the course of our nation for the next four years, it's not worth the hassle? Astounding!

So yes, I'm sure wee little Delaware is quite the enviable state today. Now perhaps one day the rest of the states will get their acts together (and perhaps turn a bit bluer) but until then, I certainly hope you all are willing to suffer through the various degrees of grief associated with voting where you are, because the various degrees of grief associated with not voting could be monumental, especially if one of those eventual griefs is watching the swearing in of President Palin. You betcha! So remember the ride of Caesar Rodney, and remember how, regardless of the effort, it's critical that your vote be cast (unless you like McCain and/or want to deny gays equal rights, in which case relax and don't bother).

Dude, you're like, THIS close...

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:44:00 +0000

This is great, some priest has written a book called God is Big, Real Big, and in it, he says Jesus was not the infamous Abrahamic god, Mary wasn't a virgin and Joseph was in fact the baby daddy.

“This whole matter regarding Jesus being God ... not only does violence to my own intelligence, but must be a sticking point,” he says.
“For millions of people trying to make some kind of sense of the Christian religion ... No human being can ever be God, and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that.”

Dude, you're like soooo close. Come on, take that last step. You can do it. Relax, deep breath, and let go. Ahhhh. I'm telling you, you'll feel a whole lot better. Talk about violence to your intelligence, the problem of evil, Biblical contradictions, free will AND personal god conundrum, the very concept of there even being a god of any kind, all that's fine but a god having a son which magically pops out of a virgin's womb? Oh no, THAT's crazy. Yeah, well once you finally take that last step, we're here for you pal.

Now of course this whole questioning shit, especially big shit like what he's saying, really irks the other priests. I especially like this Father Robbie guy who said:

“The Council of Nicaea settled the question that Christ was God in 325, so he is 1700 years out of date."

Yes, some guys 1700 years ago decided (well actually, compelled to by Constantine) that certain books were getting into the Christian bible and some weren't, establishing finally what the whole Christianity thing was going to be like. Hey, sure, they gave it all careful thought, and finally they decided what would be more marketable and went with that, especially since they had competition not just from other religions, but another clever guy who had already done the same thing almost 200 years prior, compiling various books into one, unified Christian handbook. Marcion formulated quite a different version, and his version was pretty popular, so it was critical that the Catholic church get their shit together and put out a cohesive and higher quality product.

So there you go, this priest Peter Dresser is clearly wrong about Jesus, Mary and Joseph because a Catholic marketing meeting 1700 years ago decided those ideas weren't very marketable. Yup. Talk about violence to one's intelligence. Yikes!

A Battle Hymn for the ENTIRE Republic

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:05:00 +0000

I've had an exchange with some people who equate being Christian with being American. Their recent excitement is over this rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic which appears to have been performed at a public school (your tax dollars at work). The snazzy video was done after the fact, and not part of the tax payer funded performance. Well I got up on my high horse about it, which naturally pissed them off, but then one of them made an interesting comment. Apparently, because this performance and video is a creative effort, and all I did was complain, criticize and not offer a creative effort in response, then clearly I was just lashing out due to the insecurities of my beliefs. Well that's retarded, but it is a challenge, so here we go...

A Battle Hymn for the ENTIRE Republic

Mine eyes have seen the glory of a nation of the world
Which sits as a shining city upon the hill for all to behold;
Where protecting the rights of all just never will grow old:
America marches on.

Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
America marches on.

I have seen it in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
Varied faces gathered strong despite the dews and damps;
A united strength which shines beyond the dim of any lamps:
America marches on.

Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
America marches on.

I have read a fiery gospel whose promises are real:
Of a land where no one to another can be made to kneel;
Where from many one united nation is forged as hard as steel:
America marches on.

Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
America marches on.

It sounds forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
Equal rights for all and all are welcome to a seat:
Where together we stand to tackle any problem which we meet:
America marches on.

Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
America marches on.

In the beauty of diversity America doth shine,
With a glory nowhere else on Earth can you ever find;
This melting pot of ours must surely be a sign:
America marches on.

Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
America marches on.

It shines across the world like the morning on the wave;
Its might is there from wisdom, a wisdom which won't cave,
To hatreds and insecurities of the ignorantly depraved.
America marches on.

Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
Glory, glory A-mer-i-ca!
America marches on.

The arguments by these people for their Christian taint on everything are of course the usual nonsense such as the "cultural significance" of the song, as if wrongs, once perpetrated long enough, magically become not just ok, but cultured and significant. I cannot stomach the idea that one's worth must be measured and/or celebrated at the expense of others, and, as we've seen in this Presidential campaign, that some people are more American, no, the only "real Americans", because they're Christian and/or white and/or ignorant shitheads. There's one America, and we're all a part of it, for better or for worse. I believe an American once said something about a house divided against itself cannot stand. Now there's some fucking "cultural significance". If only he were someone these right wingnuts looked up to and venerated.

Away in a manger on government property...

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:48:00 +0000

I know, Halloween hasn't even hit yet and I'm talking X-mas. Thing is, there are a couple of stories that caught my attention today. The first, a bit of good news, comes from Green Bay. Well actually, it's tentatively good news. The Advisory Committee voted in favor of keeping the religious crap off of City Hall property and now the City Counsel has to vote on it, but there are already signs they're going to go with the crap of how it's ok if you have Christian shit if you have other shit, too. Now this may sound fair, but it's not by a long shot. Ignoring the issue of Separation of Church and State for a moment to simply consider the farcical idea that a manger is ok as long as you have a Menorah or something too, in the interest of fairness, can't you see that it would be impossible to be completely fair? There's the issue of whether each religion's display is as big as the others. You can't have one bigger than the rest, that wouldn't be fair. Then there's placement, which you know each group would complain about, charging another group got the best spot which would be unfair. Even if you had a lottery of sorts for the spots, there would still be grumblings, so face it, it's impossible to fairly have each religion represented.

Now what I described was a situation where they'd actually be trying to let each religion have a chance of being displayed, but even that is bullshit. As seen in the article, they're already talking about simply hanging more candy canes and crap to magically "secularize" the manger scene. Then you have this crap where after receiving a ton of calls complaining about the decision to not have a Nativity scene, an Ohio mayor changed his mind. Either fearing for his own popularity or bolstered by knowing he has massive Christian support to piss on the Constitution for Christ, Mayor Mavis will have a manger at City Hall. Also in that article, there's a very important example of how even my earlier example of fair play isn't possible, because the Governor (ordained minister) ordered mangers displayed but denied the Zoroastrians and other "pagans" the chance for representation. Check this:

"The governor believes that Nativity scenes are an established and appropriate part of our American holiday displays, and he does not believe that holiday displays at state parks need to come down," spokesman Keith Dailey said.

So I got to thinking, what always comes up in these Christian excuses to infuse Christ into government? Tradition. In so many words, the arguments always go to "well that's how it's always been". Notice the "Nativity scenes are an established and appropriate part of our American holiday displays". With this in mind, I think we're going about this the wrong way. Sometimes, rather than working so hard to defeat people, all you have to do is give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. With that in mind, here's my new strategy - Black Jesus.

Why not instead argue for the manger scene to have all blacks? Maybe you bring up the historical ridiculousness of having Aryan characters as 2000 year old middle easterners. Maybe you bring up the need for racial diversity. Hell, maybe you just argue that the manger is racist. It doesn't matter. The point is, let's see how they squirm trying to figure out how to deny Black Jesus. Oh you know they'll deny Black Jesus. We're talking about "Real Americans" here, and places affectionately known as "Real America" by the current crop of McCarthy wannabe Republicans. Make no mistake, fairness, equality, rights, these things don't matter to people caught up in this crap. The hanging extra candy canes isn't about seriously toning down the affect of the manger, but merely a hoop they'll gladly jump through to get their religion, and ONLY their religion, displayed. At the heart of that is a selfish, bigoted, fuck everyone else mentality. Oh they can go through the motions and seem to play nice nice, but I really think that'll go right out the window if you force Black Jesus on them. Well at least they'll be able to reuse their monkey dolls and Curious George crap from their Obama protests to protest Black Jesus.

Note: The Black Jesus here is a painting from the 1960s, artist and source unfortunately unknown.

Doug Stanhope

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:10:00 +0000

Holy crap, I found a guy who has already been saying a lot of what I've been thinking, Doug Stanhope.

Millennials:

Christianity:

Oh, and he's created a charity, the Saving Bristol Fund.

Goodbye Oldie Porn

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:53:00 +0000

Members of the Christ Church Anglican (depicted above) held a very special service Sunday. You see, they had a good ol' fashioned burning. Not books though, but something they hate even more. Porn. It turns out they found an old stash of porn films in a theater they just purchased and you know what that means. Oh yes, time for a burnin'. You betcha.

Goodbye oldie porn
Though I never knew you at all
sadly now no one will
thanks to minds that are small
They're blinded by a faith
that makes them ignorant dicks
Now you're just dust and ashes
and gone are all those flicks

And it seems to me you've been set alight
because some think you're a sin
Never knowing all the pleasures
within all your scenes
And I would have liked to have watched you
it would have been a thrill
Your celluloid burned up long before
Your legend ever will

Ignorance is tough
The toughest thing we face today
We pay a heavy price for it
And fire was the price you paid
Even in this day and age
Oh they still must destroy you
For they can't allow to exist
A bunch of films full of nudes

Goodbye oldie porn
From some guy up north named Philly
Who sees you as something more than evil
More than just damnable and filthy

Of Dinos and Olives

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:38:00 +0000

So I'm sure you know about the Creation Museum, the farcical museum of science and history which poo-poos Evolution and asserts that humans and dinosaurs co-existed

and interacted.

There might also be other exhibits there about early transportation.

Anyway, not all of Kentucky thinks this silly museum should be taken seriously. Thankfully, the Sandra Small Gallery in Covington will be exhibiting the works of artist Stephen Geddes in which Geddes pokes some fun at the Creationist assertions. The standout has to be his sculpture entitled "Jurassic Ark", where dinosaurs are shown on the ark, with one playfully holding Noah in its mouth (although Noah doesn't look he's having fun). More on this can be found here.

Most of the time we fume and fuss over the dangerous nonsense of religion, and rightly so, but sometimes its best to simply mock this nonsense. True, people can be duped into some pretty stupid shit, but believing humanity's early history was like a Flintstone's cartoon? You need something pretty powerful to get people to accept that crap, something like religion. Hell, it can even cause people to attack each other over picking olives! Yeah, like there's hope of peace between two religious cultures who can't even refrain from fighting over some olives.

Moronic Prayer at McCain Rally

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:00:00 +0000

Questions:

1) Involved in everything that happens between now and election? What happened to free will, and the excuse that his god can't intervene directly because of that?
2) Is he acknowledging the existence of other gods?
3) If he is involved, and Obama wins, then is that the work of his god or evidence that his god can't match the divine intervention power of the other gods?
4) If what McCain says is bad, why would you pray that he be "energized" to continue saying it and that people be receptive to it? Shouldn't you instead pray that he say what's best for America?
5) Name one of the "varieties of reasons" a Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim might vote for Obama.
6) His god is so vain that he can be manipulated by an appeal to his precious reputation?
7) There's a god named "Hindu"?
8) Buddha is a god?
9) You do know Allah is another name for your god, right? That you and the Jews and the Muslims all share the same god?
10) Why are people there applauding approvingly?

Note - According to McCain, there are ignorant yahoos at Obama rallies as well calling for his death. I guess though that the Obama yahoos are too clever to actually be videotaped, since there's no evidence to support his claim.

Or he's just fucking lying. Hmmm Is this the work of Conrad's god? Is McCain being "energized" to lie like this by his god? Will enough Americans be magically made to hear and accept such lies? Are these the kinds of things which will allegedly improve Conrad's god's reputation?

Deutschland über alles

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:49:00 +0000

At a time when a US publisher claims they're afraid to publish books that might offend Muslims, Danish cartoons mocking Islam getting censored, and even a British police department forced to apologize for using a puppy in a promotional poster because apparently even cute little puppies are deemed offensive to Muslims, could there be any place in the world where sanity exists? Finally yes, and it's Germany.

A German magazine by the name of 'Titanic' can now shout it's "king of the world" by having the balls to hold a Muhammad look-a-like contest. During the competition there will be readings from the Koran and participants will be encouraged to mimic the Muslim prophet. All of this will take place at the Frankfurt Book Fair on October 18th. As Titanic puts it:

"Come along to the most dangerous event of the Frankfurt Book Fair ... It will be a blast,"

Well, let's hope not literally. You know how those followers of the "religion of peace" are. This guy should win hands down:

Chaikaroma

Btw, I should note that at least one US publisher has stepped up to the plate to publish a book that the Muslims don't like.

The Chief Answers Questions

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:55:00 +0000

Someone recently sent me some questions having found my email address on this blog. The questions were short but my answers turned out to be long, so I'm posting them here. Surprisingly, the questions weren't about religion or atheism.

[A]s a free thinking American, do you believe in our founding principals based on the constitution or do you believe that it is a progressing document that is outdated?

First, I feel many of the founding principles have not been realized. Certainly a founding principle of freedom and equality didn't begin to become realized for non-whites until the Emancipation Proclamation, and women had to wait until the 20th century for voting rights. Arguably both are still waiting for that founding principle to be fully realized, and they're not alone. Just ask the gay community.

Second, I believe we've also lost site of some of those founding principles. Obviously for me, the one that comes to mind is the separation of church and state. The inclusion of "god" in our national motto, at the end of national oaths for offices, armed service and citizenship, the National Day of Prayer, Office of Faith Based Initiatives, Christian iconography such as mangers and 10 commandments displayed on government property, chaplains in the military and opening sessions of Congress (which I believe Madison, architect of the Constitution, was against), and of course the hijacking and raping of the Pledge of Allegiance by sullying it with "under god".

So I don't see your framing of the issue as an either/or. I am a believer in the founding principles of the Constitution, but I don't see them realized yet. Moving towards that realization may seem progressive, but instead I find it should be called conservative, for it's realizing the intentions of the Founders, not intentions that are new. The Constitution isn't outdated, but many interpretations of it and laws created to realize it are.

Also, do you think socialism is a better system or the country or that capitalism (albeit regulated capitalism) is a better system?

Once again, I'm going to object to an either/or question. I certainly feel both can coexist, and have so for decades. We have SS, Medicare, welfare, CHIP, public education, grants and loans to businesses as well as individuals for higher education, and hopefully one day universal healthcare. Coexisting, you have private retirement funds, healthcare, education and institutions where you businesses and individuals can get loans. The so-called Free Market never has been truly free, and for good reason. If the lessons weren't learned from the late 19th and early 20th century here in America, or recently in the burgeoning market in China bringing us lead painted toys and poison toothpaste, our current economic crisis should make it painfully obvious that the market can't be free and it can't be trusted to regulate itself. A government presence and intervention will always be necessary.

I think that your Chiefs and our Eagles will be watching the SB from the sidelines again this year, unfortunately....

I agree, but at least my Chiefs are rebuilding, meaning they're on the road to improvement. Sadly, I think the Eagles are going in the other direction and that it's inevitable they'll have to start rebuilding. First thing I'd do is unload McNabb. He's a bum. I think you might see Reid's job in jeopardy soon, too.

Also, at least I've had the opportunities to see the Chiefs embarrass the Broncos and Tony Gonzalez break yet another NFL record previously held by the former Bronco Shannon Sharpe. Suck it, Broncos! :)

The Pope, The Gold Standard for Irony

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:33:00 +0000

Seen here in his gold hat, solid gold staff, fine Italian leather shoes, gowns of silk with gold threading and meticulous lace accompanied by his posse, the Pope said that wealth means nothing and that everyone should be basing their lives on his god's word instead of on wealth. Nice.

Rest assured, when there's misery and tragedy to exploit, religion is there. Maybe you're suffering because you strayed from the righteous path, so you better get to church. Maybe you need help dealing with your grief, so you better get to church. So with investments and retirement funds in the crapper, businesses going under, jobs lost, houses lost or soon to be lost, what's the answer? Oh right, a reminder from an old coot decked out with more bling than your average gangsta that money doesn't matter and you should instead focus on god, and oh btw, don't forget that collection basket when it comes around.

I can't understand why the religious fear atheists, when their leaders do more to show their little superstition clubs are ridiculously full of crap than we could ever hope to.

Anyway, I think the Pope needs a Flavor Flav clock, but something more to his style.

Do ya know what time it is?

Modesty Terrorists

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:43:00 +0000

So if I told you there was a country where "modesty patrols", gangs of religious zealots hell bent on imposing religious modesty rules, roam the streets beating and stoning women for dressing immodestly, simply wearing red, or daring to sit at the front of a bus, and also torched stores for selling mp4 players which allegedly "burns souls", your answer would be what? Well if you said our wonderful Middle East ally, the nation we're sworn to defend, Israel, you'd be correct!

AP reports these and more wonderful happenings in Israel today, which is further proof that it's not about which religion is better for all of them have the potential to lead to this kind of nonsense. Oh, and in case someone wants to bring up the old "well they're not true believers" or that they're just fanatics, let me remind you that it's the moderates who rarely if ever condemn such shit. When they don't, these yahoos gain more and more power as the spokespeople for your faith.

Many ultra-Orthodox Jews are dismayed by the violence, but the enforcers often enjoy quiet approval from rabbis eager to protect their own reputations as guardians of the faith, community members say.

And a blip that should register strongly to non-Christians here in the US:

Religious vigilantes operate in a society that has granted their community influence well beyond its numbers

Like it or not, most religions have some pretty hairy stuff in their books. True, thankfully, in most of the West believers excuse away such barbaric tenets, but such things are still there. It's secular societies and an evolved social morality which forces believers to reject such nonsense as killing their children for some transgression or killing others for their lack of faith or possibility of being witches, but without that, make no mistake, we're all going to suffer some religiously prompted Lord of The Flies erosion of civilization. Continuing to grant such influence to religion in our politics, in our schools, in our courts and in our public policy just greases the slide to such ridiculousness as stoning women for wearing red and dressing immodestly.

Footprints for Children

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:58:00 +0000

I felt compelled to alter this Christian tool for brainwashing children into something more appropriate for the kids...

Update: It just dawned on me that some of you may not be familiar with the original...

It has the look of real money

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:31:00 +0000

So lately Mrs. Chief and I have been looking for a home. Now is quite an exceptional time to buy, since housing prices are falling while interest rates are also low and still slipping. Another reason why this is an excellent time to buy is because we Chiefs are VERY particular people, and in this market, we're hardly rushed. Sellers are approaching desperation in many cases, and we've heard all kinds of offers from sellers about what they'd do to help sell their homes.

Now many people have invested money into remodeling rooms or their entire homes, or the homes for sale are flips, meaning someone bought it cheap because it was in crappy shape and they remodeled in order to sell for a profit (ie. - "flipping" the house). Now for what I'm ranting about today, I can almost excuse the latter types, but the former? Well, their thinking, imo, is part of what's wrong with America. I call it, "it has the look of..."

First, let me say what I'm going to describe infuriates me to no end. It's the idea of buying something that, in theory, has the look of something which you really can't afford but you want anyway. Take for instance, cars. Lots of people woudl like to have a luxury sedan from Lexus or BMW. Sometimes there are fairly decent models from a lower strata, but essentially, if you want a quality luxury sedan, you're going to have to pay big money. Ah but wait! Those Koreans make an affordable sedan. Problem solved, right? No, it's a piece of crap. Face it, you can't afford quality but rather than find a cheap alternative that's comparable, you just bought something that broadcasts to the world that you're a dumbass who's either cheap or can't afford what they want. Another area where you see this is tvs. Hey, that's great you have a 56" flatscreen. Only $699 at Walmart, huh? Coby? Oh look, the lettering looks just like Sony. Too bad the picture doesn't look like Sony, jackass.

So what's this got to do with houses? Here's a short list of "has the look of" which are examples of what I've been describing:
• wood veneer cabinets
• "wood" veneer cabinets
• laminate counter tops with a "granite finish"
• Bathfitter bathrooms
• plastic railings and fences
• vinyl flooring

All shit that someone put in to have the look of something else, something that's actually good, instead of crap. Possibly my #1 pet peeve is Bathfitters, and I have their own tv ads to thank for that. In them, they show a nasty ass tub and shower with mold and filth and the next day, like magic, you have this new bathroom. Well the "magic" is they have a prefab plastic shell that fits over your old space. Why, they even make them to look like it's made of tile. So hopefully you have the same question I had when I saw the ad - so is all that filth still there, just sitting and festering underneath that plastic sheath? Who knows? Only the homeowner (maybe) and Bathfitters. Uh, no thanks. Besides, it looks like shit. You know, my grandmother had her furniture covered in plastic. That looked like shit, too.

So house after house we see Bathfitters, fake wood, fake granite, fake metal, and fake stone, but hey, it has the look of the real thing! Gosh, does that mean I can buy the house with Monopoly money? It has the look of real money, as well as that shit has the look of the real things they're supposed to be emulating.

The whole thing is systemic of delusional thinking. Nevermind fixing something correctly, or buying something of quality, as long as it has the look of real quality, or close enough so that someone who wishes and believes hard enough, can pretend things are the way they wish them to be. Well that shit doesn't work for levees when hurricanes hit, it doesn't work for "creative" accounting which makes institutions seem more financially strong then they are, it doesn't work for continuing to trust wealth in the hands of the few when it's obvious they're just for themselves, it doesn't work for pretending some lipsticked pig will magically be ready to lead the country if need be, it doesn't work for trying to convince me we're safe because of color coded alerts and plenty of plastic and duct tape, it doesn't work for pretending the Constitution can be ignored when it suits us, and it sure as shit doesn't work to try and sell me a house that has the look of a nice house when actually, it's just a lipsticked pig.

FYI, a special hint to realtors: it REALLY doesn't help sell a home if you're 15 minutes late to start an Open House, and the first thing you do when you get there is go to the bathroom and take a shit.

A Day at the Supermarket

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:02:00 +0000

Outside the supermarket today, I encountered quite an interesting combo of fundraisers. On one side, the Boy Scouts. On the other, Korean War vets. Both of these groups remind me of what's wrong in America, and also a personal family issue that resulted from it which I think brings the whole thing home.

The Korean War served as a surrogate for the US's and the USSR's wish for turning the Cold War into an actual war. With the excuse of defending one Korean side against the other, each superpower was able to enter and fight the other. After three years, they called it a draw, but the adventure fanned the flames at home for the increased hatred against those damn Commies.

Riding that hatred were groups like the Knights of Columbus who succeeded in cashing in on a distinction between the US and Communist states, freedom of religion. Communist regimes aren't just secular (which, btw, the US is as well - read the Constitution, damnit!), they actively suppress religions, mostly because they see them as a threat to their absolute power. But of course rather than lobby for something which would celebrate our free and open environment for Americans to practice or abstain from any religion, they pushed their god as something to rally around and in 1954 they got Congress to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and in 1956 they got Congress to change the US motto to "In God We Trust".

Just as the US and the USSR exploited the Korean civil war to play out their personal war, Christian groups in America exploited the Cold War to increase their influence on the government and America, and they've used this influence to discriminate against non-Christians, especially atheists. Today we have Americans who actually believe the US was founded as a Christian nation, that our motto was always "In God We Trust" and our Pledge is not only over 200 years old but always contained "under God" and to suggest otherwise or to fight to remove these religious phrases is unAmerican. Political candidates must make a show of their Christian convictions if they want to get elected as well, and that's been painfully obvious in our current Presidential election where each major party candidate had to kowtow to Christ, recently agreeing only to meet for a forum held by a preacher in his church. The Democrats, at their convention, had prayer services and refused requests from atheists to speak at such events.

So aside from the personal discrimination I get as an atheist, in some small part due to the Korean War, I grew up living with the result of discrimination that occurred during that war. My father was drafted to fight in that war. My grandparents were proud to have him represent this country which they emigrated to decades before, believing in it's high principles and boundless opportunities. Unfortunately for my father, his drill sergeant had quite a different idea of what America meant. For him, it meant a place that shouldn't be plagued with outsiders, especially Guinea bastards, so eventually, unable to contain himself, he provoked a fight with my father which left him disabled for the rest of his life. The sergeant was court-martialed, but still, that atmosphere of discrimination apparently still exists. Certainly non-Christians, especially atheists are allegedly having a rough time, and then there's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the gays.

Another group that now openly discriminates is the Boy Scouts. Although never declared official until the 80s, the Scouts claimed that homosexuals, atheists and agnostics could be barred (still unofficial is non-Christians, but I'd like to see Muslims try and join). Part of what made that official is having the Boy Scouts taken over mostly by Christian organizations (especially Mormons) who saw a wonderful opportunity to indoctrinate kids no doubt. Of course part of that indoctrination is open discrimination.

So there you have it, a trip to the supermarket where I was reminded of both the national and personal effects of discrimination and exploitation in America, past and sadly still present. Is the promise of America an empty promise? Is it impossible to ever rid ourselves of discrimination in America? Well I suppose I can be optimistic and say it's a promise that's simply slow to manifest. Perhaps one day America will be fully tolerant and it won't matter what your religious beliefs are, or what your gender, race, sexual orientation or any other such distinction is. Hey, at least, as far as I know, Italian Americans don't get beaten near to death in the military anymore.

“Buzz Lightyear got us through”

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:16:00 +0000

A wonderful story was reported yesterday where a father and his autistic son were rescued after having been swept out to sea. They survived some 15 hours in shark and jellyfish infested waters by calling out lines from... wait for it... Disney movies.

Yup, Walter's son Christopher watches a lot of Disney movies and is largely non-verbal so to maintain a connection with him while in the water, especially after darkness fell, he'd yell out things like "to infinity and beyond!" After drifting apart enough to where he couldn't hear his son anymore, Walter reconciled himself to the worst, that his son was dead, but fought on to stay alive for the sake of his daughter.

He eventually was rescued, and soon after, the Coast Guard found his son, very much alive. Walter actually credits his son for helping him get through it:

“His lack of fear was calming to me,” Marino said. “He was on an adventure — I mean, he was laughing. It was just a day in the ocean to him. It wasn’t until the jellyfish started stinging that he started to freak out a little bit.”

Marino also offered a shout-out to the animated superhero who helped him communicate with his son. “Buzz Lightyear got us through,” he said.

Rescue team member David Birky said he was awed at Christopher’s resolve. “That kid is an amazing kid,” Birky said. “To tread water for almost 14 hours — I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I could do that. They have amazing willpower to be able to do it.”

Great story, but I can't help but be amazed at how out of the ordinary this sounds. Where's the God talk? Where's Jesus? "Amazing willpower"? The kid is amazing, all by himself? No divine help? See, this is how these stories normally read:

----------------
Lost at sea with nothing to hold onto amid a dreadful darkness, Florida resident Walter Marino continually called out some of the few words his 12-year-old autistic son Christopher responds to.

"I'd be screaming, 'Have mercy on me, O God!'" Marino said, referring to Psalm 51, one of Christopher's favorites from the Bible. “Then I would hear him and it would be more and more and more distant, until finally I couldn’t hear anything.”

Miraculously, father and son's prayers were answered as they survived the night, thanks in part to good Samaritans and the U.S. Coast Guard. Walter and Christopher Marino, along with Walter’s daughter Angela and the children’s mother, Robin Bishop, beamed their way through a joyous interview with Matt Lauer on TODAY Wednesday.

Walter, Christopher and Angela were enjoying a family day at the beach at the Ponce Inlet south of Daytona Sept. 6. Late in the afternoon, Christopher was swimming near his father when he got caught in a current, and his dad paddled rapidly to retrieve him.

“We were both just sucked out,” Marino told Lauer. “The forces just took us out so quickly, it totally took me by surprise.”

On the beach, Angela could no longer see her father and brother and quickly called 911. The Coast Guard and the Volusia County Beach Patrol launched a search-and-rescue effort, but were unable to locate the pair and called off the search when darkness set in.

Meanwhile, Walter and Christopher treaded water while looking at each other face to face. Christopher, who is largely nonverbal, "spends most of his time leafing through his illustrated Bible," explained his father, and Walter kept calling out Christopher’s favorite passages, including Psalms 51.

As the hours ticked off in the dark night, Walter could no longer hear his son, but he never doubted whether his son was ok.

"I knew in my heart he was ok," Marino told Lauer. "Knowing that and having faith God would save us was what got me through."

Around 7:30 a.m. the next morning, fishermen spotted a glint in the water from Walter’s necklace and rescued him. With the fate of Christopher still unknown at the time, Walter maintained hope of finding his son alive.

After nearly two hours, the Coast Guard asked Marino to come on deck where they pointed to the helicopter and said, ‘See that helicopter over there? That has your son, and he’s fine.’

While an animated Marino showered his rescuers with thanks, appreciation — and yes, kisses — he also cited plucky Christopher as a hero, saying the boy actually helped his father get through the nightmare ordeal.

“His lack of fear was calming to me,” Marino said. “Clearly God was with him the whole time, protecting him and stealing away his fear." He then added, "God got us through".

Rescue team member David Birky said he was awed at Christopher’s resolve. “To tread water for almost 14 hours — I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I could do that. It's quite a miracle."
-----------------

Now you KNOW, had the article gone like that, this would be hailed as proof of God, Jesus, the power of prayer, miracles, the whole shabang. So does this mean then, following the logic, that the actual story is proof of the power of Disney? Is Walt Divine? Maybe Jobs (Toy Story was a Pixar production)? Should people replace those St. Christopher medals or dashboard Jesuses with Buzz Lightyears? Should Buzz be my co-pilot? Can the Mouse provide miracles?

Loyalty Test

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:01:00 +0000

There's quite a famous story for Christians, and that's the one about Abraham and Isaac (technically Jewish, but whatever, and incidentally, the Muslims dig this tale, too, only they substitute Ishmael for Isaac). Basically the way the story goes is God tests Abraham's loyalty by commanding him to sacrifice his son. Abraham, being the dutiful lackey, goes about grabbing his son and a good, sharp knife without giving the command a second thought. However, just as dutiful Abe was about to deliver the death cut, God sends an angel to say, "psyche!" and he didn't have to go through with it. You see, it was just a test, a loyalty test. God of course isn't supposed to be the coy type, so he didn't ask hypothetically, "what would your response be if I asked you to remove some kids from your family?" or even rhetorically, "you wouldn't object to killing your son for me, would you?". No, God in the story commanded and like a loyal, faithful servant, Abe unquestionably set out to carry out the command.

Recently there's been quite a buzz and snowballing rumors concerning Sarah Palin's alleged attempt to ban books from the library during her time as a mayor. As the facts start trickling in, we can start to maybe separate fact from fiction. Here's a quick run down of what seems to have happened:
1) Palin threw questions at the librarian 2 or 3 times which included 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?'
2) Palin then requested the librarian's resignation as a "loyalty test"
3) Palin rehired her the next day
4) 3 months later, fired her again claiming she didn't feel she had her support
5) “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”

As Factcheck.org points out:
Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way.

So you can interpret the story as
• She posed hypothetical questions to the librarian, somehow concluded she wasn't loyal, fired her, rehired her, once again thought she was not loyal, fired her, and then learned she was mistaken and rehired her
OR
• She posed questions to test whether the librarian would go along with her plans such as banning books, determined she wasn't loyal and wouldn't do it from the responses and fired her, rehired her the next day along with others (why? I dunno, perhaps as a show of power, or pure whim?), waited until January to fire her again without citing specific reasons why, then had to backpedal because the town opposed with torches and pitchforks (dramatic license there, sorry)

So perhaps Palin really isn't interested in banning books, but rather is simply interested in loyalty, blind and unquestioning loyalty from people under her to carry out her bidding, regardless of what it might be. Asking a librarian if she'd agree to banning a book would be like asking, uh, a father to kill his son. It's outrageous, but hey, what a loyalty test, huh? In the Genesis story, Abe is let off the hook and then kills a goat instead. Perhaps had the librarian answered correctly and passed Palin's loyalty test, the librarian then could have killed a moose instead of Tom Sawyer.

Related links:
George Bush loyalty test
Hitler loyalty oath
Family Guy's depiction of Abraham and Isaac
Rush's Tom Sawyer

Hot New Candidate

noreply@blogger.com (PhillyChief) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:45:00 +0000

codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"
WIDTH="384" HEIGHT="304">