Heaving Dead Cats » rant

JFK Had the Right Idea

Johnny — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:19:31 +0000

I stumbled upon a transcript on the National Public Radio site awhile-back. It was a speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1960, given to a group of Protestant ministers a few months before the election. JFK was a devout Catholic, but he was also had a solid understanding of the separation of church and state; this speech has some excellent excerpts that exemplify this. JFK was the first Catholic elected president, and during the elections other religious groups (primarily the Protestant group) were concerned about rumors that he would send an ambassador to the Vatican and be taking direction from the Pope. As it turned-out, it was Reagan who established the first ambassador to the Vatican in 1984.

So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

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; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts 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 or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

If only politicians today would take this view, instead of attacking that wall of separation.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Truly he was a politician who understood the founding of our county; for although beliefs of our founding fathers may have varied, they knew that the success of the nation depended upon religious freedom, and to have religious freedom you must have separation of church and state.

You can find the full speech transcript on NPR’s site.

Vaccines In The News Again

Johnny — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:39:08 +0000

The HPV vaccine has jumped into the news again as the UK reports their first death following a vaccination.

The US (and western world in general) has already been struggling with vaccines, and this could make things more difficult in the UK. With all the claims of vaccines linked to autism, Jenny McCarthy’s wild-ass claims, and Muslims stopping the distribution of the polio vaccination — there’s a lot of pseudoscience, superstition, and urban legends up against vaccines.

Then there is the religious angle against the HPV vaccine. Because the human papillomavirus is a sexually transmitted disease, the abstinence-only proponents think giving a girl this vaccine gives her the go-ahead to be promiscuous.

It will be interesting to see what kind of media attention resurfaces from this; but I can already see the email or Facebook posts flying around again, claiming how bad this vaccine is, and possibly how bad all vaccines are. So in an attempt to arm you with knowledge before you even get that email or see someone post it on Facebook, here are some facts for you to counter with.

As of 01 June 2009, over 25 million doses had been administered in the US. Of those, 14,072 (0.05%) reported side effects; meaning 99.95% were free of side effects.
Of those with side effects, 13,087 (93%) were non-serious (like fainting, pain and swelling at the injection site, headache, nausea, and fever); all common side effects of any injection.
Of those with side effects, 985 (7%) were serious, and of them 43 deaths were reported. This means of the 25 million vaccinated, 0.00172% died after receiving the vaccination (not necessarily because of the vaccination).
Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year.
At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.
The American Cancer Society estimates 11,070 women diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. in 2008.
HPV-related cancers (estimates from 2008):
- 3,460 women diagnosed with vulvar cancer
- 2,210 women diagnosed with vaginal and other female genital cancers
- 1,250 men diagnosed with penile and other male genital cancers
- 3,050 women and 2,020 men diagnosed with anal cancer
According to a 2002 study, approximately 4500 deaths per year in the US, and over 200,000 deaths world wide are results of or linked to a form of cervical cancer.

In the US the CDC and the FDA continue to recommend the Gardasil vaccination, because it does prevent 4 types of HPV; and because the risk of adverse side effects is very low.

“As of June 1, 2009, there have been 43 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine. Twenty six of these reports have been confirmed, 9 are still under investigation, and 8 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. Confirmed reports are those that scientists have followed up on and have verified the claim. In the 26 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine.”

Besides the links above, I also pulled information from here, here, and here.

What do you think? Any thoughts? Personal stories? Rants?

+++++ +++++ +++++ UPDATE +++++ +++++ +++++

“Imagine No Religion” is Blasphemous?

Johnny — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:39:34 +0000

Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF.org) recently put up a billboard near Pell City, Alabama. One of their classics, modifying a line from one of John Lennon’s songs: “Imagine No Religion.”

The sign is located on east-bound I-20 just past the Pell City exit. Atheist billboards really are nothing new, especially to those of us in the atheist community. What makes this one notable is that it is believed to be a first in Alabama; and is one of a very few in a bible-belt state. Eleanor Strote commented “A lot of people didn’t even know there was an atheist group in town. And they do now.”

FFRF local chapter president, Pat Cleveland said it is not meant to be a recruiting tool, but meant to inform. “There are people of no religion in Alabama. I’m one of them.” This is a way to let atheists, agnostics, and non-believers know there is a group for them in the bible-belt, “more like a member information campaign.”

The local news coverage tries to sound unbiased, but when they refer to the billboard as ‘impious‘ and ‘irreverent‘ its obvious even they are against it. Shall we take a look at how Atheist [Bus & Billboard] Campaign got started? FFRF placed their first billboard in Wisconsin in October 2007. However the real ‘war’ started after JesusSaid.org ran bus advertisements inviting people to their website (in mid-2008). Upon visiting the website, people were greeted with the bold statement that “all non-Christians would burn in hell for all eternity.” Way to be respectful, pious, and reverent there Christians!

Ariane Sherine coined a response, and launched the campaign in October 2008. The initial response and one of the most popular, started running on 800 buses in the UK in January of 2009: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Since then FFRF has stepped-up their billboard placement, and several other organization have also started running billboards and bus ads. Several have met resistance; most have weathered the fight though.

Would you expect any less for this latest? Especially being located in the bible-belt. Here’s what makes this story different, probably the one of the last persons you would expect to take offense: a local gay man who was ostracized and booted from church.

Joseph Weldon has started a petition asking the Alabama Freethought Association to removed the billboard prior to their paid for time (through July 31st). Thankfully a petition for something like this really does nothing but allow him the opportunity to whine, and draw more attention to it. A petition might work to let a company know their consumers are dissatisfied; but in this case AFA and FFRF already knew there were people that wouldn’t like the billboard. All the petition does is give them a list of names of the people that don’t like it; the petition will not convince them to take down the billboard.

What is really pathetic is how skewed this guy’s view is. “You know, you see church billboards all up and down the interstate inviting people to come pray with them and listing service times, things like that.” Okay, so he acknowledges those, and apparently doesn’t have a problem with them; but a non-religious billboard is a different story. “I didn’t really pay any attention to it at first, but then after I read about it in the newspaper, I found it really offensive.” Seriously?! Its a line from a song. Theoretically it should invoke a thought provoking exercise for the imagination.

He has also made the petition available online via MySpace. This is even better, because we all know online petitions work the best.

“I’ve spoken to many, many people, and all of them felt offended. It’s just really inappropriate.” This guy is so stupid he doesn’t realize he keeps contradicting himself. “Everyone should respect everyone else’s beliefs and opinions.”

Joseph considers himself more spiritual than religious, and does not attend church. “I’m also gay, and when I came out, I was asked to leave my church.” So let’s play the image game prompted by the billboard. Imagine a world with no religion Joseph, in that world you would not have been shunned and ostracized from your community for being born different than the majority. Seems to me like that might be a better world for you Joseph.

“Alabama is a Southern state. Most people here do believe in God, and religion is a part of the culture. Having this billboard up there over the interstate feels like a slap in the face. It’s blasphemous, but they don’t see that because they don’t believe.” Blasphemous? Really? If you noted the biased descriptions from the news team mentioned above, you might find the definition humorous: blasphemous (adjective) impiously irreverent. “Saying ‘Imagine No Religion,’ is blasphemous to me.”

Joseph thinks atheist and freethinker groups should advertise themselves like churches. Atheism is not a religion! Non-belief is not a belief. Bald is not a hair color. And not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

[UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center

Johnny — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:06:54 +0000

How irresponsible and wasteful! No matter which side of the political teater-totter you sit on, most of us aren’t happy with the current financial situation; both in the economy and in the government. I’m no financial whiz, but I know that right now the government should not be spending thousands (or more likely tens of thousands) of dollars of tax payer money to add a few engravings to the United States Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) (Wikipedia Entry | Official Site).

Construction of the CVC started in 2000, and was completed and opened to the public in December 2008. The CVC provides a central hub for tourists visiting the capitol; on average 8000 people visit the capitol per day and you can bet most of them go through the CVC. The CVC is an addition to the United States Capitol and also serves as expansion space for the US Congress.

Republicans have criticized the center for what they view as insufficient coverage of American religious heritage. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina said that the CVC fails to “appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success.” Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has begun a petition seeking to more prominently recognize religion at the Center. [SOURCE]

So California Republican, Congressman Dan Lungren has picked up the flag of religion, and put forth a resolution that goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Before the August recess, a resolution will be voted on by the House of Representatives that will require the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the words “In God We Trust” and the post-1954 Pledge of Allegiance onto the walls of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). References to religion and faith are already included in several of the permanent exhibits, and the words “In God We Trust” are even present in one such exhibit. But that’s not enough for Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) who is pushing for a larger, bolder display.

The resolution is labeled “H. Con. Res. 131″ and titled “Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of “In God We Trust” in the Capitol Visitor Center.” Summary information can be found here; and the full text can be found here.

So they are complaining that the CVC does not include the religious heritage (aka: the religious founding) of the United States. Even though several of the exhibits include references to the religion and faith of the United States. Even though the current exhibits creep close to violation of the First Amendment, they want to add the national motto, and the most recent version of the Pledge of Allegiance. Both of which are not part of the founding of the United States; and both of which directly violate the First Amendment.

The Pledge of Allegiance was not even written until 1892, one-hundred-sixteen years after the founding. The original version did not include “under God” – that was not added until 1954, only fifty-five years ago. “In God We Trust” was not made the official motto until 1956, fifty-three years ago.

Building the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) has already cost American taxpayers millions of dollars and serves as the entrance point for visitors who wish to tour the Capitol. It was built to teach visitors about our nation’s history and the construction of the Capitol Building, not to promote religion. Since it was not until the 1950s that “under God” was added to the Pledge and “In God We Trust” replaced “E Pluribus Unum” as the national motto, these phrases should have no place in the Center.

Not only does Rep. Dan Lungren want to further violate the First Amendment with a misconceived view of this country’s founding; but he wants to spend thousands of our tax dollars to do it.

The Secular Coalition for America has a ready-to-go-letter that you can send to your representative. Let them know you think this is a poor use of tax-payer money, and does not uphold the separation of church and state.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

+++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
UPDATE

The House and Senate both passed the resolution.

Lawsuit seeks to block ‘In God We Trust’ engraving

Happy Treaty of Tripoli Day!

Johnny — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:11:50 +0000

The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated while George Washington was president; eventually ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 7th, 1797; and then signed by President John Adams on June 10th, 1797. Although this treaty is no longer in effect today, Article 11 provides some significant insight into the infancy of the United States as a nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This ratification by the Senate was recorded as one of the few unanimous votes be the Senate (339 votes taken). Additionally the entire treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York newspapers. There is no evidence of any government or public opposition to the terms of the treaty.

This isn’t like some of the 100-plus-page bills that go to the Senate today, where they might sneak this paragraph in somewhere. The Treaty of Tripoli is a single page.

In my opinion this is a clear indication of what our founding fathers, the government, and the public in-general thought. To maintain “freedom of religion” the government must remain “free from religion.”

We recently saw President Obama reference the Treaty of Tripoli; and many people gasped that a modern-day politician had even heard of it. Unfortunately he skipped over that first sentence in Article 11, but did point out that “the Government of the United States of America…has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Muslims].”

There are a few separation of church and state advocates urging people to update their Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, or other social-site status to remind everyone of today’s anniversary.

—– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–

Since we are on this topic, I’d like to briefly hit on some of the arguments I’ve heard as to why people think the U.S. was established as a Christian nation. Neece had a Separation of Church and State post awhile back, and illustrates a nice example of how it benefits everyone (both religious and non-religious). I want to focus on some of the individual arguments though.

The laws of the U.S. are based on the ten commandments.

How many of the commandments do we have equivalent laws for? So many religious people argue this case without thinking about it long enough to realize. Of the biblical ten commandments, only TWO are laws: 20%. Thou shall not kill and Thou shall not steal. Some people argue a third, Thou shall not bear false witness because of perjury laws; but outside of a courtroom you can lie without legal repercussions so you can’t really count it.

Say you work at a company that says they have based their entire employee policy from a management book that the president of the company once read. Then you go through the employee policy handbook and compare it to the original management book. You find that only about 20% of the message from the original book actually made it into the policy handbook. Yet the handbook has a multitude of additional policies never covered in the original book. Would you personally conclude that the handbook was based on the original? Or would you conclude ideas might have been taken from the original, but they just as likely came from another source?

What about the fact that “don’t kill” and “don’t steal” are the two most basic universal laws in every society; even those that have never been exposed to the Bible, and especially those who predated the Bible.

The founding fathers referred to “God” in the Constitution.

This one is great because it illustrates that they don’t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence has “God” appear once, and “Creator” appear once; but neither appear in the Constitution.

…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

Neither of these refer to Jesus, and neither specify the judeo-christian god Yahweh; in fact this is very similar to the language used by deists of the time (which leads to our next claim).

The founding fathers were all Christian.

There were many founding fathers who were Christian, but there were many who were agnostic or deists; some would probably be considered atheist by today’s standards (or with today’s scientific knowledge). More importantly the majority agreed in opposing the idea of christianity or any religion being allowed in government.

Thomas Jefferson was an openly admitted deist. He believed in a generic ‘Creator’ that created the world, and then left man to his own devices; he did not believe in the judeo-christian god and openly stated that the church had twisted religion for its own gain.

George Washington, although being a practicing Christian, is speculated by many to have been a deist; he repeatedly avoids using ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ in speech and text, instead only referencing the ‘Creator.’

Benjamin Franklin was also a deist who thought the church had it wrong and was corrupt besides; and often expressed philosophies that would be considered atheist by today’s standards.

The Presidential Oath of Office has the president swear on the Bible “So help me God.”

Neither the Bible nor the phrase “So help me God” are required parts of the oath of office. For early presidents it was common place to say a prayer after completing the oath; although others might have said it, Chester A. Arthur is the first president officially on record having ended his oath with “I will, so help me God.” Another interesting tid-bit here is that since it is not part of the oath, it is technically illegal for the Chief Justice to say it; the president has the option, but the Chief Justice shouldn’t prompt it. Something else of interest with the most recent oath, since the Chief Justice botched it so badly at the inauguration it was considered possibly invalid; so President Obama retook the oath the morning of the 21st, and did it without a Bible.

The founding fathers created “In God We Trust” as a national motto and put it on money. Besides that they put “under God” in the Pledge.

I really love this one too, because so few people realize how “young” these are. Any reference to God was not placed on money for the specific reason that it could be seen as the government backing a form of religion. “In God We Trust” did not appear on money until 1864. After the Civil War is was a popular sentiment for church leaders to point to the nation moving away from God as the reason for the war. This lead to many appeals written to the government; among these were direct appeals to the Secretary of the Treasury stating that the US currency should display that the US is a “god fearing” country. So on April 22, 1864, Congress passed an Act (that over turned several other Acts, and ultimately went against the Constitution), directing that “In God We Trust” be stamped on two-cent coins. In March of 1865 they passed an Act allowing all coins to be minted with the motto.

The Pledge of Allegiance was not even written until 1892, and “under God” was not added until 1954. “In God We Trust” was not made the official motto until 1956.

—– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–

So what other arguments have you heard?

Getting Sick of Militant christians In My Family

Neece — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:43:21 +0000

I just reactivated my Facebook account. (please befriend me, if you like! I’m Neece Campione over there. Just let me know you’re from here!) So much of my family seems to only converse by Facebook these days, so I gave in and finally went back to it. If you can’t beat ‘em…. Oh jeez… I just got a fever and reactivated my Twitter account too (ZeNeece over there) oh the madness!

ANYHOO… where was I? Oh, yeah. Facebook and family. What’s the deal with everyone being so god this, jesus that lately? And they’re so in-my-face about it. I am pretty sure they all know I’m an atheist. Where’s the respect? Why can’t they tone it down? It’s incredibly – dare I say it – offensive to me to have to be bombarded with this sheeple thinking every day. My friends are all atheists (how interesting, don’t you think? LOL), but the family… they’re unbearable. In the last week, every conversation with them has involved their invocation of their holy lord and savior, all to my irritation.

Now, I know you will probably disagree with me, but I haven’t said a word to any of them. I’ve politely ignored the pleas that I pray for them or the requests for a miracle to save them from their bad situations (which they got themselves into … sans god). Being on Facebook really has it in my face even more. They want to chat with me all day and it seems that the invocations to god come fast and furious. It’s maddening. Or the stuff they leave on their pages – it’s like swimming in a pool of religious hallmark cards, and all the papercuts that would cause.

I know that this is my fault. I’ve kept my mouth shut all these years and now they just walk all over me. One of them actually gets really frustrated and snippy with me when I say happy holidays instead of merry christmas. She goes on and on about putting the christ back in christmas all through december. Unbearable. Oh, I should mention, 98% of these family members are in-laws. Yeah, that’s probably important, isn’t it?

So, I feel like I’ve reached a crossroads. Granted, it’s my fault for indulging them for so long. But how do I restore my sanity now? Do I say, ‘HEY, you are all idiots! There’s no invisible sky daddy!” Ok, that’s a bit harsh. Um, do I post pro-atheist stuff all over my facebook page? Hmm, that’s so passive aggressive, and easy for them to ignore, which would leave me where I am now.

I want to be nice and respectful. But no one is respecting me. I’m so sick of their god being thrown in my face all the time. I have a feeling that most of them will be offended by any little thing I do or say, then will pointedly ignore that it was said, and just shout jesus-isms from the rooftops even louder.

So I’m asking for your help. Like I said, I am pretty sure most of them already know I’m an atheist. I give them respect but get none in return. How do I get some sanity back? Is it even possible? Or do I have to just become a hermit in a shack in the woods, and get myself a nice old typewriter? I’m so frustrated!

Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant

Neece — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:41:26 +0000

You know, this seems to be a serious point of contention these days. The majority of sheeple toddling around on their cell phones, driving their SUV’s, barely doing their jobs, letting TVs raise their kids, all seem to be proud of their ignorance in different areas. Here are just a few:

Philosophy (in this sense I am referring to morality, beliefs, etc)
Science
Math
Computers
Critical Thinking, Logic and Reason
Finance and Banking
The Concept of Responsibility

Now I’m not all saying we need to be Socrates, Einstein, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist all rolled into one. But understanding the world around us is pretty important. Also how we think and what we believe is critical to how we make decisions. It’s also important to understand that even if we’re ignorant of something, we can still be personally responsible for our actions.

My parents weren’t very good at raising kids, to be honest. But my grandparents (on summer vacations) and public school took the time to teach me basic manners, a bit of common sense, the concept of cause and effect, personal responsibility for my behavior, basic money handling, and I got a good foundation in science and math at school as well.

I sometimes deal with younger people and they don’t seem to have any respect for knowledge, information or learning. They seem to refuse to be personally responsible. And the idea of thinking logically is as alien as an 8 track tape player.

When did it become cool to be so freaking ignorant? When did everyone collectively stop thinking for themselves? I’d say it’s just the youth of today, but I know many people my age and even older that refuse to think about their own belief systems or how they see the world. Most people are quite content to let a priest or pastor tell them what their morals are.

And if someone is any older than me, they are proud to eschew technology when it suits them. They refuse to learn to understand their computers. Yet they all still use their cell phones while driving their big SUVs.

Is it all about convenience? The lowest common denominator thinking? I know that’s how TV is these days. It’s the sludge that has settled to the bottom that seems to sell the best so that’s what’s served up and dished out to people. And they eat it up! Then again, I watched Three’s Company and the Dukes of Hazzard, so maybe I can’t talk. But back then that’s all there was. Now what’s our excuse?

I see the way things have gone for the past few years, and then recently with all those ridiculous bailouts. We just keep rewarding people and corporations and CEO’s for failing. We accept their lame blaming excuses and then hand them whatever they want with extra whipped cream on top.

I don’t understand. It seems like a slippery slope of irresponsibility and cultivated ignorance. Can it ever stop? Is it like some perverse form of reverse evolution? How can we become a society of happy, responsible, empathetic, intelligent, thoughtful people?

Ha! I know… I’m crazy for even thinking such radical ideas!

Heaving Dead Cats » rant

JFK Had the Right Idea

Related posts

Vaccines In The News Again

Related posts

“Imagine No Religion” is Blasphemous?

Related posts

[UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center

Related posts

Happy Treaty of Tripoli Day!

Related posts

Getting Sick of Militant christians In My Family

Related posts

Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant

Related posts