Independence Day: No Kings = No God in Government

Two hundred and thirty-two years ago, today, we declared ourselves independent of the British Empire. We further declared we, as a people, had no need for aristocracy and that we would govern ourselves.

Eleven years later, in Philadelphia, we recomposed our government in the form of the Constitution. This amazing document unified the states under a strong federal government and made two amazing laws (of many, many amazing laws):

1. The First Amendment
   
2. The "No Religious Test" Clause

It is no coincidence that we cut both church and king out of any involvement in our government. We cannot depose one without deposing the other.

And how is that?

The European model for governance (for several centuries) worked like this: the church of the nation (typically Catholic) would declare God's support for the king, granting him divine right over his subjects; in turn, the king would see to it a healthy chunk of change from his tax base would divert to the church's coffers.

A nice, symbiotic relationship, eh?

If you don't believe me, consider this: when Henry VIII of England didn't get his way when he wanted to divorce and remarry, he did not just cut ties with Rome... he established his own church. He needed divine legitimacy to keep his seat of power, otherwise, the Vatican would have started pressing other nations to replace him with someone more suitable (for their own pockets, that is). Kings need divine backing for their subjects to buy into their right to govern. Churches need Kings (or some other form of political figurehead) to keep the money flowing in... because sometimes passing the plate just isn't enough to "pay the bills."

And just look at what is happening today. We have a "man of God" in the White House, and he's making sure our tax money is funneled to religious organizations. And men like Dobson of Focus on the Family are given legitimacy by men like President Bush... and in turn, men like Dobson are treated like they have a right to be political pundits, picking and choosing who is more "suitable" to administrate the United State of America.

And next thing you know, too many people are claiming there is no such thing as "separation of church and state," despite the fact it is written as the first item on the Bill of Rights!

Everyone: if you love your country (as I do), read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Read the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. Keeping religion out of government is more than about taxes and affiliations: it's about keeping dictatorship at bay.

As long as all human beings in this nation may believe (or not, in many cases) as they wish, then no one may persecute them for disagreeing. The atheist and the theist can co-exist, as long as each group is managed by a completely secular government; one devoid of interest in showing preferential treatment for one group over another.

And is that not the greatest thing of all?

Keep America's system of government great.

Keep it secular.

I've finally seen "Idiocracy"

After being told by many friends and acquaintances over the last few months that I "must see" this movie, Mrs. Wit and I settled in and watched Mike Judge's Idiocracy for the first time.

And the verdict is: I may have to buy this movie. It's just that good. It's more than just good, it's scary. The general population of the future presented in this film is pretty much comprised of the sorts of people mocked intelligence and manners in high school and, well, the White House of today.

See this movie. It shows, in part, my vision of the Dim Age we are now entering.

Doubt comes to a muslim? Stay tuned...

I think My Pakistani Buddy^TM is starting to have some doubts, but I'm sure I'm wrong.

Not quite a year ago (or was it longer than that?) he got his own place. I mean, his own place without having to share it with anyone. A home of his own. A group of us at the office put together a care package for him, and I decided to throw in a copy of the Q'ran because I knew he would appreciate it. That, and I intend to read the thing, myself, and thought it would be good for him to have a copy close by for discussion purposes. He was overwhelmed by my gift. Not, as you might think, because of its thoughtfulness, but rather because the copy I gave him was a side-by-side translation in English next to the traditional Arabic.

When I asked him why the English version was such a big deal, he described to me the extent of his "Sunday School" education in Islam, which was pretty typical for the average Pakistani: he did not read the Q'ran in his native Urdu, but rather learned the Arabic for specific passages by rote only!

That's right! He's never read the whole thing! He's never even read part of the thing in a language (by his own admission) he even understands!

Wow! I thought. This is worse than the average Sunday School experience of most Christians! No wonder some Muslims are persuaded to blow up others along with themselves! No wonder some Christians are talked into murder doctors willing to perform abortion procedures! These people are not encouraged to read the texts and interpret for themselves! They are discouraged from following avenues that may lead to critical thinking!

I found myself wondering if My Pakistani Buddy^TM would find the Q'ran as discomfiting as I found the Bible to be, when I started reading the whole thing...

Fast forward to today.

He's back from Pakistan, after being too close to the Bhutto assassination event. He's engaged. And he's been a bit quiet, of late. At first I thought he was just shaken up from being next to a major world event and acquiring a fiance in short order... now I'm wondering.

He sent me a link to the following YouTube video. Before going to Pakistan, I am almost positive he would have found this offensive.


Is it possible that between reading the Q'ran and witnessing senseless violence in his birth land, he's starting to have doubts?

I'm having lunch with him, today. I introduced him to massaman curry and he's now a slave to the stuff. Maybe we'll talk about it, then... but I'll let him bring it up, out of politeness.

Time will tell.

Resolution 888 = Rewriting American History!

Anyone with the cojones to rewrite American history, to deny the truth of our past, ultimately has no true love for this country. Instead, they scorn the very things that make this country great: the freedom to be who you want to be, even if others don't like it.

Read the attachment. Write your congressman. Call your congressman. Hell, show up at his or her doorstep and demand they put a stop to this!

If this lie becomes official truth, we're one step closer to having a mass migration of the intellectually honest to Canada. Seriously.

Hitchens: God Is Not Great

I finished "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens (who was also one of the presenters at last October's Freedom From Religion Foundation convention).

Here's a good idea of what this man is all about (from Canada's "The Hour" news program). I agree with what he says, but I'm hesitant about his intolerance.

Very well said!

This editorial is worth reading. It crystalizes the importance of protecting the First Amendment, a shining jewel in the crown that is the Constitution of the United States of America.

Anyone who says there is "no such thing in the Constitution" as separation of Church and State has never tried to understand the language used in the the Establishment Clause.

Look up the meaning of the word "establishment" as it was used at the time of the Constitution's authoring, and you'll see what I mean.

The light grew dimmer, this month...

For all those believing I'm a paranoid lunatic, raving in the night, read this.

I'm sure you won't remember me when you decide to pack up the kids and haul ass to Canada, should this continue.

There was no Santa & kudos (of a sort) to CBS news

I have not been sleeping terribly, lately, and woke up at about 1:15 this morning. I already knew it was going to be a while before I went back to sleep, so I decided to make the most of it by catching a really cheesy movie on TV.

I've already mentioned my love of Svengoolie in a previous post. According to Sven's Dec. 22nd post, anyone staying up until 1:00am would be treated to "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians." Anyone who loves bad film is probably well acquainted with this cinematic crime against humanity. This film is so bad that it is the only movie I am aware of my father ever walking out on. And my father will sit through anything. It's also notable for being Pia Zadora's first movie, as well. (If you don't know or remember Pia Zadora, don't weep. It's no great loss. Really.)

Here's a taste, if you have the stomach for it.



Well, I tuned in to watch and found... it was a rerun of the night before's "Frankenstein" broadcast! O Sven! What hast thou wrought?

I'm sure he'll never hear the end of this from his fan base. Serves him right.

I also like to catch CBS Sunday Morning from time to time. Today was a lucky find: a meditation on the importance of separation of church and state in light of the current presidential election campaigns. It's called "In God We Trust." I found it very even handed save for one small, but bothersome, thing: there was no concession that there are also non-beleivers like me, out there, but rather a tacit assumption that all Americans practice some form of faith or other.

Ultimately, the truth is this: if I am allowed not to believe, then you will always be allowed to believe however you wish. It seems so simple, and yet so many want to take that away...

There's also going to be a two-hour special on CBS tonight: "In God's Name." If the previews are any indication of the show's content, I'm not going to have the stomach for it, tonight: it appears to be a bunch of talking heads claiming region is anti-violence. According to the show's web page it's going to be nothing but religious leaders. No non-belief voice is going to be given even 10 seconds of air time!

If religion is anti-violence, then I guess the lessons of history (and most texts upon which many religions are based) are wrong. But only a holy man would have the gumption to make the claims made in the preview I saw this morning.

I think tonight I'd rather watch Vincent Price in "The Last Man on Earth," instead.

Religion & the campaign trail

Lot of talk has been going around about Mitt Romney's speech being like JFK's own defense for being Catholic.

Please.

Name me any candidate today who would have the balls to say the following, as Kennedy once did:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, . . .

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace. . ."

I didn't think you could.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has Romney's number, IMHO.

The State of Iraqi Christians

I apologize for sitting on this for a week. I meant to post about this last Tuesday (Mondays are for the latest cocktail, after all).

Don't bother reading the article. Instead, download and watch the 60 Minutes story. It's riveting, especially when the priest voluntarily cops to the historic crimes of Christianity. I admire him for his candor.

However, he also states that what is happening in Iraq to the local Christians (and, by association, the past abuses of the Church) is what happens when "religion goes wrong."

Excuse me?

No. This is another shining example of what happens when religion starts getting its way. Without strong and enforced secular checks, even a nation like America can find itself with its own version of the Vatican doing its damnedest to boss the federal government around.

Saddam Hussein was not a good man. He was a dictator. He was a tyrant. He was a genocidal maniac. But his governance of Iraq was secular in more than just name. In fact, he was the least evil and fanatical of the tyrannical genocidal dictator-types available. That is why King George I left him in charge of his country, even after Desert Storm.

Of course, this is all lost on King George II.

Ethnicity & the notion of American Identity

So I mentioned my Irish buddy for the last two entries. (Hey! That could be a toy! "My Irish Buddy^TM!" New from Hasbro!)

Well, I am going to mention him again.

Some months back he told me about an acquaintance of his who runs an Irish-themed bar and restaurant, plays guitar and sings at this establishment, and for all intents and purposes could not understand how this individual is capable of making a living as a "professional Irishman" (as he put it). He was even more fascinated - and more than a little disturbed - at how great an audience there was for his acquaintances' establishment.

"C'mon!" I remember him declaring. "We're the (bleep)ing Irish! We're a bunch of drunks who've been the collective punching bag of a nation of inbred wankers! Who wants to be celebrating that?"

Well, that question got me thinking. That, and I had a long flight home from Seattle to contend with, so I tried putting my old anthropology training to use (that's my real background, not information technology - I picked that up after grad school) and wrote an off-the-cuff analysis of the American notions of ethnicity and national identity and e-mailed it to him the next day. I've decided it might be worth reading, especially to see how others may or may not react to it in comparison to My Irish Buddy (I may post his reactions if I get his permission), but also to see if I made any glaring historical/sociological errors in my analysis.

So here it is, warts and all. I hope you enjoy it.

By the way: while I still stand by my definition of "Constitutionalist," I have since regretted using that term. Here's why.

And another thing.... since I am presenting this "as is" and cannot guarantee its accuracy, I'm not providing any verification or supportive links. Check this stuff at your own leisure. At a later date I may (or may not) revise it and correct it.

-------))

[My Irish Buddy^TM] –

Your statements about Americans and our obsessions with ethnicity
really got me thinking (dangerous thing). I find myself with nothing
to really do on this long flight home from Seattle so I thought I
would take the time to jot down some of my thoughts about the notion
of the "American Identity" from a personal and anthropological
perspective. You don't have to read this, and you probably have much
better things to do (sitting in your underwear watching TV?) but
should you continue… consider yourself warned.

And I'm doing this all from my head, so I cannot guarantee the
accuracy of some of the following material. In fact, just the fact
that you did not have an American education leads me to believe you're
going to find some errors in what you read here. But let's give this a
try anyway, shall we?

The American Revolution
The North American continent, especially what is now considered the
Eastern Seaboard of the United State was settled by primarily Western
Europeans from the northern regions: the Dutch, the French, the
Germans, and the English. Especially the English. In fact, by the time
ill feelings began to foment among the colonists, all other cultural
groups had been subsumed by the English and homogenized into a fairly
recognizable English-derived culture.

Thinking of ourselves as Americans did not happen, however, until the
Declaration of Independence came onto the scene. As we declared
ourselves a separate nation and set up the temporary Continental
Congress to see us through the transition (and the oncoming war), we
defined ourselves as Americans not so much by our ideals as expressed
in Jefferson's document so much as the fact that we were no longer
English subjects. You read right: the earliest American identity was
founded on not being British.

This is a very important distinction: after we won the Revolutionary
War, the deciding factor for where one got to live – remain in the new
United State of America or emigrate to Canada – was one of loyalty;
did one see the Crown and Parliament as the seat of governmental power
or the Continental Congress and its eventual inheritor (first the
Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution). It always
bothers me how this is not taught in American public schools: the
transmigration between the US and Canadian territories immediately
after the war, in terms of percentage of population, was not rivaled
until India created Pakistan and had the Hindus and Muslims shuffle
around. This was a big deal in which many people lost land and other
property, and many families irrevocably dissolved - and I'm actually
referring to North America, here!

The War of 1812 served to further this form of the American identity
notion… but it was not to last.


Colonization Practices, the Louisiana Purchase and Rogue Sates
Before I go any further, I must point out something concerning the
remaining dominions under the British Crown after the American
Revolution. Those dominions fairly empty of natives (when compared to,
say, India or Burma) were settled by colonists carrying the Union Jack
who considered themselves British subjects – for the most part. This
phenomenon presents a flavor to their colonization and the formation
of their eventual sovereignties that is completely lost on most
Americans. You see, we Americans tend to think of the way we handled
colonizing (or "settling," in our historical parlance) the rest of our
part of North America as "normal;" which is certainly not the case.

Unlike such Brit-derived nations such as Canada or Australia, we
gained our independence early on and then became a colonizing force in
our own right. With the purchase of the Louisiana territory form
France during the Jefferson administration – for a whopping 2¢ an
acre! How's that for a deal? – we developed a philosophy known as
"Manifest Destiny." Manifest Destiny was the notion that the United
States, as a nation, would eventually extend from the Eastern Seaboard
to the West Coast; an achievable goal thanks the the Louisiana
Purchase. Unfortunately, this notion also gave most Americans a
feeling of entitlement, allowing them to rationalize the practice of
marching in and displacing natives left and right for the purposes of
settlement.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the Federal Government turned a myopic
eye to these shenanigans, which were in many ways in opposition to the
ideals of the Constitution.

Sidebar: the Federal Constitution is well worth reading, if you have
not already done so. If you haven't, you'll get to do so with [your daughter]
when it's time for her to take her proficiency tests in 7th grade.
Assuming you and your family are still in Illinois that is…

In any case the practices of the settlers and the hesitation of the
developing federal government lead to a disconnection of identity
between the settlers and the notion of being "American." This was not
such a big deal for states such as Illinois, which grew out of the
settlement of the Louisiana Purchase acreage: everyone submitted to
the statehood process without a peep because the land was explicitly
intended to be incorporated into the United States from the point of
sale on.

However, territories from outside this acreage (mostly stolen from
Mexico) were another story. Would you believe that California and
Texas were briefly their own separate countries for a while? It's
true! The California Republic and the Republic of Texas grudgingly
submitted to statehood out of necessity. They both needed help with
the damn pesky Indians and all the rambunctious displaced Mexicans,
and the U.S. Army was the only force with the resources to do
something about it.

But I digress…

The Late 19th Century/Early 20th Century Immigration Swell
Okay, this is where things get interesting; which is to say, more
recognizable as what America is like today.

Starting in the 1880s the United States experienced an influx of
immigrants for other regions of Europe and the rest of the world, most
noticeably Eastern and Mediterranean Europeans, Chinese and, of
course, the Irish. The still relatively homogeneous U.S.A. exhibited a
rather passive-aggressive reaction to this phenomenon. On the one hand
we accepted the gift of the Statue of Liberty from the French and
proudly displayed its welcome sign proclaiming we wanted the unwanted,
the "wretched refuse" of other lands. And as soon as we got them in we
put them to work under horrid conditions in factories and
slaughterhouses and shunned them as something almost worse than "the
Negro."

Out of necessity these immigrants settled into neighborhoods they made
their own. These became the famous ghettos of what is now yesteryear:
New York's Little Italy, Chicago's Bridgeport, and the Chinatowns
found in various major metropolitan areas. These ghettos became the
bedrock of the curious ethnic pride you seem to find so peculiar about
America, Mike. True, similar quasi-ethnically segregated communities
can be found in other countries – like Toronto's well-known Greektown
– but none have the same sense of ethnicity as being a link to
identity as one finds here in the States. This is due to a rather
interesting thing humans do when faced with rejection by society at
large: they will either change to assimilate into the greater whole or
reinforce and take pride in their difference as a means of succor and
survival. And this really has not changed all that much in the
intervening decades.

The Great War (World War I)
By the time things were getting hot and heavy in Europe during the
early 20th century, how "American" one was tended to be defined by how
long one's family has been in this country. This was usually deduced
by the ethnicity of one's family name – unless it was Anglicized by
choice or by accident at Ellis Island. Of course, this only applied if
one was white. Black? Latino? Asian? Oh, Sweet Jesus, let's not even
go there!

As the war on the Continent progressed, the U.S. went into business
and charity mode. We cheerfully sold arms and supplies to all players
in the conflict. Also, plenty of 2nd and 3rd generation
German-Americans were setting up charity funds and money-raising
events to support the Kaiser's war effort. And no one batted an eye.

Well, when the U.S. entered the war just in time to mop up the mess
(and look like heroes in the process), a small reawakening of the
notion of an American identity took place. Suddenly, German-Americans
were changing their names and/or shouting at the top of their lungs:
"Hey! My parents were Prussians, but I was born here! I'd never get
upset if some fat, inbred Hapsburgian aristocrat got his brains blown
out!"

But this, too, did not last all that long…

The Great Depression and World War II
Interestingly enough, when the Stock Market crashed and briefly
considered joining a monastery, it was the ghettos that held
themselves together better than the long "established" communities.
Thanks to the rampant xenophobia experienced by the more recent
immigrant groups, they had stronger social bonds and were already
heavily community-focused than their WASP (white anglo-saxon
protestant) counterparts. Unemployment was still a problem, but fewer
people went cold or hungry thanks to sharing of what was available.

The Second World War changed all that, of course. Once again, we went
in to clean up Europe, but this time we had Japan to contend with, as
well. This time, it was really personal.

As American soldiers traveled the various theatres of the war, they
found themselves identified by others as Americans. Not
German-Americans, not Italian-Americans, not Irish-Americans, but
simply Americans. Couple to this the use of the notions of the
Declaration of Independence – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness – as a focal point for Americans to rally around as we
battle the fascist totalitarians (hey! Let's conveniently ignore the
fact the Stalinist Soviet Union is our ally!) created again a renewed
sense of American identity. This sense of American identity during the
Forties and Fifties is probably the strongest it ever was in my
country's history.

And, once more, it was not to last.

The Cold War
After WWII, America became powerful, affluent, and on the move. The
ghettos began to dissolve and the suburbs began to grow. However, you
can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out
of the boy. Our never-ending pride in our ancestral, pre-immigration
heritage still holds us. It was during this period that the
development of ethnically themed restaurants with entertainment became
not a novelty item for WASPs, but cradles of nostalgia for average
Americans wanting to reacquaint themselves with "their roots." Never
mind the cultural practices of Italian-Americans do not really
resembles those of actual Italians. Never mind that corned beef is
originally a Jewish foodstuff. Never mind real sauerbraten would make
most German-Americans want to puke from the smell… it's all about what
we want to think life was like for our ancestors in "the Old Country"
and not think about the uncomfortable realities that drove them to our
shore in the first place. This, more than anything, [My Irish Buddy^TM], is what
makes it possible for your acquaintance to be a "professional
Irishman."

But let's get back on track.

During the Cold War we Americans came full circle with out identity.
Now we defined ourselves as "not being Communists." Which was an
unfortunate thing. It also meant the rest of the world started seeing
us as one of two bullies on the block – the other being the U.S.S.R. –
and sooner or later they would have to kow-tow to one of us.

But the Soviet Union collapsed. So where does that leave us today?

America is the New Rome, and We're the Only Game In Town (or so we
like to think)

How does the world see us?
In my opinion, the rest of the world, with some merit, sees us
Americans as fat, obnoxious, insensitive boors who own too much, want
too much, and use too much (SUVs and iPods, to name a few). We're seen
as God-obsessed and power-mad, thanks to our current president, and
not that much better than "the Terrorists" in that regard. We also
have an annoying tendency to not appreciate what we actually do have
via to the Constitution and capitalist innovation.

How do we see ourselves?
If you are to believe the news, we're all down-to-earth folk with
everyday lives, values and problems. We are a people of great faith
and great tolerance for those who are different from us, and we're
ready to place our initial trust in our fellow man. Think "fresh-faced
Midwestern farm boy/girl." In reality, it's our desperate attempt to
keep the Norman Rockwell mythos alive long after its corpse has become
so much worm [manure].

How I see us.
We are a nation that has always struggled to find our identity
practically since our inception. We still define ourselves by our
ethnic heritage, which is best left behind so we may embrace ourselves
as Americans. I am guilty of this myself. I find it hard not to
classify myself as "German-American" first… which is funny since I can
barely speak German!

At this point in my country's history, I see two groups that could be
considered truly representative of the "American identity." One is
actively reaching for that title. The other, I feel, is much truer,
but to disparate to ever rally for attention and mindshare.

Group 1: "Redneck Republicans"
These people are ones you've seen on T.V. and seen all around the
[local] area. The are hard drinkin', god-fearin', football-watchin',
country-&-western-music-listenin', [poop]-kickin', "I love my country!"
types. They to be rather ill-educated and ignorant, very involved in
their churches but not well-versed in the theology of their faith,
like their toys and tend to vote conservative in politics. They feel
they own the title "American" and are as a whole disturbingly
middle-to-upper class, Protestant and white. In other words, the
devolved descendants of the WASPs.

Group 2: "Constitutionalists"
This is my own ad hoc term for this group.

These are people like me who feel the Constitution is only thing that
really binds us together as a nation. People like me who feel the
Constitution is one of, if not the most, brilliant governmental
document ever composed. We tend to think of being American as "someone
who has a duty to understand our foundational documents and protect
them from abuses." We belong to all walks of life and faiths (or lack
thereof, in my case), and we tend to belong to watchdog groups that
seek to keep Constitutional abuses or disregards in check (ACLU, FFRF,
Americans United, People for the American Way, etc.)

But in the end we're a minority, which is ironic in that we tend to
value being Americans most of all. I also fear people like me are then
only thing that's keeping this country from turning into the horror
described in Sinclair Lewis' fine novel It Can't Happen Here. (Lewis,
by the way, was the author who stated that when fascism comes to
America it will be "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sound
like any politicians you've seen since coming here?)

Wrapping it up.
If you've gotten this far, thank you for putting up with this rant.

Once again, I don't claim to be an expert, but you got my wheels
spinning, and I needed something to do during this flight. I ran out
of reading material a while ago and if I look at another document for
[my boss], I'm going to strangle someone. This gave me some much-needed
diversion, and I got to use my noggin for something other than
technical or process issues, for a change, which is a great relief.
Believe me, it really is.

I also wrote this because you seem to have a genuine interest in what
I have to say… Bog help you, on that one.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this, and I look forward to your reaction
and comments at a later date.

Sincerely,
[The Dim Wit^TM]

Welcome to the Carnival of the Godless!

I learned about this from Orac's Respectful Insolence.

Now... what do I want to submit...?

Two Classic Statements of the Problem of Evil

The first, and earliest, is from Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to?
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?

The second, written by Hume (and my first exposure to the problem of evil), is a stronger formulation of the same argument:

"[Gods] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"

I've yet to hear someone refute this without relying on the tired cannard of "Free Will." After all, even if we have free will, God should still be helping us if he is capable, omnipotent, all-loving, blah-blah-blah...

Illinois Kids: Keepin' It Real

The "Moment of Silence" law in Illinois really rubs me the wrong way.

These kids don't like it either. It's nice to see them organizing a protest, making a point, and goofing off all at the same time.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dim Age Diary is proud to present "Moment of Silence... But Deadly"



(Kind of gives you hope for the future, don't it?)

8th Annual Fairy & Human Relations Congress: Fun! Magic! Family! Inspiriation!

As Dave Barry would write: I am not making this up.

Yes, the 8th Annual Fairy & Human Relations Congress is coming to North Cascades, WA, this summer, and I am once more fascinated with the human capacity to sincerely delude ourselves.

Eight years? How can this have been going on for eight years? Then again, I also can't understand how anyone could keep a conference dedicated to bigfoot going year after year.

Be that as it may, this is woo on a grandiose scale:

Though many deny the existence of the spiritual realms and the nature spirit/fairy/devic realm, the numbers of people who are tuning into these realms is increasing by leaps and bounds. The Fairy & Human Relations Congress is one of the vanguard events bringing these people together.

Ah, yes! A variation on the "so many people can't be wrong!" arguement combined with a touch of persecution complex. By the logic presented above, Scientology's claim of being a rapidly growing religion which is being unfairly treated by Germany must have merit! (Not! on both counts!)

Many humans, fairies, devas, angels and spiritual beings come together to create an outpouring of education and celebration. The fairy and devas who attend the Fairy Congress are spiritually advanced and very intelligent. We approach the fairies and devas with respect and love as co-creators of this event.

It is a rare event for humans to experience so much fairy energy and such an outpouring of fairy/devic blessings.

Participants are requested to tune into their fairy friends, angels and spirit-guides in the higher realms and invite them to the Congress.

We are all Light Beings and each of us has the potential to assist in the widening of communication between our realms, in cooperation with the great Deva Light Beings who work with all of Earth's plants, animals and life forms.

This is nothing more than a variation of turning to God and using the power of prayer to solve all problems. Rather than spending all that time and energy petitioning a temperamental spirit (or spirits), how about trying to figure out how to solve the problems ourselves? I mean, you can always credit God or the Fairies for your hard work and ingenuity afterwards, if it's really all that important to you..

Then again, I'm talking about applying logic to situations, a skill the participants in these fairy congresses clearly lack. For example, among the items listed on their "things to bring" page for the congress are such essentials as:

• Make lists, plan ahead and five yourself enough time
• Enjoy the drive
• We are blessed

I realize I'm being nit picky, here, but these items make no sense alongside "water bottle", "crystals", and "items for fairy altar."

But then again, what should I expect? The people attending this affair are not of the most rational and discerning mindset. After all the managers of this website are also fascinated with "orbs", a phenomenon anyone who's spent even a modicum of time taking digital photography seriously has encountered, investigated, and found the quite simple explanation. Unless they need to believe, in which case they will insist on having found the spirits of the dead.

But what's really sad is, a lot of people either passionately believe in fairies, or think that this congress is a bunch of kooks getting together for harmless fun. Me? I just find it sad, and a little worrisome. I mean, the only real difference between this and say, a group of people building a new utopia based on a shared spiritual outlook, is time and sophisticated centralized dogma. Then again, that's the same difference between this, and say, a church.

I give this fairy congress group another five to seven year before one of three things happens:

1. It fizzles out
2. It splinters into two or more competing congresses due to "spiritual differences" regarding the nature of faries
3. It consolidates into a more formal organization, heading towards churchhood (in which case the splintering factor is not far behind)

After all, is that not the fate of most religious systems?

So what are you thankful for?

Today is Thanksgiving, and Mrs. Wit and I are preparing to spend the majority of the day with family.

It's fairly well known and understood that the earliest versions of what we Americans (and Canadians) would recognize as a "thanksgiving celebration" (note the lower-case "t" in "thanksgiving") where end-of-the harvest celebrations. Examples of such celebrations can be found throughout the world and across a variety of cultures. But in these United States, we are taught to believe that thanksgiving properly has a capital "T" and had its origins in the pilgrims expressing their thanks to God for all their good fortune, and breaking bread with the local Native Americans, who were gosh darn chummy with the colonists. Kind of gives you a nice nostalgic image of the two groups gorging themselves on turkey, maize and bread; after which the goodwives and squaws set about cleaning the dishes while the pilgrim men and braves, bloated and slowly sinking into a food coma, sat back to watch a lacrosse game.

Well, I want to look at what Thanksgiving is supposed to be, what others want us to believe it is, and what it has actually become.

What it is supposed to be.

The United States of America has had several proclamations of a "national day of thanksgiving," but as a proper holiday it did not exist until the FDR administration set it as the fourth Thursday in November in 1939. Prior to that, it was set by presidential proclamation... and such proclamations only happened sporadically until Abraham Lincoln set the last Thursday in November as a "prayerful day of Thanksgiving." After ol' Abe set the benchmark, the Office of the President has made an annual declaration of a National Day of Thanksgiving. All of them talk about how hard we have worked as a nation, about how we should show gratitude for what we have, and give thanks to Almighty God for what we have.

And I can deal with that. I can even accept the "thank Almighty God" part as lip service to the God Believing Voters out there. But what does it mean to be "thankful," which is the core concept behind this holiday of ours?

For an answer, I consulted one of my favorite online resources: Ask Oxford. Say what you will, the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language is considered the standard for definitions of words in what is arguably the lingua franca of Earth.

Ask Oxford defines "thankful" as:

1. pleased and relieved
2. expressing gratitude
   

Hey, this is pretty cool! We'll come back to this in a little bit.

What others want us to believe it is.

If you choose to believe such self-appointed monitors of moral righteousness as Jim Dobson's Focus on the Family and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, the Annual American Turkey Feast is primarily supposed to be about worshipping God and thanking him for all the wonderful things in our lives.

Pardon me. I think I'm having an intestinal cramp.

Oh, wait, sorry. That was just my normal reaction to having read two web articles written (ostensibly) by two Fundamentalist Theocratic Nether Orifices who, when you examine their theology in the cold light of reason, are not that much better than the Taliban. But I digress...

Okay, so Focus on the Family and CBN want us to kneel down to an ineffable omnipresent being who has had more personality changes than Sybil for the turkey, the sweet potatoes, and positive aspects of our lives.

Give me a break.

If we look at the definition of "thankful," above, you might notice something missing from both definitions: God.

I can be pleased and relieved today that no one in my family has died or suffered some tragic loss. I can also be pleased and relieved at the engagements and marriages in my circle of peers, and the births of gurgling babies to my more distant relations. But I don't need to drag God into the whole thing.

And I've already expressed gratitude to my wife for making the fabulous cranberry cheesecake we'll be taking to the table, later today. And I'll more than likely express my gratitude to her (again) for deeming me worthy enough to marry. And I'll be expressing my gratitude to my wonderful in-laws, and I'll be ever so grateful to human ingenuity for developing the agricultural technologies and practices that will allow us to overstack the dining room table and kitchen counters to the point of breaking. And again, I don't see how God has to fit into the entire equation.

In fact, I really appreciate no longer having the burden of imagining an eternal, petty judge looking down upon me and evaluating every move I make and every thought I have. I'm grateful most of all to myself for now being able to look upon the world as it truly is, warts and all, and find it a more beautiful and wondrous place than could ever be painted by pontiffs and preachers.

We, as a species, have enough holidays which we can use to thank God for whatever we want to thank him for, if we are so inclined. I'd just like to take this day to appreciate the good things in my life for their own sake, and nothing more. Yeah, the argument can be made that God makes all these things possible, but that's presupposing God exists. Give me a preponderance of empirical, independently verifiable proof of a supreme being who has cause over our lives, and then we can talk.

In the mean time, as for me and my house, we'll appreciate the people around us and the tangible and intangible things we can give each other: a smile, a hug, another dollop of mashed potatoes and gravy, unconditional love, etc.

What it has become.

Let's face it: Thanksgiving, like New Year's, is a more or less secular holiday in this nation of ours, despite the religious rhetoric contained in the various presidential proclamations. When we talk about Thanksgiving among our friends, relatives and co-workers, what do we really communicate?

• Travel to see family, sometimes family that is geographically distant (usually for reasons of another kind of distance)
• Having to deal with family you are obligated to see on such a holiday, but would otherwise ignore (see the preceding bullet point)
• A big ass feast involving mass quantities of poultry and starch (how many of us call it "Turkey Day?")
• And, most importantly, it is the starting gun for western capitalism's High Holy Days, the Christmas Shopping Season.
  

No, I don't like it, either, but let's at least be honest about it.

If we can openly acknowledge - and, more importantly, accept - these truths about Thanksgiving, it will be much easier for us as a people to start making it something more, again. Something about being thankful.

Not thankful for some non-existent uber-daddy in the sky. But rather something more important. More here and now. Something we can reach out, touch, know is there and let it know how much we care.

Let's be thankful for each other.

Please allow me to introduce myself...

Last Friday I woke up late and rushed myself out the door to get to work

In my hurry, I grabbed a sweatshirt from the drawer (Friday is "casual day") and threw it on. It was a gray sweatshirt, and so assumed it was the cheesy one I got from my workplace last year on "Employee Appreciation Day." Every year we worker bees get an article of clothing, emblazoned from the company logo, from our employer. Last year, it was a said sweatshirt with the logo stitched on in an almost florescent orange thread.

If I had taken a moment to look in the mirror before running to the car and gunning the engine, I would have noticed I grabbed the wrong sweatshirt.

I'm an atheist. I am also a skeptic and a freethinker. If you don't know what those are, read a book. (Or maybe I'll define them in a later posting.) My wife also falls into these categories.

What has this got to do with anything?

Keep reading and you'll see.

Being atheists, skeptics and freethinkers, we took time off from our jobs and journeyed to Madison, Wisconsin, last month to participate in the 30th annual convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization to which we both belong.

While there, we had a grand time. We met some really cool people - like PZ Myers, whose "Pharyngula" blog is a favorite of mine - and listened to some of the keener minds of our time. I'll let PZ's assessment of the convention speak for me, if you are interested in a report on the overall affair.

While at the convention, we bought too many books and a large gray sweatshirt for myself. This particular sweatshirt has the word "Infidel" on the front on large and friendly black letters. I loved it!

And that was the one I grabbed as I headed out to work, this morning. I did not realize my mistake until I parked my car at work and reached for my briefcase and caught the word "Infidel" in my rear-view mirror.

I looked down at my chest to double-check and sighed. I was in a bit of a predicament.

My workplace, I'm sad to say, is not an environment where the values of logic and reason aren held in high esteem. It's an unwritten rule there that to get into the upper echelons management you have to be a fundie Christian. There's also a bit of a double-standard regarding personal expression: many of my co-workers openly display their little crosses and fish symbols and "inspirational literature" on the walls of their cubes quite openly.

I tried using a "Darwin fish" mouse pad and was forced by my boss to conceal it within half an hour... she did not want me to start a scene.

So I stared at the word "Infidel" on my chest and wondered if I really wanted to wander into my Christian workplace with such a potentially inflammatory piece of clothing on me. Di I really want to do this in a workplace where:

• My boss openly declared to me that she no longer "believes in the efficacy of the scientific method" when I asked her to start seeing a doctor about her asthma (rather than the "Chinese medicine" practitioner she now sees)
• Her boss openly keeps a Bible and several concordances in his office alongside his management materials.
• And a VP who used the death of an employee last year as an opportunity to witness for Jesus to someone on staff who is Jewish (she got rather upset about that).
  

No. I would not normally chose to wear such a controversial piece of clothing to work. But once I realized I had done it, I set my teeth and resolved to get through the day, rather than hide it.

Besides, if I drove back home to change, I was going to be late for work. And I hate being late for work.

Well, the day went without much of a hitch. Several co-workers complimented the sweatshirt and did so sincerely. One of them was a Muslim(!), which made me feel good. My boss, it turned out, took PTO that day, so I did not get called into her office.

A lot of True Believers on staff, however, did notice but said nothing. As I expected: direct confrontation is no longer an offended person's way, in my opinion. I'm sure they have complained to their superiors rather than express their disapproval to me directly. My boss will be back in the office tomorrow. I'm sure she'll have words for me then.

So who am I and why am I doing this?

I'm just a working schlub in the Midwest trying to make it through life with his wife. I'm educated, well-employed, and hope to start a family one day. My wife is educated, ambitious, and running her own fairly successful business.

We work hard, we pay our taxes, we are actively involved in our community, and we believe that the United States of America is one of the greatest nations ever to develop on the face of the Earth and are proud to be among its citizens.

But we don't believe in God. And we don't like to take things at face value.

In President Bush II's U.S.A. this makes us suspicious and un-American. Kind if like "communists" during the McCarthy Era. Not that I'm drawing any comparisons, or anything. (*Cough!*)

I'm doing this because there are a lot of sequestered nonbelievers like me in this country. We doubt, we question, or we just don't believe... but if we express it, or express it too much, we are sanctioned by our fellows and, worse yet, pitied by those whose minds are so closed an entire case of WD-40 would not let an independent, critical thought slip through. I'm doing this because I need to express to a wider audience my frustration and dismay at the world slipping into a new Dim Age^TM.

Not a Dark Age. A Dim Age^TM.

The Dark Ages resulted from the collapse of the Roman Empire, the intellectual, technological and civic infrastructure of Europe. It fell away and barbarians squabbled amongst themselves and fought bloody wars among themselves for who gets to own what piece of land or who sits upon what throne on what piece of land.

This Dim Age^TM is different. We still have the intellectual, technological and civic infrastructure that makes this nation great (read "educational and governmental systems"), but there have been forces active almost since the beginning - and steadily gaining steam and power since the days of Barry Goldwater - to chip away at science and reason in education and erode the Bill of Rights in the name of Providence or God or Jesus or whatever you want to call it. We are willfully turning down the light. Or, at least, we are passively allowing others to try to blow out that "candle in the dark," as the late great Carl Sagan called it. And I can't stand it much longer.

So why are you remaining anonymous?

For one thing, I'd like to keep my job. I don't think I would get fired if it got out into the general population that I am an atheist (a few co-workers know, already), but work would become generally uncomfortable. And outside the religious nonsense, I do really like my employer.

More importantly, my wife's business would suffer. She's an independent music teacher, and due to where we live an inordinate number of her clientele are deeply religious. We lived together for a year before we married, and just "living in sin" cost her some customers. If it got out we are atheists? Her business would collapse and she would have to go back to contracting with several music schools in the area, working much longer hours for a good deal less money. That would be unfair to us and unfair to the children she teaches. And the children have become very attached to her.

And sadly, I've known too many Christians who would take personal joy in watching a pair of godless heathens such as us suffer so, regardless of the damage to us or anyone else.

That doesn't mean I'm living in fear that my identity will be discovered. I'm anonymous, for now, and maybe one day I'll reveal my identity. Or maybe I'll be ousted by someone on the net who sees this as a challenge or wants to be annoying. As with the sweatshirt, I'll deal with it when the time comes, setting my teeth and getting through the day.

And it won't all be serious stuff on this blog. There will be irreverence. And jocularity.

And even cocktails.

Welcome to my Dim Age Diary^TM.