Thanks dad

http://www.daddyfiles.com/2010/07/29/thanks-dad-2/

It’s been more than two weeks since I detailed our ordeal with little Alex, and I’m still getting crap from anti-choice zealots. Like these gems:

I am confused. Why is the couple supposed to feel better about having an abortion and cutting the obviously living baby’s life short? Why is that supposed to be better than letting nature take its course and delivering the stillborn baby? Is it because it’s less trouble for the parents? So they can get the baby’s death over and start the grieving process sooner? Wouldn’t it be harder to be the cause of my baby’s death after seeing an ultrasound, as they did? It seems to me there IS only one choice, to let this baby live as long as possible.

Here is the problem with the logic of this video. This guy is upset because he put great value in the 16 week old fetus that he calls “our baby”, but his lack of understanding for what these protesters are trying to do seems to give no value in the other “babies” that are killed at this location. He says it was one of the most difficult days of their lives, but has NO EMPATHY for the other babies murdered there and those trying to prevent their deaths.

The pro life lady was not yelling at anybody, you were yelling at her. Abortion is on demand worldwide, the killing of innocent human life is not rare but has become way too common. You should take a look in the mirror because you need to Repent.

Nice huh? Some real Mensa candidates in that bunch.

Thankfully, they’ve been the minority and all of you have been fantastic. As in spectacularly fucking supportive. I thought the best way to fight back was to send vitriolic responses to each and every one of them. But now I see the error of my ways. Instead, I’m going to be noticed. By as many people as possible. As difficult as it is to talk about this at times, I want to be heard. I want every protester possible to know our story so they realize exactly who they’re hurting when they stand outside shouting at people like gutless cowards. And you all have helped make that happen.

And now it’s my dad’s turn. Although he works for a stainless steel company, he used to be a journalist too. And even now he’s a columnist for the local newspaper in our hometown. So he wrote something and now I’m posting it here because I thought it was great and I wanted to share it with as many people as possible.

Thanks dad. I love you.

Abortion – it’s an ugly term.  It has a deservedly harsh connotation to it, conveying an untimely ending and something gone horribly wrong.

My son and daughter-in-law had to make a decision to terminate their pregnancy recently, a pregnancy nearly four months along.  They chose to do it, although in reality there was no choice.  But it was still incredibly difficult.

Their baby – my grandchild – had a rare and fatal congenital birth defect called Sirenomelia, otherwise known as Mermaid Syndrome.  Due to a vascular malfunction, the baby’s legs were fused together.  The baby had no bladder, no kidneys, and no chance of surviving.  The defect occurs once in about every 100,000 births.

The pain this caused my son and his wife, who very much wanted this second child, is indescribable.  You cannot possibly fathom the depths of their despair unless you have been in a similar position.  And while nowhere near as bad, the pain of having to watch our children go through this is something my wife and I pray we never have to experience again.

Our kids handled their situation with all the class, dignity and responsibility human beings can be expected to muster.  We are so proud, even as our hearts break for them.  Their strength and devotion to one another and their two-year-old son is the stuff of legends.

But their ordeal was made even more unnecessarily awful by the politics and social controversy surrounding the abortion issue.  On one of the worst days of their lives, they became victims again – this time at the hands of those trying to do God’s work while in fact doing just the opposite.

Although my daughter-in-law was treated at a major Boston hospital, the time-sensitive nature of the procedure necessitated it be done at an affiliated establishment.  After she and my son mustered the necessary courage and emotional strength to get where they had to go, they were met by something they had not considered in their grief – abortion protestors.

Two women were picketing outside the establishment, carrying signs and “communicating” with women walking in the door.  One carried a sign of religious symbolism.  As my son and his wife tried to enter the building where they would lose the baby they already loved so much, they were approached by the women.

“You’re killing your unborn baby!’ was the remark they would remember most as they walked past.  They were both furious and devastated, but held their tempers and concentrated on what needed to be done.  But once my daughter-in-law was in surgery, my son decided to take on the protestors.

In a calm but firm tone, he told them of his wife’s condition.  How they had accosted her at the most vulnerable point in her life.  How they had hurled accusations when they had no idea of the circumstances.  How they claimed to be protecting, yet seemed more intent on hurting.  And better yet, he recorded the entire conversation on his cell phone and posted it on his internet blog.

These particular protestors care about the unborn, but apparently are not concerned with those who have already come into the world.  They made no attempt to discover the circumstances and just assumed this was a couple ending an unwanted pregnancy.  To them, my kids were simply collateral damage in an ongoing war – the price to be paid for later success.

This column is not about a woman’s right to choose, although I have my own opinions on that matter.  It is about the culture of hatred and disrespect that people today foster when they single-mindedly focus on one goal to the exclusion of nearly all else.  It is about allowing the end to justify the means.

I am so proud of my son, and perhaps even more proud of his wife.  At a time of great personal turmoil, they did not just retreat inside their own grief – though no one would have blamed them.

Rather, they cared enough to take the time to explain to these people how their actions can destroy others.  How their words can scar forever.  How nothing is ever as clear or as simple as it seems.

I love them dearly, and I will never forget the lessons they have taught us all.

Leo withdraws from Gibson movie

Leonardo DiCaprio is withdrawing from a Mel Gibson-directed flick about vikings in the wake of the domestic abuse scandal, RadarOnline.com has exclusively confirmed.

“Not a chance,” said a source, close to the Inception star, when asked if he was still planning to star in Gibson’s next project.

The decision is a major setback for the Oscar-winning actor/director, who is facing allegations of domestic abuse and child endangerment.

PHOTOS: Celebrity Death Threats

It also lends support to critics who are suggesting Mel won’t be able to recover from the Oksana Grigorieva scandal.

Oksana, 40, has accused Gibson, 54, of punching her in the face twice as she held their infant daughter Lucia during a domestic dispute at his Malibu mansion on January 6.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: Bruised & Battered Oksana Grigorieva After Brawl With Mel Gibson

After allegedly hitting Oksana on the head and mouth, she has claimed, Mel then choked her.

Detectives from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department detectives are investigating the allegation along with Mel’s claim that Oksana tried to extort him with threats of a scandal.

EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: See The First Photos of Mel and Oksana In a Passionate Embrace On The Beach

Mel was interviewed on Sunday but refused to answer questions about the incident, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Mel’s profane-laced rants, recorded by Oksana and obtained by RadarOnline.com, are laced with racial slurs -- including the N-word -- and demands for repeated sexual favors.

PHOTOS: Oksana Through The Years

The viking film was to be DiCaprio’s first picture with Mel.

A source close to DiCaprio said the star, who is currently basking in the release of his wildly acclaimed box-office topping movie Inception, did not want to risk his reputation, with being associated with Mel.

“Leo has earned the right to pick and choose who he works with and Mel Gibson is not one of them,” the source added.

The as-yet untitled project is being produced by Graham King and Mel’s Icon Productions.

Variety had previously reported DiCaprio had long been fascinated by Viking culture and was poised to play one in a storyline that will be as unsparing as Mel’s other period directing efforts, Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto.

Before DiCaprio’s withdrawal, shooting was slated to begin in fall 2010.

Comment is being sought from DiCaprio.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/source-dicaprio-pulling-out-mel-gibson-movie

Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense

http://twitpic.com/288fv2

No, Jesus Did Not Soften the Old Testament–In Fact He Did the Opposite, and Here’s What That Means

Moderate Christians love to talk about how Jesus fixed the Old Testament, or, in other words, obsoleted the horribly offensive parts about slavery, keeping women in their place, killing gays, etc. In fact, he did no such thing.

I’ll be doing two things here:

1. Show you that Jesus fully supported everything in the Old Testament
2. Show you exactly how horrible that is.

So first, here is Jesus speaking specifically on the topic of Old Testament teachings:

The Law Stands

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Keep in mind, this is Jesus Christ saying this–in the Bible that all Christians own and cherish. Don’t take my word for it; look it up–it’s all there.

So now that we understand that he fully supported what’s in the Old Testament, let’s take a look at what he actually just commanded us to uphold.

The Law That Stands

Blasphemy is Punishable by Death

One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. (NRSV) — Leviticus 24:16

Cheaters Must Die

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (NIV) — Leviticus 20:10

Dishonoring Your Mother or Father is Punishable by Death

Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. (NLT) — Leviticus 20:9

People Who Work on Sunday Should be Killed

You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT) — Exodus 35:2

If a Woman is Not a Virgin When She Gets Married, She Has to Die

“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21

There’s Nothing Wrong With Slavery

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) — Leviticus 25:44

Gays Should be Put to Death

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13

Women Should Shut the Hell Up and Do as They’re Told

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV) — Timothy 2:11-12

Keep in mind, these aren’t suggestions. They’re not optional. Remember what Jesus said, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” He also said they’re not open to any personal interpretation. It’s all very clear to anyone willing to actually read their Bible.

But don’t listen to an atheist, we’re the last people you should trust. Read your own Bible. All the references are there for you. It is you who must reconcile this evil.

But luckily there’s an easy solution: Ask yourself which is more likely:

1. God and Jesus really are evil (which the Bible’s own text proves, if you open yours and look)
   or…
2. It’s actually all made up, so there’s nothing to worry about.

The answer is #2. God is not evil, and neither is Jesus. Man made them up in order to control other men. Few things offer better proof of this than the actual teachings in the Bible. You, my kind and thoughtful Christian friends, do not need this. You are above it. ::

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means

What if your mother tried to abort you!?

I received this in my inbox and only recently got around to reading it.

You should all read it.

First off, I have to say I love your blog. I have learned more in the past couple months of following then in the past 2 decades. I’d prefer to stay anonymous, seeing as my screen name is fairly unique and as well I’d like to respect my mothers privacy, especially since very few in my family know about this.
This is a response to the “What if you were aborted” post, figured I’d share since I’ve pretty much come as close to being aborted as possible without actually being aborted.
I’m one of 6 siblings, and we grew up pretty harsh. Little food, medical care was sparse at best (Unless we were bleeding to death, we never saw a doctor), and even basic at home education and hygiene were neglected (I was never shown how to brush my teeth, tie a show, I didn’t even know about brushing until high school). My mother had my two elders by choices, but because of life changes could not afford to take of a third. That’s me. At this point money was so tight she barely sought medical help, and quickly came to the decision to get an abortion. My father made this very hard for her. Knowing my father, he shamed her, more then likely abused her physically, and also made sure that the whole family knew what was going on.
It came close to the due date, and mother, desperate to end the pregnancy, took it into her own hands. I don’t know the details, I didn’t find out till I was 16, after I had been legally emancipated, and got a hold of my medical records from my mother. Amongst the records was a letter detailing the death of a female child, hours before I was born. I asked my mother, and she denied knowing anything. After some investigating, I found the doctor that performed my birthing. She told me that my mother had attempted ending her own pregnancy, and something went wrong. She didn’t know she was pregnant with twins. My grandfather found her and rushed to her to the hospital, where they c-sectioned and delivered me, treated my mother, and took what would would have been my sister.
You can imagine the pain and hurt I was experiencing. I became abhorrently pro life, I ex-communicated from my mother entirely (To whom I never had a good relationship with anyways, but she was still my mother), and just began to shame her. After a while, some soul searching if you will, my stance switched over to pro-choice. I could never force a decision onto another person, but I never forgave my mother. Circumstances came that I was injured, lost my job, and became homeless. My mother took me in when she found out. I still never talked to her, in my mind I was always thinking she never wanted me, why does she pretend now. Things changed and when I could get out on my own again, I did.
I began reading your blog, and learned a number of things I just refused to face because of the pain it would resurface. I called my grandfather, and he told me how my mother was scared. She didn’t want to give up her child, but could not raise it with what they were making. My birth financially put our family in a death spiral, one which my mother couldn’t recover from, and my father refuse to even acknowledge. She began drinking, my fathers abuse became worse. She went on and had 3 more children, afraid of abortion, afraid of what would happen if she even mentioned otherwise having the kids.
I mulled it over for a while, I have one child, whom I love. We can take care of him well, we are doing fine. A second would be all but impossible to take care of, and I’m not even sure my wife could handle the pregnancy. I had a moment of clarity, and called my mother. I forgave, I apologized, but more then that, I acknowledged her love for me. Abortion is not a act of hate, of disinterest. It is an act of compassion in many cases. While I may have missed out on what are now the best times of my life, I understand she didn’t do it because she hated me. She was afraid, and the last thing she needed was another form of control and abuse. I know now it was not me who wrecked the family, I made it tough, but it was the hate and control of the other men/women in her life, that refused to let her make her own decision, one I could now agree with. While I may never know my twin sister, I know she wasn’t murdered. And if she was, it was because of anti-choice. My grandfather called!
, and said my mother stopped drinking after her conversation with me, and is now really trying to live. She’s gonna visit her grandson here soon, and I’m gonna give her the support she’s been needing this whole time.
Just thought I would share that, for all those assholes who argue “What if you were aborted, how would you feel.”

If I may first say “Holy Shit.”

Thank you so much for sharing your story. I’m so glad I was able to help you and I wish you nothing but the best.

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/848292811/what-if-your-mother-had-tried-to-abort-you

Right to life

Right to Life

A woman is not a pear tree

thrusting her fruit in mindless fecundity

into the world. Even pear trees bear

heavily in one year and rest and grow the next.

An orchid gone wild drops few warm rotting

fruit in the grass but the trees stretch

high and wiry gifting the birds forty

feet up among inch long thorns

broken atavistically from the smooth wood.

A woman is not a basket you place
your buns in to keep them warm. Not a brood
hen you can slip duck eggs under.
Not the purse holding the coins of your
descendants till you spend them in wars.
Not a bank where your genes gather interest
and interesting mutations in the tainted
rain, any more than you are.
You plant corn and you harvest
it to eat or sell. You put the lamb
in the pasture to fatten and haul it in to
butcher for chops. You slice the mountain
in two for a road and gouge the high plains
for coal and the waters run muddy for
miles and years. Fish die but you do not
call them yours unless you wished to eat them.
Now you legislate mineral rights in a woman.
You lay claim to her pastures for grazing,
fields for growing babies like iceberg
lettuce. You value children so dearly
that none ever go hungry, none weep
with no one to tend them when mothers
work, none lack fresh fruit,
none chew lead or cough to death and your
orphanages are empty. Every noon the best
restaurants serve poor children steaks.

At this moment at nine o'clock a partera
is performing a table top abortion on an
unwed mother in Texas who can't get
Medicaid any longer. In five days she will die
of tetanus and her little daughter will cry
and be taken away. Next door a husband
and wife are sticking pins in the son
they did not want. They will explain
for hours how wicked he is,
how he wants discipline.
We are all born of woman, in the rose
of the womb we suckled our mother's blood
and every baby born has a right to love
like a seedling to sun. Every baby born
unloved, unwanted, is a bill that will come
due in twenty years with interest, an anger
that must find a target, a pain that will
beget pain. A decade downstream a child
screams, a woman falls, a synagogue is torched,
a firing squad is summoned, a button
is pushed and the world burns.
I will choose what enters me, what becomes
of my flesh. Without choice, no politics,
no ethics lives. I am not your cornfield,
not your uranium mine, not your calf
for fattening, not your cow for milking.
You may not use me as your factory.
Priests and legislators do not hold shares
in my womb or my mind.
This is my body. If I give it to you
I want it back. My life
is a non-negotiable demand.

The ugly history

The Religious Right likes to pant after the “good ol’ days” of “Christian America”. They are a bit imprecise as to when that was but they seem to think it was sometime around the founding of the country.
Of course, what one means by founding is important to define. I would generally place the founding of the country between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. Clearly after that period the nation had been founded. Prior to the Declaration there was no nation either, just separate colonies, often very dissimilar from one another.
But our Founders, those men who were key figures in the period, were not, for the most part, what one could call orthodox Christians. The term deist is often used to describe them and it is not entirely inaccurate. Perhaps “deist light” is a better term. In their view of Christianity, they did tend to be deists. But neither were they strict deists. Even Benjamin Franklin, who wrote that he was a “thorough deist,” still saw a more active god than most deists. The founders did think there was a deity who cared about people. But they didn’t think the Bible was his word, they didn’t think Jesus was god in the flesh, they tended to ridicule the virgin birth, miracles, the atonement and a host of other orthodox doctrines. These men tend to inhabit that area of religious belief between Unitarianism, deism and atheism.
Where on a religious spectrum each of them fell is open to debate. What really is not open to debate was that they were not on the Christian side of the spectrum, not if you define Christian in theological terms. Some of these men, however, defined Christianity almost wholly in moral terms. And they would use “Christian “as a label to describe their moral intuitions.
Often great confusion arises when one fails to realize that a reference to Christianity as a moral system is not a reference to Christianity as a set of doctrines. John Adams said of the Puritans, “ye will say I am no Christian,” referring to the theological doctrines of Christianity. He added, “I say Ye are no Christians,” referring to Christianity as a system of morals. Adams elucidate: “Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my sense of the word.” Christian, in his sense of the word, was more found in how one acted toward others, and less in what doctrines one embraced.
Jefferson, like many of the founders, saw the theology of Christianity a “corruption” of the system. He wrote: “To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.” For Christian it was the traits of “human excellence” that he saw Jesus teaching. As for the miraculous or divine realm, it was what he said that Jesus never claimed for himself. For this reason Jefferson took scissors to the Bible and cut out of the gospels, all references to the supernatural. He felt such a purge left the pure moral teachings of Jesus and said he was he was happy to embrace that, once all claims of godhood, a trinity, miracles, resurrections, etc., had been exorcised.
Between the arrival of Columbus in the West Indies and the American Revolution there were numerous colonies, which tended to differ from one another. It was during this period that Christianity, or more precisely, specific strains of Christianity, did hold political power. If ever there was a time when there was a “Christian America” this was it. It is also a time that most Americans know nothing about. Perhaps because it was a very ugly period in American history, which contradicts the rosy view of America held by most citizens today.
Consider the Pilgrims as an example. Most people heard the story that the Pilgrims came to America to enjoy religious freedom. That most certainly is not the case, not if you mean freedom for everyone. Their desire was freedom for themselves and tyrannical control over others. Puritan divine Richard Mather said the Pilgrims came to the colonies in order “to censure those who ought to be censured.” Steven Waldman, in Founding Faith, says that “it might be more precise to say most [Pilgrims] were avoiding the harassment of a government that wanted the Puritans to be more liberal. He mentions how the Puritans had banned games and amusement in areas under their control in England. Certainly when they had control of England, under Cromwell, they went so far as make Christmas illegal. Yes, the first real war on Christmas was conducted by fundamentalist Calvinists against all other Christians.
They were most unhappy, later, when King James overturned their bans and granted more liberty to the people. The liberty the Puritans sought was to be able to wield the whip in God’s name, and wield it they did. Quite literally.
This yearning for authoritarianism even inspired some Puritans to rebel against the King when the Revolution came along. Rev. James Mayhew, of Boston, said that rebellion against the King is justified when the King commits crimes against God. Since the King had allowed sports on Sunday and “encouraged papists and popishly effect clergymen,” he was against God and thus oppressing the people. For the Puritan, one reason to overthrow the throne, and seek independence from England, was in order to erect a repressive moral regime far stricter than what the lax monarch had allowed.
During the early years of colonies the Calvinists saw larger and larger percentages of the colonialists leave their church, or be excommunicated from it, which was not uncommon. In 1684 King Charles II rescinded the part of the charter for the Massachusetts colony, which restricted immigration to Puritans. He allowed Anglicans to have church services, which did not please the Puritans. He also told the Puritans to end their violent, often deadly, persecution of Quakers, something some saw the King interfering with their liberty to kill heretics.
The case of Mary Dyer illustrates Puritan authoritarianism well. Dyer believed that God spoke to individual Christians. She joined with Anne Hutchinson, to form a Bible study group. This act of religious freedom was not tolerated by the Calvinist Puritans especially since she sometimes disagreed with the local cleric. The Puritans informed Hutchinson that Bible forbade women teaching. And in 1638 she was put on trial. She was found guilty of heresy and imprisoned until she could be banished from the colony. Both Dyer and Hutchinson suffered miscarriages at the hands of their tormentors. The godly Pilgrims gloated about the miscarriages saying they showed God’s wrath on the women. Hutchinson went to Rhode Island, which did have some religious freedom.
Dyer, along with her husband, travelled to England with Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. There Dyer converted to the Quaker faith, believing it to be similar to what she and Hutchinson had believed. From England she want to Boston, where she was arrested again and expelled, this time for being a Quaker. In 1658 she was arrested again for being a Quaker. After her release she went to Massachusetts to visit two Quaker friends and was again banished from the “shining city on the hill.” Once again she traveled through Massachusetts and this time she was arrested and sentenced to death, along with two other Quakers.
Her husband, who was not a Quaker, was friends with the governor and secured a reprieve for Mary but the two Quakers arrested with her were executed. In 1660 she returned to Massachusetts to oppose the laws, which persecuted Quakers. She was arrested and refused to renounce her faith. The good Christian Puritans of Massachusetts hung her for being the wrong kind of Christian.
Under Puritan rule only members in good standing of the Congregational Church, the church of the Pilgrims, had voting rights in the colony. When one colonist suggested that this measure be repealed his suggestion was turned down and he was arrested for daring suggest it.
The Puritans dominated in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. But the Anglicans dominated Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia. Rhode Island was unique, in that it was founded by Roger Williams, a Baptist. Williams had been persecuted by the Pilgrims and forced into the wilderness, since being a Baptist was also considered a crime. Pennsylvania tended to be controlled by Quakers. New Amsterdam, the New York City area, was controlled by the Dutch West India Company and never got around to establishing a church, as it was more commercially motivated. But it did find time to persecute Jews and mistreat them.
In Virginia the Anglicans who controlled the colony kept out Puritan preachers, Catholics, Quakers and Jews. Jefferson wrote that "the poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. As for his Virginia home he said: "If no execution [of Quakers] took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature... but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us."
Maryland, founded for Catholics, was slightly more tolerant, allowing Protestants. But it decreed the death penalty for anyone who challenged orthodox Christian beliefs. Puritans from Virginia fled to Maryland ,seeking refuge from Anglican persecution, and then helped overthrow the Catholic government that granted them refuge. Once in power the Protestants stripped Catholics of rights, sentenced Catholic priests to life imprisonment, decreed that only Anglicans could hold office and stripped Catholics of the right to vote.
During the heyday of Christian American, the one thing Christians were “at liberty” to do, was oppress one another. And this they did with great relish. The founders had lived through much of this era and were fully aware of how the combination of church and state fostered intolerance, violence, persecution, and totalitarianism. They consciously separated church and state to try to avoid such conflicts in the future.
The “Christian America,” to which the Religious Right, wishes to return, is an illusion. There was never a time when Christian sects were united in governance. Instead they each occupied areas of control and used what control they could assert to oppress, if not kill, other Christians. There is an illusionary unity amongst the Religious Right even today. The animosity that these sects hold for one another has barely lessened over the years. What they lack is the political power to inflict their intolerance on society as a whole.
The Religious Right is made up of some very distinct religious groupings, for the most part. Fundamentalist Christians believe that only those who are “born again” are true Christians. Their Catholic allies, they see as members of the sect of the Anti-Christ, while their Mormon co-conspirators are nothing more than a fraudulent cult. Orthodox Catholics believe that only those confirmed in the Roman church are members of the true Church. Mormons believe that only those who embrace the fantasies of the mountebank Joseph Smith are part of the real Christian faith.
To a large extent the only reason they are not at each other’s throats is that they agree there are other throats to slit first: gays, Muslims, and illegal immigrants, for instance. They are willing to set aside their animosity for one another only so long as a more worthy targets of their acrimony exist. If they were to succeed in wiping out the “evil” people of the nation, or at least to force them in hiding, they would soon return to conniving new means for oppressing one another. The founders knew enough about their recent history to consciously separate church and state at the federal level and begin working to separate them at the state level as well—a process that would take a bit longer to accomplish.
Illustrations: 1.) John Adams; 2.) Mary Dyer being led to her execution. The drummers were to prevent bystanders from hearing her speak.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/03/ugly-history-of-christian-america.html

Classically Liberal

read the current issue of Reason magazine today, where Brink Lindsay, from the Cato Institute, makes the case for why libertarians shouldn't ally themselves with the Right. I agree whole heartily. He pointed to the bigoted Tea Party types as one example of why this strategy is bad for libertarians. Matt Kibble tried to pretend that Brink's view is merely based on "liberal" media distortions. Sorry Matt, it is precisely the sort of rampant bigotry that I personally witnessed at one of the largest Tea Party rallies in recent months.
The other day I was invited to speak to a small group of people. The host was a friend, who was at the Tea Party rally as well. He made a point of telling me how disgusted he was with what he witnessed there. His observations were the same as my own, as were two other libertarian friends at the same meeting. All four of agreed that the Tea Party is not for libertarians.
And neither are Republicans. Consider this tidbit from the Theopublican Party of Texas, in their 2010 platform. They claim to believe that "Realizing that conflict and debate is a proven learning tool in classrooms, we support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories, including, evolution, Intelligent Design...." Intelligent Design is theology not science. But that aside, do the Republicans of Texas really believe in debate and equal treatment of all sides? The same platform says: "We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage."
So they want open debate when theology pretends to be science, but demand closing all debate and conflict as a "proven learning tool" when it regards sex. They are the typical conservative frauds, the typical conservative hypocrites. They only want open debate for their side until they control an agenda and they want to stifle debate and discussion entirely.
They claim to believe in, "the sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization until natural death." So, all human life is sacred and must be protected until natural death? Well, no. "Properly applied capital punishment is legitimate, is an effective deterrent, and should be swift and unencumbered." Hell, why even bother with a trial? Clearly not "all human life is sacred" and some lives must be ended unnaturally by execution though all life must be protected "until natural death." Of course, they are Republicans. They see it completely natural for governments to kill people.
As for sex offenders, well, they want to turn a large percentage of teens into criminals. First, they demand that an "'affirmative defense' when there is less than 36 months of age difference" be abolished. That way all teens who have consenting sex with one another are deemed sex offenders if they are the same age. Second, they demand that age of consent in Texas be raised to 18, so that even more kids will be classified as sex offenders. And they claim to be pro-family. It's enough to make one vomit. This is under they "sexual assault" section and the first thing there says they demand punishment options "should include death." More of that all life is sacred bullshit.
Yet, while they are busy demanding laws to incarcerate kids for sex, and perhaps execute a few of them, they claim they are in favor of limited government. Really? Limited by what principle?
How limited is the small government they claim to believe in? Here are a few more clauses from the platform showing exactly how big they want government to be.

We encourage state and federal governments to severely prosecute illegal dealers and manufacturers of addictive substances and pornography.
We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws.
We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.
We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. Note: notice that they claim that adoptions, buying insurance, having retirement benefits voluntarily offered, are "special rights" in their view.
We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses.
We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.
We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”
We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature.
We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child...
Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings...
We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes.
We support raising the age of consent for consensual sex to 18 years.
We also believe that no homosexual ... should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.
Moreover, we oppose any further legalization, government facilitation, or financial guarantees relating to any type of gambling including casino, riverboat, video lottery terminals (VLTs), slot machine, video keno, eight-liners, multi-state lotteries, and other games of chance including on Indian reservations.

The real kicker is that these morons claim to support individual rights and individual freedom.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/06/march-of-theopublican-loons.html

T.J.

I know I’ve talked about the fact that the United States of America was not founded upon religion or even by Christians, but I wanted to take a moment here to talk more about Thomas Jefferson. He’s the one who came up with the “wall of separation” after all and the battle to keep it erected isn’t going away anytime soon.

Many people seem to be under the impression that the founding fathers were Christians and this nation is founded upon the Bible and Christian values. Or at least the Religious Right wants us all to think that. Jefferson, was a deist and at one point during his campaign was accused of being an infidel and atheist because of his different beliefs. I don’t think that overall it really matters, I just wanted people to be aware that Jefferson was not what most people would call a Christian.

While not godless, he is reported to have said something that really strikes through to me : “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” If on Judgement Day I turn out to be wrong, I like to think God would understand pursuit of knowledge and skepticism over being merely a sheep and believing everything I hear. Although, this rarely even occurs to me as I am fairly convinced there is no skyman.

Let’s get to one of my favorite things related to Jefferson. The wall. For me, it is one of my favorite things about this country. It gives us our secular state. Justice John Paul Stevens put it best:

“Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundations of our democracy.”

I think that as a nation of mixed belief, we should maintain the best method fairness available and continue to not have a state religion. By keeping a wall of separation between religion and government, it keeps things fair for all.

Here are two quotes from Jefferson about his wall:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

The saddest thing is that we still haven’t fully reached the competition of this wall. Perhaps we have at some point, but it seems like nearly everyday somebody goes and tears it down a little. I don’t want my taxes funding a Catholic school and thanks to the wall, they usually don’t. Hopefully one day we won’t have to fight over it anymore and have a purely secular government. As far as I can see, religion has no place in the government.  I end this with a quote from my a favorite comedian, the late George Carlin.

I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GodlessBlogger/~3/xMbpHZAZTkI/

EPIC WIN!

A quote

I’ve heard it countless times, that without God to define a moral code that there can be no moral code. If you can’t set rules for yourself, then you scare me a little bit. If a supernatural authority figure is the only thing standing between you and murder/rape/theft/etc… then you scare me because if in the future you suddenly lose your faith and stop believing in God then you’re about to spiral down into an amoral, uncaring monster. If you play the mental chess starting from the position that we as humans have no moral code without God, then if you lose your faith in God, you are no longer restricted by his authority and will become an amoral monster. Do you think that of yourself? If you stopped believing in God, would you indiscriminately kill people because it didn’t matter?

Kenny Wyland

http://www.godlessblogger.com/2010/07/21/no-moral-code-without-god/