It's a good thing that good people do good things for reasons other than monetary reward or other personal gain because, as the saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Okay, maybe that is a little extra cynical, but the current federal "Cash For Clunkers" program sure does seem to prove that old adage. It might be better framed, in this case, as "No bad deed goes unrewarded."
What the Cash For Clunkers program does is reward people -- to the tune of $4500 -- for past car-buying behavior that hurts the environment (and other aspects of life in the real world). If you have previously lacked the intelligence or common sense or compassion or sense of responsibility to buy a car that gets decent fuel mileage, you can now get a cash reward for that behavior. Positive reinforcement for negative behavior. It's like giving the well-behaved kids in a rowdy classroom detention while the bad kids go for ice cream.
Of course, we live in the real world, where Pavlovian behavioral patterns have to be accepted as a real part of the animal nature of humans. Evolution has built our brains in layers, from primitive to advanced, and those primitive parts run the show in many (probably most) humans. So you need to have doggie-bone-like rewards if you want people to behave well. Ring-ring!
Our two cars don't qualify for the trade-in cash reward, although they would qualify as cars to buy under this program. Damn.
For those of you driving high-MPG cars: Try not to get pissed off or too angry as the federal government gives your tax dollars (borrowed from foreigners until you or your kids or grandkids can afford to pay up) to people who are not as responsible as you. Take some solace in the fact that you are ahead of the curve and perhaps a little less Neanderthal than many folks.
Here's the web site for the program: http://www.cashforclunkers.com/index.htm
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I Tried to Ignore This Bit of Treason, But Just Couldn't.
Below is a recent op-ed piece by Chuck Norris (yes, Walker Texas Ranger, and the guy on the late-night infomercials). These days, when Chuck isn't selling exercise equipment‚ he's not kicking the hell out of bad guys. No, these days, he's kicking the hell out of the US Constitution and the ideals for which America stands.
Please take some time to read his column below. I will address some of his points below (addressing all the errors would -- quite literally -- require writing a book).
"I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion."
Really... let's see about that.
"...those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitors Center, or CVC, in Washington, D.C."
That's simply what is known as rhetoric. Actually, here's what the First Amendment says about this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Let's break this down a little here:
1. The First Amendment deals with Congress making federal law. That's the first thing you need to realize. It doesn't apply to anything else. You don't have a "right" to just say whatever you want anywhere at any time. In this case, Congress passed a law specifying the inclusion of a specific god on a government, taxpayer-funded, facility. Not all gods, a specific god.
2. The Founding Fathers were horribly aware of what happens when a religion gets governmental power. For instance, King George was not only the head of the British government, he was also head of the state church. This nation was initially colonized (at Plymouth) by people trying to escape persecution from that Christian government (And they, somewhat ironically -- yet predictably -- proceeded to carry on the Christian traditions of religious intolerance, oppression, violence and genocide when they got here). The other initial colonization, in Virginia, was state-sponsored and included the official state religion. The Christian traditions were carried on there, too, as anyone other than an Anglican (and even Anglicans who weren't quite Anglican enough) suffered from the usual traditional Christian recipe of oppression and abuse. This carried on right into the days of the American Revolution. Not long beforehand, Alexander Hamilton (AKA "The Father of the Constitution") worked to help stop the imprisonment and human rights abuses leveled at Baptists by the Anglican establishment. Mixing religion and politics was realized as a bad thing by many at the time (adherents to the majority religion tend not to acknowledge that). If you want to understand why freedom of religion, especially expressed as a separation of church and state, is so important, study the religious happenings of colonial America (yes, the witch burnings, but a bunch more than that).
As far as "eliminat[ing] or revis[ing] America's religious heritage," there's no desire on the part of the FFRF to do that. The track record of the actions of religionists is exactly what causes people to realize what a detriment religion is to humanity. This why rationalists/humanists/ atheists/Brights/etc. encourage education and critical thinking skills, and why people like you oppose it.
The revisionist shoe is on the other foot, as we will see shortly.
"In July, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions, approving the engravings of the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in CVC – 580,000 square feet facility under the Capitol where 15,500 guests visit each day."
Yes, where 15,500 impressionable people visit and take the engravings on public buildings as being statements of governmental stances. Absolutely, Chuck. Thank you. Please see the discussion of the First Amendment above.
"The YouTube video of Rep. Forbes addressing the House on this matter ("Our Judeo Christian Nation") has received to date more than 2.5 million hits, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history."
He is citing YouTube as a source of legitimacy. Do I even need to comment on that?
"Forget for a moment the fact that the national motto is on all of our currency."
Speaking of forgetting, Chuck: You forgot to mention the source of this "national motto." Was it the Declaration of Independence? Nope. Was it the Constitution? Nope. Any of the works of the Founding Fathers? Nope. Actually, Congress passed that law in 1956, in the midst o the Cold War/McCarthyism era. Religionists strike when their enemies are weak or otherwise occupied. Speaking of which...
Chuck, you forgot to mention the motto on the first US coinage, from 1792. It read: "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry." Now why would you leave that out, Chuck? Maybe it is pure coincidence that you are a biblical creationist, meaning that you are anti-science? Hmmm... is this the sort of thing you mean by historical revision?
And when did US currency get the "IGWT" added? First, on coins in 1864 (notice the timing, again during a period when Americans were weakened and distracted by political turmoil). It didn't show up on paper money until the 1960s. At that point, the legislative (notice I didn't say "legal") establishment of it as a "national motto" several years prior made its inclusion hard to argue with.
"Forget for a moment the fact that the pledge is recited every day in a myriad of settings across this land."
And a horrible pledge it is, substituting a colorful piece of cloth for the source of our nation's strength (that would be the Constitution, Chuck). And the "under God" part wasn't even an original part of it, Chuck. You forgot that, too.
"Forget for a moment the fact that the Capitol is exceedingly rich in religious history and usage, including its usage for church services all the way up through the Civil War – in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly."
That's wonderful, but irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Congress passing a law. (SEE NOTE 1)
"How could anyone have anything against the engraving of our nation's motto, which is above the very speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives?"
Oooh, this one is simple: They could READ, THINK, and APPLY KNOWLEDGE! That is generally the best way to "have anything against" anything.
"How could anyone have anything against the same for the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been recited each day since its inception in both houses of Congress?"
I have stated before, and will happily do so again, that our Pledge of Allegiance is an embarrassment and an offense against the Constitution. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the legitimate source of American ideals (SEE NOTE 2).
"Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it?"
The reader is supposed to offer an empty-headed nod here. Sorry, not me. Not to adopt an ad hominem approach here, but a creationist using any variation of the word "reason" has to make rational people either piss their pants or get mighty angry. What is basic and reasonable is challenging governmental actions that go against the Constitution and try to drag America down into a morass of irrationalism, dishonesty, oppression, and tribalistic power-grabbing.
"The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to prevent these engravings because, it says, that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our currency with "In God We Trust" on them into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!"
Yes, Chuck, "how preposterous?" You left that out. How is it preposterous?
"'This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation,'" said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa."
No, Steve. It is a group of people who respect the Constitution and the "great nation" it created trying to keep it from being further corrupted and weakened. (SEE NOTE 3)
"This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are "endowed by our Creator." If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Wow, where do I start with this one?
1. "[L]engths a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans." Yes, we call them Christians. They want people now and in the future to believe their revisionist histories. See the tactic here: Oppress the "small minority." This is the sort of mob-rule thinking that religionists like (but only when they are in the majority in a given situation). It might be pointed out that the "small minority" that Steve King wishes to marginalize and oppress is actually now a larger demographic group than Jews. I would not be surprised if he has a problem with that "small minority," too.
2. "I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this." Well, duh, Einstein. Of course you do: It challenges your efforts to grab power. The very existence of your caucus exposes your intentions. Guys like this lend credence to the "Revenge of the C Student" theory of politics.
3. "Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts." You bet your ass! If it is anti-Constitution -- and, thereby, anti-American -- every effort needs to be made to correct the offense. If you'll pardon the irony of the phrasing: Thank god someone has the nerve to stand up for America.
"Eliminating or revising our Christian heritage seems to be in vogue these days at America's historic sites. In 2006, tour guides at the Jamestown Settlement, the replica of the first (1607) English colony in America, were caught intentionally leaving out its Christian heritage when discussing the purpose for the colony."
Hmmm... I'd like to have more specifics on this 2006 action, Chuck. I doubt you'd actually want a realistic version of that part of colonial history discussed with visitors. That history is not exactly a real member-getter for you folks. Your version would probably have George Washington stepping off the Mayflower in 1492 onto American soil and singing God Bless America with a flag with 50 stars waved behind him by smiling native children wearing crosses around their necks while they spoke the Pledge of Allegiance in perfect (American) English (Actually, that sounds like a Creation Museum display... if you put the kids on dinosaurs).
"In early 2007, the government explained that the inscription 'In God We Trust' was 'accidentally left off' the initial minting of the new presidential dollar coins, only to correct the mistake by placing the words on the very edge of the coins – and not until major public pressure was placed upon them did our Congress require the treasury to place the words back upon the face."
LOL. "Major public pressure." Man, did you write that with a straight face? I never even heard about this and I pay more attention to current events and governmental matters than most Americans. Anyone want to wager some of those dollars where the "pressure" came from?
Ooh! Actually, I'm glad you brought up coins, Chuck. Here are four I just broke free from my piggy bank. Let's take a look at them:
On the top are two quarters; one from 1991 and one from 2002. Look at the top of the 1991. In big letters, at the top of the coin: "LIBERTY" In small letters: IGWT. Now look at the 2003 edition: LIBERTY and IGWT in almost identical size letters, and LIBERTY is lower on the coin. The fact that one is higher than the other is very symbolically important (SEE NOTE 4).
Under the quarters, as if the conspiracy needed more exposure, are two nickels. The first, from 1984, shows LIBERTY and IGWT at the same height and font size (treasonous in itself, if you ask me). The 2008 nickel, lo and behold, has IGWT at the top of the coin, in a nice, easy-to-read, all-upper-case serif font. "Liberty" not only gets demoted to the lower part of the coin, it also gets put in harder-to-read script (SEE NOTE 5).
What makes this all the more offensive is the fact that this is being done on a coin on which Thomas Jefferson appears. "Why does that matter?" you ask. I will allow a copy and paste excerpt from www.jesus-is-savior.com to address that:
"In mid 2007, the Architect of the Capitol removed any mention of God from the flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and earlier attempted to remove "God" from congressional flag certificates."
Wonderful! I do hope that words like Freedom and Liberty and other American ideals are included in these things, though. When it comes time for the flag-folding ceremony at my national cemetery funeral, I want someone to read the Constitution and note that THAT is what America is about and THAT is what we veterans took an oath to protect "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (Write that down, Diane, and make sure we put it in my will).
Actually, Chuck, I am surprised you didn't mention anywhere that the military oath of enlistment includes mention of your God. You even could -- and, I am sure, would -- have left out the fact that it was not so until about the time your god was forced onto paper money, nearly 200 years after the founding of our nation.
"And in late 2007 the chaplain of my organizations discovered that someone in the hierarchy of the Washington Monument had deliberately altered its display of the capstone replica, so that the visiting public would have absolutely no idea that the Latin words "Laus Deo" (meaning "Praise be to God") were actually inscribed on the very top of the monument as a celebratory finish and dedication (see the live Fox News story from the Washington Monument)."
LOL. This is classic. Being a fan of online videos, Chuck, I am sure that you have seen videos of Muslims exclaiming a phrase as they blow up Americans. That phrase you have heard (as have I) is "Allahu Akbar." It translates as "God is great." Quite similar to your beloved Washington Monument inscription, no? Perhaps we should inscribe Allahu Akbar on the Washington Monument -- in the names of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, of course.
"Religious revisionism has even come to the doors of the White House, as our own president denied our country's Judeo-Christian heritage and make up when he spoke in Turkey on April 6: 'We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.'"
You know, I have read something similar to what the President said somewhere... Oh yeah, in the official treaties of the United States of America. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington and signed by Adams after being read aloud to, and unanimously passed by, the US Senate in June 1797, states quite clearly:
Umm... Chuck... Our current President has actually read the Constitution and was a Constitutional professor. He may know a little bit more about US law than you; just maybe. Yes, I know your religion warns you to beware of learned men. But you don't need a PH.D. to read. Try it.
"Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred over the last couple years at governmental and historical sites? Is it merely coincidental that the more modern memorials in Washington (like the Roosevelt and World War II memorials) bear virtually no religious inscriptions at all, while all the former ones do? Is it merely coincidental that the new CVC is the next fighting ground to erase any display of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?"
Ooh, I think you meant to say: " Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred since the Founding Fathers have passed away? Is it merely coincidental that the political rise of religious fundamentalists has coincided with the rewriting of American laws to include their god? Is it merely coincidental that nations based on religions are breeding grounds of violence, intolerance, oppression, and a lack of freedom? Is it merely coincidental that only one of the 2500-or-so-plus gods created by man gets official props in a land where religious freedom is supposed to be esteemed? Is it merely coincidental that you happen to believe in THAT god, and not others?" My answer would be... ummm... no. Asshole.
"So, could the lawsuit by the Freedom of Religion Foundation prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding?"
I don't kid about the history and future of the greatest nation ever to stand on earth. I also, unlike you, don't betray my oath to the Constitution by putting tribal concerns ahead of the ideals upon which America was founded. You took the oath of enlistment, too, Chuck (probably before it contained any mention of your god, ironically enough). And you betray it with your superstitionist, tribal, treasonist attacks on America. That, to me, is terrorism. No, I'm not kidding.
"that precedent will be used to extend their next argument that our national motto 'In God We Trust' is unconstitutional."
As you know it is, yes. Hence your fear. Again, irony: Some of the founding fathers made it quite plain that to commingle religion and government would not only be detrimental to the nation (i.e., treasonous), but it would also proclaim the religion in question to be weak, to be in need of law in order to survive and flourish. That is to say that the god and scriptures of that religion were not powerful enough or true enough to stand on their own (wouldn't that be a form of blasphemy?). You know this. So do your education-hating, fact-hating, reason-hating, history-hating, Constitution-hating, anti-American brethren.
"That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer at (202) 228-1793 and also their representatives.. to inform them about what they think of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance being engraved within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history."
And I encourage all American citizens to contact your government representatives and tell them that our tax money (actually, Chuck, it is money we are borrowing from foreigners, since we don't have the money to fund our own government) should not be spent trying to glorify the history of ANY special interest group while weakening the Constitution. Remind them that they are supposed to serve the US Constitution, not monied and powerful special interests. Let them know, as I do, that you won't vote for politicians who don't serve or respect the Constitution.
"Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitors Center has a couple in there right now."
LOL. I understand the intent there, Chuck, but it is a tired an ineffectual tool. Kind of like you.
"I think it's time that Americans let them know that the motto and pledge are not only at the heart of our country"
And we see, yet again, the religionists' disregard for the source of US power and greatness. If you took out the word "only" in the above, you'd have it nailed.
"but that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America."
You can say "two plus two equals five" all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Honoring the Constitution does not unfairly promote atheism. And "all that is America" begins with Liberty and the Constitution, like it or not.
Mr. Norris, I sincerely regret that I find myself having to point out your patriotic inadequacies. It hurts me as someone who values compassion and cooperation as means toward a better world, but I can't roll over and allow you to trash my country. We are both veterans, and I thank you for your service. I appreciate your passion; I really do. And I even believe that somewhere inside, buried beneath the superstitionist brainwashing that has victimized you, you may even have some affection for America. But inflicting your tribal god upon all Americans, with their own borrowed-from-foreigners tax money, is not fighting for freedom of speech or freedom of religion. In fact, you have aligned yourself with factions that have a long, documented tradition of fighting against such things, often violently.
You may believe and say what you will, and for that you should thank the very Constitution that you are fighting against. If you and your ilk succeed in toppling it, future Americans won't have that luxury.
NOTE 1: And I suspect that the Capitol does not exclude any religions or gods. If one wants to celebrate religious freedom, shouldn't all religions be celebrated, not just YOURS?
NOTE 2: We also need to stop forcing children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When they are old enough to decide if they want to, then they can. Forcing them to, which is nothing less than brainwashing, is a violation of their human rights. You can't get much more unAmerican than violating the human rights of children (even if it is an integral part of Christian history -- no revisionism there, Chuck).
NOTE 3: I was going to insert the line "Nothing corrupts like religion" but immediately realized that some might object, claiming that money or power is the ultimate corruptor. I would agree with this, but would point out that these two are inherent in the sort of religionist activism that we see in these situation. It is the religionists' thirst for power that is exactly what we are seeing when they work so hard to impose their religion on government.
NOTE 4: If you don't believe that the symbolism of height is important, then the next time to go to your job at McDonald's, go ahead and hoist the MickeyD flag higher than the American flag. By the time you get to ask "Would you like fries with that?" for the first time on your shift, someone will point out the importance of having one thing displayed higher than another.
NOTE 5: Is it merely coincidental that both of these changes in coinage have happened in the period when religious fundamentalism took demonstrable steps toward grabbing greater American political power? You can go to one of Chuck Norris' favorite historical reference documents -- YouTube -- and get lots of info on this period from David Domke, author of The God Strategy.
PS - If I can pick apart his BS without even lifting my ass from this chair (except to get those coins from the piggy bank) or opening a book, imagine what an educated, energetic American could do to his "arguments!"
Please take some time to read his column below. I will address some of his points below (addressing all the errors would -- quite literally -- require writing a book).
Atheists in the Capitol's foxhole by Chuck NorrisAlrighty, then, let's skim over and see if I can refute anything without even opening a reference book...
World Net Daily
Posted: July 20, 2009
© 2009
I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights – what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitors Center, or CVC, in Washington, D.C.
In July, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions, approving the engravings of the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in CVC – 580,000 square feet facility under the Capitol where 15,500 guests visit each day.
Spearheading the measures were leaders like Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.; Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.; and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who have also drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Rep. Forbes addressing the House on this matter ("Our Judeo Christian Nation") has received to date more than 2.5 million hits, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can also be seen on Sen. DeMint's YouTube posting "War on God."
Forget for a moment the fact that the national motto is on all of our currency. Forget for a moment the fact that the pledge is recited every day in a myriad of settings across this land. Forget for a moment the fact that the Capitol is exceedingly rich in religious history and usage, including its usage for church services all the way up through the Civil War – in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly. (Rick Tyler, the founding director of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership, has done an excellent job documenting the Capitol's religious history and the subsequent inaccuracies and omissions in the CVC.)
How could anyone have anything against the engraving of our nation's motto, which is above the very speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives? How could anyone have anything against the same for the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been recited each day since its inception in both houses of Congress?
Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, who filed suit in an effort to prevent the engraving of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to prevent these engravings because, it says, that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our currency with "In God We Trust" on them into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!
Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the lawsuit as ludicrous.
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
And Rep. Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices:
This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are "endowed by our Creator." If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Eliminating or revising our Christian heritage seems to be in vogue these days at America's historic sites. In 2006, tour guides at the Jamestown Settlement, the replica of the first (1607) English colony in America, were caught intentionally leaving out its Christian heritage when discussing the purpose for the colony. In early 2007, the government explained that the inscription "In God We Trust" was "accidentally left off" the initial minting of the new presidential dollar coins, only to correct the mistake by placing the words on the very edge of the coins – and not until major public pressure was placed upon them did our Congress require the treasury to place the words back upon the face. In mid 2007, the Architect of the Capitol removed any mention of God from the flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and earlier attempted to remove "God" from congressional flag certificates. And in late 2007 the chaplain of my organizations discovered that someone in the hierarchy of the Washington Monument had deliberately altered its display of the capstone replica, so that the visiting public would have absolutely no idea that the Latin words "Laus Deo" (meaning "Praise be to God") were actually inscribed on the very top of the monument as a celebratory finish and dedication (see the live Fox News story from the Washington Monument).
Religious revisionism has even come to the doors of the White House, as our own president denied our country's Judeo-Christian heritage and make up when he spoke in Turkey on April 6: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred over the last couple years at governmental and historical sites? Is it merely coincidental that the more modern memorials in Washington (like the Roosevelt and World War II memorials) bear virtually no religious inscriptions at all, while all the former ones do? Is it merely coincidental that the new CVC is the next fighting ground to erase any display of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?
So, could the lawsuit by the Freedom of Religion Foundation prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case, and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument that our national motto "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional.
That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer at (202) 228-1793 and also their representatives.. to inform them about what they think of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance being engraved within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.
Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitors Center has a couple in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know that the motto and pledge are not only at the heart of our country, but that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.
"I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion."
Really... let's see about that.
"...those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-
That's simply what is known as rhetoric. Actually, here's what the First Amendment says about this:
1. The First Amendment deals with Congress making federal law. That's the first thing you need to realize. It doesn't apply to anything else. You don't have a "right" to just say whatever you want anywhere at any time. In this case, Congress passed a law specifying the inclusion of a specific god on a government, taxpayer-funded, facility. Not all gods, a specific god.
2. The Founding Fathers were horribly aware of what happens when a religion gets governmental power. For instance, King George was not only the head of the British government, he was also head of the state church. This nation was initially colonized (at Plymouth) by people trying to escape persecution from that Christian government (And they, somewhat ironically -- yet predictably -- proceeded to carry on the Christian traditions of religious intolerance, oppression, violence and genocide when they got here). The other initial colonization, in Virginia, was state-sponsored and included the official state religion. The Christian traditions were carried on there, too, as anyone other than an Anglican (and even Anglicans who weren't quite Anglican enough) suffered from the usual traditional Christian recipe of oppression and abuse. This carried on right into the days of the American Revolution. Not long beforehand, Alexander Hamilton (AKA "The Father of the Constitution") worked to help stop the imprisonment and human rights abuses leveled at Baptists by the Anglican establishment. Mixing religion and politics was realized as a bad thing by many at the time (adherents to the majority religion tend not to acknowledge that). If you want to understand why freedom of religion, especially expressed as a separation of church and state, is so important, study the religious happenings of colonial America (yes, the witch burnings, but a bunch more than that).
As far as "eliminat[ing] or revis[ing] America's religious heritage," there's no desire on the part of the FFRF to do that. The track record of the actions of religionists is exactly what causes people to realize what a detriment religion is to humanity. This why rationalists/humanists/ atheists/Brights/etc. encourage education and critical thinking skills, and why people like you oppose it.
The revisionist shoe is on the other foot, as we will see shortly.
"In July, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions, approving the engravings of the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in CVC – 580,000 square feet facility under the Capitol where 15,500 guests visit each day."
Yes, where 15,500 impressionable people visit and take the engravings on public buildings as being statements of governmental stances. Absolutely, Chuck. Thank you. Please see the discussion of the First Amendment above.
"The YouTube video of Rep. Forbes addressing the House on this matter ("Our Judeo Christian Nation") has received to date more than 2.5 million hits, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history."
He is citing YouTube as a source of legitimacy. Do I even need to comment on that?
"Forget for a moment the fact that the national motto is on all of our currency."
Speaking of forgetting, Chuck: You forgot to mention the source of this "national motto." Was it the Declaration of Independence? Nope. Was it the Constitution? Nope. Any of the works of the Founding Fathers? Nope. Actually, Congress passed that law in 1956, in the midst o the Cold War/McCarthyism era. Religionists strike when their enemies are weak or otherwise occupied. Speaking of which...
Chuck, you forgot to mention the motto on the first US coinage, from 1792. It read: "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry." Now why would you leave that out, Chuck? Maybe it is pure coincidence that you are a biblical creationist, meaning that you are anti-science? Hmmm... is this the sort of thing you mean by historical revision?
And when did US currency get the "IGWT" added? First, on coins in 1864 (notice the timing, again during a period when Americans were weakened and distracted by political turmoil). It didn't show up on paper money until the 1960s. At that point, the legislative (notice I didn't say "legal") establishment of it as a "national motto" several years prior made its inclusion hard to argue with.
"Forget for a moment the fact that the pledge is recited every day in a myriad of settings across this land."
And a horrible pledge it is, substituting a colorful piece of cloth for the source of our nation's strength (that would be the Constitution, Chuck). And the "under God" part wasn't even an original part of it, Chuck. You forgot that, too.
"Forget for a moment the fact that the Capitol is exceedingly rich in religious history and usage, including its usage for church services all the way up through the Civil War – in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly."
That's wonderful, but irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Congress passing a law. (SEE NOTE 1)
"How could anyone have anything against the engraving of our nation's motto, which is above the very speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives
Oooh, this one is simple: They could READ, THINK, and APPLY KNOWLEDGE! That is generally the best way to "have anything against" anything.
"How could anyone have anything against the same for the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been recited each day since its inception in both houses of Congress?"
I have stated before, and will happily do so again, that our Pledge of Allegiance is an embarrassment and an offense against the Constitution. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the legitimate source of American ideals (SEE NOTE 2).
"Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it?"
The reader is supposed to offer an empty-headed nod here. Sorry, not me. Not to adopt an ad hominem approach here, but a creationist using any variation of the word "reason" has to make rational people either piss their pants or get mighty angry. What is basic and reasonable is challenging governmental actions that go against the Constitution and try to drag America down into a morass of irrationalism, dishonesty, oppression, and tribalistic power-grabbing.
"The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to prevent these engravings because, it says, that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-
Yes, Chuck, "how preposterous?" You left that out. How is it preposterous?
"'This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-
No, Steve. It is a group of people who respect the Constitution and the "great nation" it created trying to keep it from being further corrupted and weakened. (SEE NOTE 3)
"This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are "endowed by our Creator." If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Wow, where do I start with this one?
1.
2. "I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this." Well, duh, Einstein. Of course you do: It challenges your efforts to grab power. The very existence of your caucus exposes your intentions. Guys like this lend credence to the "Revenge of the C Student" theory of politics.
3. "Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts." You bet your ass! If it is anti-Constitution -- and, thereby, anti-American -- every effort needs to be made to correct the offense. If you'll pardon the irony of the phrasing: Thank god someone has the nerve to stand up for America.
"Eliminating or revising our Christian heritage seems to be in vogue these days at America's historic sites. In 2006, tour guides at the Jamestown Settlement, the replica of the first (1607) English colony in America, were caught intentionally leaving out its Christian heritage when discussing the purpose for the colony."
Hmmm... I'd like to have more specifics on this 2006 action, Chuck. I doubt you'd actually want a realistic version of that part of colonial history discussed with visitors. That history is not exactly a real member-getter for you folks. Your version would probably have George Washington stepping off the Mayflower in 1492 onto American soil and singing God Bless America with a flag with 50 stars waved behind him by smiling native children wearing crosses around their necks while they spoke the Pledge of Allegiance in perfect (American) English (Actually, that sounds like a Creation Museum display... if you put the kids on dinosaurs).
"In early 2007, the government explained that the inscription 'In God We Trust' was 'accidentally left off' the initial minting of the new presidential dollar coins, only to correct the mistake by placing the words on the very edge of the coins – and not until major public pressure was placed upon them did our Congress require the treasury to place the words back upon the face."
LOL. "Major public pressure." Man, did you write that with a straight face? I never even heard about this and I pay more attention to current events and governmental matters than most Americans. Anyone want to wager some of those dollars where the "pressure" came from?
Ooh! Actually, I'm glad you brought up coins, Chuck. Here are four I just broke free from my piggy bank. Let's take a look at them:
Under the quarters, as if the conspiracy needed more exposure, are two nickels. The first, from 1984, shows LIBERTY and IGWT at the same height and font size (treasonous in itself, if you ask me). The 2008 nickel, lo and behold, has IGWT at the top of the coin, in a nice, easy-to-read, all-upper-case serif font. "Liberty" not only gets demoted to the lower part of the coin, it also gets put in harder-to-read script (SEE NOTE 5).
What makes this all the more offensive is the fact that this is being done on a coin on which Thomas Jefferson appears. "Why does that matter?" you ask. I will allow a copy and paste excerpt from www.jesus-is-savior.com to address that:
the following quotes from Mr. Jefferson make it quite clear that he was NO Christian:Somehow, Chuck, you managed not to mention any of the above in your discussion of coinage-as-legitimacy points. Back to your column..."It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"In mid 2007, the Architect of the Capitol removed any mention of God from the flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and earlier attempted to remove "God" from congressional flag certificates."
Wonderful! I do hope that words like Freedom and Liberty and other American ideals are included in these things, though. When it comes time for the flag-folding ceremony at my national cemetery funeral, I want someone to read the Constitution and note that THAT is what America is about and THAT is what we veterans took an oath to protect "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (Write that down, Diane, and make sure we put it in my will).
Actually, Chuck, I am surprised you didn't mention anywhere that the military oath of enlistment includes mention of your God. You even could -- and, I am sure, would -- have left out the fact that it was not so until about the time your god was forced onto paper money, nearly 200 years after the founding of our nation.
"And in late 2007 the chaplain of my organizations discovered that someone in the hierarchy of the Washington Monument had deliberately altered its display of the capstone replica, so that the visiting public would have absolutely no idea that the Latin words "Laus Deo" (meaning "Praise be to God") were actually inscribed on the very top of the monument as a celebratory finish and dedication (see the live Fox News story from the Washington Monument)."
LOL. This is classic. Being a fan of online videos, Chuck, I am sure that you have seen videos of Muslims exclaiming a phrase as they blow up Americans. That phrase you have heard (as have I) is "Allahu Akbar." It translates as "God is great." Quite similar to your beloved Washington Monument inscription, no? Perhaps we should inscribe Allahu Akbar on the Washington Monument -- in the names of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, of course.
"Religious revisionism has even come to the doors of the White House, as our own president denied our country's Judeo-
You know, I have read something similar to what the President said somewhere... Oh yeah, in the official treaties of the United States of America. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington and signed by Adams after being read aloud to, and unanimously passed by, the US Senate in June 1797, states quite clearly:
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.Here's an image of that treaty, as approved by many of our nation's founders:
Umm... Chuck... Our current President has actually read the Constitution and was a Constitutional professor. He may know a little bit more about US law than you; just maybe. Yes, I know your religion warns you to beware of learned men. But you don't need a PH.D. to read. Try it.
"Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred over the last couple years at governmental and historical sites? Is it merely coincidental that the more modern memorials in Washington (like the Roosevelt and World War II memorials) bear virtually no religious inscriptions at all, while all the former ones do? Is it merely coincidental that the new CVC is the next fighting ground to erase any display of America's Judeo-
Ooh, I think you meant to say: "
"So, could the lawsuit by the Freedom of Religion Foundation prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding?"
I don't kid about the history and future of the greatest nation ever to stand on earth. I also, unlike you, don't betray my oath to the Constitution by putting tribal concerns ahead of the ideals upon which America was founded. You took the oath of enlistment, too, Chuck (probably before it contained any mention of your god, ironically enough). And you betray it with your superstitionist, tribal, treasonist attacks on America. That, to me, is terrorism. No, I'm not kidding.
"that precedent will be used to extend their next argument that our national motto 'In God We Trust' is unconstitutiona
As you know it is, yes. Hence your fear. Again, irony: Some of the founding fathers made it quite plain that to commingle religion and government would not only be detrimental to the nation (i.e., treasonous), but it would also proclaim the religion in question to be weak, to be in need of law in order to survive and flourish. That is to say that the god and scriptures of that religion were not powerful enough or true enough to stand on their own (wouldn't that be a form of blasphemy?). You know this. So do your education-hating, fact-hating, reason-hating, history-hating, Constitution-hating, anti-American brethren.
"That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer at (202) 228-1793 and also their representatives
And I encourage all American citizens to contact your government representatives and tell them that our tax money (actually, Chuck, it is money we are borrowing from foreigners, since we don't have the money to fund our own government) should not be spent trying to glorify the history of ANY special interest group while weakening the Constitution. Remind them that they are supposed to serve the US Constitution, not monied and powerful special interests. Let them know, as I do, that you won't vote for politicians who don't serve or respect the Constitution.
"Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitors Center has a couple in there right now."
LOL. I understand the intent there, Chuck, but it is a tired an ineffectual tool. Kind of like you.
"I think it's time that Americans let them know that the motto and pledge are not only at the heart of our country"
And we see, yet again, the religionists' disregard for the source of US power and greatness. If you took out the word "only" in the above, you'd have it nailed.
"but that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America."
You can say "two plus two equals five" all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Honoring the Constitution does not unfairly promote atheism. And "all that is America" begins with Liberty and the Constitution, like it or not.
Mr. Norris, I sincerely regret that I find myself having to point out your patriotic inadequacies. It hurts me as someone who values compassion and cooperation as means toward a better world, but I can't roll over and allow you to trash my country. We are both veterans, and I thank you for your service. I appreciate your passion; I really do. And I even believe that somewhere inside, buried beneath the superstitionist brainwashing that has victimized you, you may even have some affection for America. But inflicting your tribal god upon all Americans, with their own borrowed-from-foreigners tax money, is not fighting for freedom of speech or freedom of religion. In fact, you have aligned yourself with factions that have a long, documented tradition of fighting against such things, often violently.
You may believe and say what you will, and for that you should thank the very Constitution that you are fighting against. If you and your ilk succeed in toppling it, future Americans won't have that luxury.
XXX
NOTE 1: And I suspect that the Capitol does not exclude any religions or gods. If one wants to celebrate religious freedom, shouldn't all religions be celebrated, not just YOURS?
NOTE 2: We also need to stop forcing children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When they are old enough to decide if they want to, then they can. Forcing them to, which is nothing less than brainwashing, is a violation of their human rights. You can't get much more unAmerican than violating the human rights of children (even if it is an integral part of Christian history -- no revisionism there, Chuck).
NOTE 3: I was going to insert the line "Nothing corrupts like religion" but immediately realized that some might object, claiming that money or power is the ultimate corruptor. I would agree with this, but would point out that these two are inherent in the sort of religionist activism that we see in these situation. It is the religionists' thirst for power that is exactly what we are seeing when they work so hard to impose their religion on government.
NOTE 4: If you don't believe that the symbolism of height is important, then the next time to go to your job at McDonald's, go ahead and hoist the MickeyD flag higher than the American flag. By the time you get to ask "Would you like fries with that?" for the first time on your shift, someone will point out the importance of having one thing displayed higher than another.
NOTE 5: Is it merely coincidental that both of these changes in coinage have happened in the period when religious fundamentalism took demonstrable steps toward grabbing greater American political power? You can go to one of Chuck Norris' favorite historical reference documents -- YouTube -- and get lots of info on this period from David Domke, author of The God Strategy.
PS - If I can pick apart his BS without even lifting my ass from this chair (except to get those coins from the piggy bank) or opening a book, imagine what an educated, energetic American could do to his "arguments!"
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Mixed Results In The Garden Thus Far, and a Mama Cat Update.
My vegetable garden reclamation project has largely what I expected overall, although it has differed in the specifics.
I knew going into the growing season that it would be somewhat of a trial and error year, as it has been probably a dozen years since I last maintained a vegetable garden. Ridding the plot of vines, weeds, and trees and trying to establish non-native vegetable species had no guarantee of success. I did expect, though, to have certain types do well, most likely those early crops with which I have had great luck in the past, such as peas, beans, spinach, radishes, carrots and beets.
Oddly, most of those, aside from the beans have been less productive than I expected. On the other hand, some that I have not done as well with, such as Romaine lettuce and broccoli, did well this year. We're still getting lots -- and I do mean lots -- of lettuce. Although I didn't get as many pea plants as expected, those that we do have have been quite productive. We are having nearly as much trouble keeping up with them as with the lettuce.
The beans are really starting to come on now, too. The green pole beans are on a tear, outgrowing their poles by quite a bit, and the yellow wax bush beans are starting. I'll be harvesting my first pepper quite soon, and it looks like plenty more will follow. Tomatoes, of course, are doing fine. And this looks like it will be a banner year for cucumbers. My acorn squash plants are getting huge. Even the corn stalks, at least those that weren't dug up by some little monster, look to be doing well.
With me being who I am, I am never satisfied with anything under 100% success, but I can't complain about the level of success I have thus far achieved in my first year back in the backyard vegetable garden business. I have been keeping some pretty detailed notes, and will look to make some adjustments before next year's planting begins.
In other news, we took Pumpkin to the veterinarian on Tuesday. She is doing very well, and has adapted to life in the music room quite well in the little over a week since we tricked her into capture. She likes to be petted now, and enjoys a good back rub, too. We didn't try picking her up before we went to the vet; we figured we'd leave that experiment to the professionals. She cried a bit in the car on the way, but our vet is in Oakdale, a little more than five minutes away, so the stress of the ride was short.
The stress in the waiting room was probably worse -- at least it was for Diane and me. A woman was in the cat waiting room with two dogs and, worse yet, two undisciplined children. The kids, between pulling tissues from a box and throwing them up into the air, kept wanting to see Pumpkin. Unfortunately, I am pretty good with kids and explained that Pumpkin was scared and needed to be left alone (I say "unfortunately" because if I had been mean or scary, I probably would have only had to tell them once). We kept a towel over the carrier for the whole ride and waiting period, in order to reduce Pumpkin's stress (this is one of the oldest tricks in the animal rescue book).
Pumpkin handled the exam pretty well, squirming only a few times -- when getting her nails clipped, her ears cleaned, and a tick pulled off her butt. She showed no aggression, which was a great sign. The vet said that Pumpkin is definitely pregnant (we pretty much knew that), and thinks she probably has a few more weeks to go before giving birth. She also said that it looks like Pumpkin has had litters before, and is at least a few years old (you can hazard a general guess about age based on the condition of the teeth, which I was not willing to check by force prior to this vet visit).
She was happy to get it all over with and went back into the carrier quite willingly. She went right back into her cage when we got home, and has been quite content since. Here, I'll take a photo of her right now:
I leave the cage open when I am down here (I am keeping her in the music room so she dopes not interact with our animals until we get all her bloodwork done and make sure she is fully disease-free, which we won't do until after she gives birth). She never comes out of the cage, and is content to hang out on the big platform, nap and purr.
She's a great cat, and I don't expect any problems with her allowing us to handle the kittens early on. We want the kittens to be well-adapted to people so they will be more adoptable, so we'll be working with them a lot and making sure they are physically, intellectually, and emotionally healthy. If you are interested in kittens, let me know (expect to be asked lots of questions). We'd prefer to adopt them out in pairs (kitten/kitten or Mama/kitten), but we don't yet know how many there will be.
We have her nest box set, and she has already checked it out a few times. We have her on a diet of moist food and dry kitten food, and are avoiding everything the vet said to avoid in her diet (beef, dairy, fish, wheat, and plastic bowls). We are working to get her used to being handled and picked up (she's not big on that one yet).
So now we wait.
I knew going into the growing season that it would be somewhat of a trial and error year, as it has been probably a dozen years since I last maintained a vegetable garden. Ridding the plot of vines, weeds, and trees and trying to establish non-native vegetable species had no guarantee of success. I did expect, though, to have certain types do well, most likely those early crops with which I have had great luck in the past, such as peas, beans, spinach, radishes, carrots and beets.
Oddly, most of those, aside from the beans have been less productive than I expected. On the other hand, some that I have not done as well with, such as Romaine lettuce and broccoli, did well this year. We're still getting lots -- and I do mean lots -- of lettuce. Although I didn't get as many pea plants as expected, those that we do have have been quite productive. We are having nearly as much trouble keeping up with them as with the lettuce.
The beans are really starting to come on now, too. The green pole beans are on a tear, outgrowing their poles by quite a bit, and the yellow wax bush beans are starting. I'll be harvesting my first pepper quite soon, and it looks like plenty more will follow. Tomatoes, of course, are doing fine. And this looks like it will be a banner year for cucumbers. My acorn squash plants are getting huge. Even the corn stalks, at least those that weren't dug up by some little monster, look to be doing well.
With me being who I am, I am never satisfied with anything under 100% success, but I can't complain about the level of success I have thus far achieved in my first year back in the backyard vegetable garden business. I have been keeping some pretty detailed notes, and will look to make some adjustments before next year's planting begins.
In other news, we took Pumpkin to the veterinarian on Tuesday. She is doing very well, and has adapted to life in the music room quite well in the little over a week since we tricked her into capture. She likes to be petted now, and enjoys a good back rub, too. We didn't try picking her up before we went to the vet; we figured we'd leave that experiment to the professionals. She cried a bit in the car on the way, but our vet is in Oakdale, a little more than five minutes away, so the stress of the ride was short.
The stress in the waiting room was probably worse -- at least it was for Diane and me. A woman was in the cat waiting room with two dogs and, worse yet, two undisciplined children. The kids, between pulling tissues from a box and throwing them up into the air, kept wanting to see Pumpkin. Unfortunately, I am pretty good with kids and explained that Pumpkin was scared and needed to be left alone (I say "unfortunately" because if I had been mean or scary, I probably would have only had to tell them once). We kept a towel over the carrier for the whole ride and waiting period, in order to reduce Pumpkin's stress (this is one of the oldest tricks in the animal rescue book).
Pumpkin handled the exam pretty well, squirming only a few times -- when getting her nails clipped, her ears cleaned, and a tick pulled off her butt. She showed no aggression, which was a great sign. The vet said that Pumpkin is definitely pregnant (we pretty much knew that), and thinks she probably has a few more weeks to go before giving birth. She also said that it looks like Pumpkin has had litters before, and is at least a few years old (you can hazard a general guess about age based on the condition of the teeth, which I was not willing to check by force prior to this vet visit).
She was happy to get it all over with and went back into the carrier quite willingly. She went right back into her cage when we got home, and has been quite content since. Here, I'll take a photo of her right now:
I leave the cage open when I am down here (I am keeping her in the music room so she dopes not interact with our animals until we get all her bloodwork done and make sure she is fully disease-free, which we won't do until after she gives birth). She never comes out of the cage, and is content to hang out on the big platform, nap and purr.
She's a great cat, and I don't expect any problems with her allowing us to handle the kittens early on. We want the kittens to be well-adapted to people so they will be more adoptable, so we'll be working with them a lot and making sure they are physically, intellectually, and emotionally healthy. If you are interested in kittens, let me know (expect to be asked lots of questions). We'd prefer to adopt them out in pairs (kitten/kitten or Mama/kitten), but we don't yet know how many there will be.
We have her nest box set, and she has already checked it out a few times. We have her on a diet of moist food and dry kitten food, and are avoiding everything the vet said to avoid in her diet (beef, dairy, fish, wheat, and plastic bowls). We are working to get her used to being handled and picked up (she's not big on that one yet).
So now we wait.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Pain
Since I was a kid, I have been a bit of an observer. I have always liked to look around, take in the goings-on, and ponder their causes and effects. One aspect of animate life that has long been of interest to me, as odd as this may sound, is pain.
I have lots of experience with pain. I have tended to live a bit on the edge at times, and have paid the price physically. I broke my elbow bicycle racing at the age of five. I have had some pretty decent motorcycle crashes (on the street and on the track.... well, off the track, actually), plenty of little sports injuries, and suffered my share of damage in the military. I had two back injuries by the time I was 24, and had been run over, head to toe, by a car (Oldsmobile Cutlass). I've broken and sprained enough things, and have some decent scars from my younger days. I was diagnosed with a form of rheumatoid arthritis (specifically, seronegative spondyloarthropathy) at the age of 31 that flares up every now and then and causes a variety of issues. Aside from the two back injuries, which occurred in the span of about ten months, I haven't been too disturbed for any length of time by pain.
I noticed when I was a kid that I dealt with pain different than many other kids. I noticed that some kids would practically scream in pain just knowing that it was coming. That told me that the experience of pain was not 100% physical; that there was a brain-related aspect (call it emotional, or whatever). They actually seemed to add to their own discomfort -- an odd thing to do, it seemed. I really noticed this in fifth grade, when some kid learned that he could get reactions out of people by snapping them on the hand or arm with a rubber band. When he got to me, I just kind of looked at him. Not the reaction he was expecting. Sure, there was a red line on the back of my left hand, but it wasn't like I was going to die or anything. Some of the other kids thought it was odd too. "Didn't that hurt?" "Yeah, I guess." To prove that it was no big deal, I took the rubber band and did it to myself. I became sort of a curiosity for that. It amused people to see me willingly snap myself with a rubber band (and their reaction amused me). I'm sure some of those kids, now in their mid-40s, still think that was odd. That was about the time I started to really think about pain.
Over time, experiencing, observing, and considering pain here and there, I came to believe that it wasn't necessarily the actual pain that was the cause of the majority of suffering, but the fear associated with it. Specifically, the fear that it would continue. This of course, was pain from the future.
I have also long been quite aware of the suffering of animals. Sick, injured, orphaned, abused and otherwise in-need animals have always had a way of finding me (I write this as a pregnant feral cat relaxes in a cage not eight feet behind me). It started when I was a young kid riding my bicycle along Carleton Avenue and found a baby bird on the ground. It had no eyes. I scooped it up, wrapped it up in my Mets hat (SEE NOTE 1) and took little Tweety home. She lived with us for several years. I have assisted many other animals over the years (working as a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and an SPCA cruelty investigator, as well as doing plenty of animal rescues on my own). One thing I have long wondered about is how animals experience pain.
I have seen animals in some pretty horrible circumstances, both in person and on video. There has never been any doubt in my mind that they experience pain, and that they can have some level of an emotional aspect to it. They definitely experience fear. But I have never been sure if their more limited cognitive abilities are a plus for them when it comes to pain, or a minus. On one hand, they have a limited ability to conceptualize the future. Obviously, they do have some concept of it -- it certainly appears that evolution has equipped them with some sort of predictive abilities -- but whether that applies to their experience of pain is tough to say (the fact that a previously abused animal will wince greatly when threatened seems to show an ability to predict discomfort). Another aspect of their different brains is the differing ability to rationalize and understand cause and effect. Humans have much more advanced abilities in this respect (this is how I could, even as a kid, dismiss some level of pain from the rubber band). So, while on one hand I sometimes think they may have less of an emotional pain factor, they also have less of an ability to rationalize pain away. In the end, I find myself still wondering about how animals experience pain.
When I got into religious studies and found my way into Buddhism, this topic came back to me. Buddhism, after all, was prompted, as the stories go, by the young prince Siddhartha Gautama seeking a way to relieve the suffering that was inherent in the world. Advanced practitioners of Buddhist practice are able to achieve a certain power over pain, such as the Buddhist monks that burned themselves alive as protests during the Vietnam War (which was not a legitimate war, by the way), sitting calmly as the flames claimed their lives. I came to learn that this was largely a result of their ability to live in the present moment (SEE NOTE 2).
This present moment idea meshed with my "fear/pain from the future" idea.
The last couple of years I have been including books on neuroscience in my reading. The one I am reading now is The Accidental Mind. I won't go into the details (read the book, it is a good one), but it has confirmed my observation of the importance of an emotional aspect to pain. Both Buddhism and science, then, have confirmed some of my hypothesizing about the experience of pain (Buddhism is pretty scientific in its approach to the world, actually).
With all the suffering I willingly expose myself to, and all the thought I have put into it over the years, I think I have developed some underastanding of pain, but I will continue to watch and learn more. While I don't think I'll ever see any major difference in the way we experience pain, I believe my my observations have helped me help those around me deal with it. That's worth something.
NOTE 1: Dad raised me to be a Mets fan, and to hate the formerly-of-Brooklyn Dodgers -- I sometimes feel guilty for not having anything to do with the sport these days. I started to drift away from the sport in the late 80s as I thought that Major League Baseball was getting away from the spirit of the game. This was confirmed when the 1994 World Series was canceled, for the first time ever, for business reasons. I'm glad my father wasn't alive to see that. The game survived two world wars, the Great Depression, and other major disturbances, but succumbed to greed. I don't believe I have watched a single pro game since.
NOTE 2: Thich Nhat Hanh teaches awareness of the present moment as a central part, perhaps THE central part, of his Buddhist practice. As one breathing awareness mantra goes: "Breathing in, I feel my body relax. Breathing out, I smile. Living in the present moment; This is a wonderful moment."
I have lots of experience with pain. I have tended to live a bit on the edge at times, and have paid the price physically. I broke my elbow bicycle racing at the age of five. I have had some pretty decent motorcycle crashes (on the street and on the track.... well, off the track, actually), plenty of little sports injuries, and suffered my share of damage in the military. I had two back injuries by the time I was 24, and had been run over, head to toe, by a car (Oldsmobile Cutlass). I've broken and sprained enough things, and have some decent scars from my younger days. I was diagnosed with a form of rheumatoid arthritis (specifically, seronegative spondyloarthropathy) at the age of 31 that flares up every now and then and causes a variety of issues. Aside from the two back injuries, which occurred in the span of about ten months, I haven't been too disturbed for any length of time by pain.
I noticed when I was a kid that I dealt with pain different than many other kids. I noticed that some kids would practically scream in pain just knowing that it was coming. That told me that the experience of pain was not 100% physical; that there was a brain-related aspect (call it emotional, or whatever). They actually seemed to add to their own discomfort -- an odd thing to do, it seemed. I really noticed this in fifth grade, when some kid learned that he could get reactions out of people by snapping them on the hand or arm with a rubber band. When he got to me, I just kind of looked at him. Not the reaction he was expecting. Sure, there was a red line on the back of my left hand, but it wasn't like I was going to die or anything. Some of the other kids thought it was odd too. "Didn't that hurt?" "Yeah, I guess." To prove that it was no big deal, I took the rubber band and did it to myself. I became sort of a curiosity for that. It amused people to see me willingly snap myself with a rubber band (and their reaction amused me). I'm sure some of those kids, now in their mid-40s, still think that was odd. That was about the time I started to really think about pain.
Over time, experiencing, observing, and considering pain here and there, I came to believe that it wasn't necessarily the actual pain that was the cause of the majority of suffering, but the fear associated with it. Specifically, the fear that it would continue. This of course, was pain from the future.
I have also long been quite aware of the suffering of animals. Sick, injured, orphaned, abused and otherwise in-need animals have always had a way of finding me (I write this as a pregnant feral cat relaxes in a cage not eight feet behind me). It started when I was a young kid riding my bicycle along Carleton Avenue and found a baby bird on the ground. It had no eyes. I scooped it up, wrapped it up in my Mets hat (SEE NOTE 1) and took little Tweety home. She lived with us for several years. I have assisted many other animals over the years (working as a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and an SPCA cruelty investigator, as well as doing plenty of animal rescues on my own). One thing I have long wondered about is how animals experience pain.
I have seen animals in some pretty horrible circumstances, both in person and on video. There has never been any doubt in my mind that they experience pain, and that they can have some level of an emotional aspect to it. They definitely experience fear. But I have never been sure if their more limited cognitive abilities are a plus for them when it comes to pain, or a minus. On one hand, they have a limited ability to conceptualize the future. Obviously, they do have some concept of it -- it certainly appears that evolution has equipped them with some sort of predictive abilities -- but whether that applies to their experience of pain is tough to say (the fact that a previously abused animal will wince greatly when threatened seems to show an ability to predict discomfort). Another aspect of their different brains is the differing ability to rationalize and understand cause and effect. Humans have much more advanced abilities in this respect (this is how I could, even as a kid, dismiss some level of pain from the rubber band). So, while on one hand I sometimes think they may have less of an emotional pain factor, they also have less of an ability to rationalize pain away. In the end, I find myself still wondering about how animals experience pain.
When I got into religious studies and found my way into Buddhism, this topic came back to me. Buddhism, after all, was prompted, as the stories go, by the young prince Siddhartha Gautama seeking a way to relieve the suffering that was inherent in the world. Advanced practitioners of Buddhist practice are able to achieve a certain power over pain, such as the Buddhist monks that burned themselves alive as protests during the Vietnam War (which was not a legitimate war, by the way), sitting calmly as the flames claimed their lives. I came to learn that this was largely a result of their ability to live in the present moment (SEE NOTE 2).
This present moment idea meshed with my "fear/pain from the future" idea.
The last couple of years I have been including books on neuroscience in my reading. The one I am reading now is The Accidental Mind. I won't go into the details (read the book, it is a good one), but it has confirmed my observation of the importance of an emotional aspect to pain. Both Buddhism and science, then, have confirmed some of my hypothesizing about the experience of pain (Buddhism is pretty scientific in its approach to the world, actually).
With all the suffering I willingly expose myself to, and all the thought I have put into it over the years, I think I have developed some underastanding of pain, but I will continue to watch and learn more. While I don't think I'll ever see any major difference in the way we experience pain, I believe my my observations have helped me help those around me deal with it. That's worth something.
XXX
NOTE 1: Dad raised me to be a Mets fan, and to hate the formerly-of-Brooklyn Dodgers -- I sometimes feel guilty for not having anything to do with the sport these days. I started to drift away from the sport in the late 80s as I thought that Major League Baseball was getting away from the spirit of the game. This was confirmed when the 1994 World Series was canceled, for the first time ever, for business reasons. I'm glad my father wasn't alive to see that. The game survived two world wars, the Great Depression, and other major disturbances, but succumbed to greed. I don't believe I have watched a single pro game since.
NOTE 2: Thich Nhat Hanh teaches awareness of the present moment as a central part, perhaps THE central part, of his Buddhist practice. As one breathing awareness mantra goes: "Breathing in, I feel my body relax. Breathing out, I smile. Living in the present moment; This is a wonderful moment."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
My 4th of July Morning.
My Fourth of July was busy, and pretty cool.
The day started out by leaving the house at 8AM to catch a boat out of Port Washington (about 45 or so minutes from my house). The boat took us out to the first-ever public tour of the offshore Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This is one of my favorite lighthouses, and one that I had suggested as a possible project to my board of directors at the LI Lighthouse Society when I was the organization's president. When it was made available for acquisition last year, no local groups applied for it and it was awarded to a new group from Philadelphia called Historically Significant Structures. I had had a conversation or two with its president, Craig Morrison, a couple of years ago or so, but nothing big.
Now that they have ownership of the lighthouse (SEE NOTE 1), they are seeking ways to assemble a board and get the project underway. They estimate five years and about a million-and-a-half dollars. I don't agree with those numbers, but it is their project. Anyway...
Let me interject a little history about this light station:
The Execution Rocks were a series of rocks just under the surface in the middle of the western end of the Long Island Sound, just north of Sands Point. This has long been a very busy area for shipping, and still is. There is a legend that the name came from a British practice pf chaining revolutionaries to the rocks at low tide and letting the tide drown them as a sort of cautionary tale to the colonists. This tale has less frequently been told as that of the natives doing the same to the colonists. Both tales are folklore. As I more fully prove in my book on Long Island lighthouses (by quoting eminent local figures of the time), the rocks were given their name because they claimed many ships.
A lighthouse was built at Sands Point in 1809 (the fourth lighthouse to be built on Long Island, after Montauk Point -- 1796, Eatons Neck - 1799, and Little Gull Island - 1806). Part of its job was to warn people about the Execution Rocks, but that was tough to do from land, especially with the inferior lighting apparatus that was standard in the US at that time.
A bouy was set at Execution Rocks in 1827, and by 1837 there was talk of trying to establish a lightship on site. As was common in the 1820-1852 period of American lighthouse administration, there was plenty of talk and confusion for years, but no contract awarded until 1847. The law at the time demanded that the contract go to the lowest bidder, a man named Thomas Butler. After the contract was awarded, it was learned that Butler lacked the skills and experience necessary to do the project. Most of the job was subsequently done by subcontractors, and the lighthouse was put into service in 1850. Even after completion, the station had problems, the most notable of which was probably the nasty waters of the Long Island Sound washing away the rocks of the artificial island that had been built for the lighthouse. This would be an ongoing problem.
When the white tower (it did not get its brown stripe until 1899) was first built, there were no other buildings on site. The light was intended to be maintained by the keepers at Sands Point. This worked for a while, but it was eventually decided that this lighthouse would be better served by an on-site keeper. After the War Between The States, when many light stations in the Third District (essentially, Rhode Island, Connecticut, southern New York and northern New Jersey) were being repaired or rebuilt, Execution Rocks received a keepers' dwelling. A fog signal building was later added (it burned down in 1918 and was rebuilt in 1920) and, eventually, radio equipment was also put on site.
The station was manned until 1979, when it was automated. This meant that the site was pretty much abandoned, aside from occasional maintenance visits by Coast Guard personnel. As with any abandoned building, time took its toll (as you can see in the photos I have posted on MySpace).
Back to the present:
I guess there were about 35 of us on the first tour (SEE NOTE 2). We had access to the entire island and the entire keepers' dwelling and tower (except for the dwelling's attic). With the safety issues at hand in a situation like that (lead, asbestos, falling plaster, etc. etc.), you don't usually get that kind of access.
The interior of the tower was much roomier than I had expected. The original stairs and landings are long gone, replaced by steel stairs and steel-grate landings supprted by steel I-beams. It looks kind of ad hoc, but at least the tower is still there. Getting into the lantern room and out onto the catwalk is tricky in this lighthouse. It was not at all easy, nor was the trip back into the lantern room and down the ladder. This is going to be a primary safety concern at this site. The view from the catwalk, which is in very good shape, was nice. You can see the Manhattan skyline, the Throgs Neck and Whitestone bridges, Long Island's fabled Gold Coast, historic Hart Island, the Sands Point lighthouse, and much more. Very cool.
We spent more than an hour on site. I went through the keepers' quarters, climbed the tower, and looked at various aspects of the current condition of the station. I had plenty of thoughts about the stabilization of the site, its restoration, its future use, public access, environmental impacts, and all that, which I will share with the president and treasurer (I believe they are the only two current board members for the orgaqnization at this early point) via e-mail this week. They have enthusiasm, which is good, and some experience with grant-writing, which is very good. They will need to build a strong board of directors (I am definitely saying no to that one) and a solid volunteer corps (which I will be willing to help out with) if they are to make any real progress.
These sorts of projects usually start out with a bang: Excited people, some early donations, press copverage, etc., but can fizzle when the real world steps in with logistical problems, fundraising difficulties, environmental considerations (there are birds nesting on the island, and one egg got stepped on while we were on the island), complaining neighbors, insurance issues, growing disillusionment, etc.. This lighthouse is too historically important for this project to fail, so I am going to see what I can do to help out (probably offer to be their historian and main tour guide, and see what I can do spread the word). The most important thing that they need to do, though, is build a board of directors that can and will raise serious money. If the money is raised, the rest can happen. No money, no lighthouse.
Diane and I took lots of photos, and I took some helmetcam video. I am still on a learning curve with the audio on that camera, so I added a live Juke House soundtrack to the video I posted on MySpace. I am still digesting the sites and discussions of the day, and will probably talk about this more as time goes on.
I had planned on writing about the afternoon and evening of the 4th, but it is late and this is already way too long. I'll try to add that tomorrow.
NOTE 1: The National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 set specific guidelines for stewardship of historic lighthouses that were to be transferred out of government ownership, so don't start scheming to get yourself a lighthouse and make it your home. It doesn't work that way.
NOTE 2: In the years Diane and I spent in the "lighthouse business," we made the acquaintance of lots of lighthouse aficionados, as well as preservationists and historians. I expected to see some of the "usuals" on this trip, but only met one man that I had previously met in my life as a lighthouse czar.
The day started out by leaving the house at 8AM to catch a boat out of Port Washington (about 45 or so minutes from my house). The boat took us out to the first-ever public tour of the offshore Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This is one of my favorite lighthouses, and one that I had suggested as a possible project to my board of directors at the LI Lighthouse Society when I was the organization's president. When it was made available for acquisition last year, no local groups applied for it and it was awarded to a new group from Philadelphia called Historically Significant Structures. I had had a conversation or two with its president, Craig Morrison, a couple of years ago or so, but nothing big.
Now that they have ownership of the lighthouse (SEE NOTE 1), they are seeking ways to assemble a board and get the project underway. They estimate five years and about a million-and-a-half dollars. I don't agree with those numbers, but it is their project. Anyway...
Let me interject a little history about this light station:
The Execution Rocks were a series of rocks just under the surface in the middle of the western end of the Long Island Sound, just north of Sands Point. This has long been a very busy area for shipping, and still is. There is a legend that the name came from a British practice pf chaining revolutionaries to the rocks at low tide and letting the tide drown them as a sort of cautionary tale to the colonists. This tale has less frequently been told as that of the natives doing the same to the colonists. Both tales are folklore. As I more fully prove in my book on Long Island lighthouses (by quoting eminent local figures of the time), the rocks were given their name because they claimed many ships.
A lighthouse was built at Sands Point in 1809 (the fourth lighthouse to be built on Long Island, after Montauk Point -- 1796, Eatons Neck - 1799, and Little Gull Island - 1806). Part of its job was to warn people about the Execution Rocks, but that was tough to do from land, especially with the inferior lighting apparatus that was standard in the US at that time.
A bouy was set at Execution Rocks in 1827, and by 1837 there was talk of trying to establish a lightship on site. As was common in the 1820-1852 period of American lighthouse administration, there was plenty of talk and confusion for years, but no contract awarded until 1847. The law at the time demanded that the contract go to the lowest bidder, a man named Thomas Butler. After the contract was awarded, it was learned that Butler lacked the skills and experience necessary to do the project. Most of the job was subsequently done by subcontractors, and the lighthouse was put into service in 1850. Even after completion, the station had problems, the most notable of which was probably the nasty waters of the Long Island Sound washing away the rocks of the artificial island that had been built for the lighthouse. This would be an ongoing problem.
When the white tower (it did not get its brown stripe until 1899) was first built, there were no other buildings on site. The light was intended to be maintained by the keepers at Sands Point. This worked for a while, but it was eventually decided that this lighthouse would be better served by an on-site keeper. After the War Between The States, when many light stations in the Third District (essentially, Rhode Island, Connecticut, southern New York and northern New Jersey) were being repaired or rebuilt, Execution Rocks received a keepers' dwelling. A fog signal building was later added (it burned down in 1918 and was rebuilt in 1920) and, eventually, radio equipment was also put on site.
The station was manned until 1979, when it was automated. This meant that the site was pretty much abandoned, aside from occasional maintenance visits by Coast Guard personnel. As with any abandoned building, time took its toll (as you can see in the photos I have posted on MySpace).
Back to the present:
I guess there were about 35 of us on the first tour (SEE NOTE 2). We had access to the entire island and the entire keepers' dwelling and tower (except for the dwelling's attic). With the safety issues at hand in a situation like that (lead, asbestos, falling plaster, etc. etc.), you don't usually get that kind of access.
The interior of the tower was much roomier than I had expected. The original stairs and landings are long gone, replaced by steel stairs and steel-grate landings supprted by steel I-beams. It looks kind of ad hoc, but at least the tower is still there. Getting into the lantern room and out onto the catwalk is tricky in this lighthouse. It was not at all easy, nor was the trip back into the lantern room and down the ladder. This is going to be a primary safety concern at this site. The view from the catwalk, which is in very good shape, was nice. You can see the Manhattan skyline, the Throgs Neck and Whitestone bridges, Long Island's fabled Gold Coast, historic Hart Island, the Sands Point lighthouse, and much more. Very cool.
We spent more than an hour on site. I went through the keepers' quarters, climbed the tower, and looked at various aspects of the current condition of the station. I had plenty of thoughts about the stabilization of the site, its restoration, its future use, public access, environmental impacts, and all that, which I will share with the president and treasurer (I believe they are the only two current board members for the orgaqnization at this early point) via e-mail this week. They have enthusiasm, which is good, and some experience with grant-writing, which is very good. They will need to build a strong board of directors (I am definitely saying no to that one) and a solid volunteer corps (which I will be willing to help out with) if they are to make any real progress.
These sorts of projects usually start out with a bang: Excited people, some early donations, press copverage, etc., but can fizzle when the real world steps in with logistical problems, fundraising difficulties, environmental considerations (there are birds nesting on the island, and one egg got stepped on while we were on the island), complaining neighbors, insurance issues, growing disillusionment, etc.. This lighthouse is too historically important for this project to fail, so I am going to see what I can do to help out (probably offer to be their historian and main tour guide, and see what I can do spread the word). The most important thing that they need to do, though, is build a board of directors that can and will raise serious money. If the money is raised, the rest can happen. No money, no lighthouse.
Diane and I took lots of photos, and I took some helmetcam video. I am still on a learning curve with the audio on that camera, so I added a live Juke House soundtrack to the video I posted on MySpace. I am still digesting the sites and discussions of the day, and will probably talk about this more as time goes on.
I had planned on writing about the afternoon and evening of the 4th, but it is late and this is already way too long. I'll try to add that tomorrow.
XXX
NOTE 1: The National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 set specific guidelines for stewardship of historic lighthouses that were to be transferred out of government ownership, so don't start scheming to get yourself a lighthouse and make it your home. It doesn't work that way.
NOTE 2: In the years Diane and I spent in the "lighthouse business," we made the acquaintance of lots of lighthouse aficionados, as well as preservationists and historians. I expected to see some of the "usuals" on this trip, but only met one man that I had previously met in my life as a lighthouse czar.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Another Backwards Church Sign.
I am okay with the variety of beliefs in the world. I am cool with whatever religion you are. I enjoy studying religions, and continue to do so. Hey, if everyone was a rationalist (i.e., they based their worldview on facts and reason) there'd be that many fewer people to make fun of. What I don't like, and refuse to tolerate, though, is dishonesty, misinformation, and attacks on the US Constitution and the nation which it created.
Today, I saw a church sign that, although it added to the evidence for my statements about the anti-Americanism inherent in religion, pissed me off.
The sign said: "The Cross. Our Real Statue of Liberty."
I could probably write a book about how wrong that sign is, why they say stuff like that, and all, but I will point out two quick and ridiculously obvious points:
1. The attack on America, and the motivation behind it, is pretty obvious. Perhaps nothing symbolizes American ideals more than the Statue of Liberty. This sign -- this church -- says that the Statue of Liberty is not a "real" symbol of Liberty. If you want Liberty, you have to toss aside that which the Statue symbolizes and embrace THEIR symbol. As I argued in a recent post about a different church sign (not too far away from this one), this is evidence of the religionists' desire to undermine the Constitution and the ideals for which it stands. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see this. Just open your eyes, look around you, and ask questions.
2. This is a lovely example of the "tell people the exact opposite of the truth often enough and they will believe it" strategy that religions rely on to survive. Why do you think they start brainwashing kids early on? They know that if they wait until kids are old enough to decide for themsleves, that they are going to see that the stories of Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, Noah, Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Gilgamesh, etc. would all struggle to be as believable as the story of Santa Claus to a free mind. The Truth is that religious doctrine is ANTI-LIBERTY! Religions tend to tell you what you must do, as commanded by [insert deity here]. Your free will can go to hell (pardon the pun). What is important is submission (my materials from Mohamed's staff tell me that "Islam" means "submission"). Let's make this quite clear: The Christian cross is a symbol, not of Liberty, but of subservience. That sign is nothing more than an outright fucking lie.
It is not just a lie, though. It is also an attack on Liberty and on the ideals upon which America was based (SEE NOTE). It is a purposeful undermining of the power and strength of the United Sattes and its Constitution in order to gain more power and money for themselves.
Again, we are forced to ponder the question of why religionists hate America, and the answer once again is because it competes with religion for power and money, and it allows for Liberty, which is antagonistic and, indeed, antithetical to their designs.
I think that's enough about that. I am going to go pet Pumpkin (that's what we named the pregnant feral cat) and calm down a bit, then set some sleep so I can be sharp as I scoot around town in my Mini-E tomorrow (It's not exactly a "zoom," more of a "whoosh.").
NOTE: Yes, there were Christians among the Founding Fathers. And yes, some of them wanted religion in the Constitution (probably most notably Patrick Henry). If you want to challenge my statements about American ideals based on the religiosity of America at the time of its founding, have at it. I'll be happy to point out examples of why religion was purposely kept out of the Constitution.
Today, I saw a church sign that, although it added to the evidence for my statements about the anti-Americanism inherent in religion, pissed me off.
The sign said: "The Cross. Our Real Statue of Liberty."
I could probably write a book about how wrong that sign is, why they say stuff like that, and all, but I will point out two quick and ridiculously obvious points:
1. The attack on America, and the motivation behind it, is pretty obvious. Perhaps nothing symbolizes American ideals more than the Statue of Liberty. This sign -- this church -- says that the Statue of Liberty is not a "real" symbol of Liberty. If you want Liberty, you have to toss aside that which the Statue symbolizes and embrace THEIR symbol. As I argued in a recent post about a different church sign (not too far away from this one), this is evidence of the religionists' desire to undermine the Constitution and the ideals for which it stands. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see this. Just open your eyes, look around you, and ask questions.
2. This is a lovely example of the "tell people the exact opposite of the truth often enough and they will believe it" strategy that religions rely on to survive. Why do you think they start brainwashing kids early on? They know that if they wait until kids are old enough to decide for themsleves, that they are going to see that the stories of Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, Noah, Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Gilgamesh, etc. would all struggle to be as believable as the story of Santa Claus to a free mind. The Truth is that religious doctrine is ANTI-LIBERTY! Religions tend to tell you what you must do, as commanded by [insert deity here]. Your free will can go to hell (pardon the pun). What is important is submission (my materials from Mohamed's staff tell me that "Islam" means "submission"). Let's make this quite clear: The Christian cross is a symbol, not of Liberty, but of subservience. That sign is nothing more than an outright fucking lie.
It is not just a lie, though. It is also an attack on Liberty and on the ideals upon which America was based (SEE NOTE). It is a purposeful undermining of the power and strength of the United Sattes and its Constitution in order to gain more power and money for themselves.
Again, we are forced to ponder the question of why religionists hate America, and the answer once again is because it competes with religion for power and money, and it allows for Liberty, which is antagonistic and, indeed, antithetical to their designs.
I think that's enough about that. I am going to go pet Pumpkin (that's what we named the pregnant feral cat) and calm down a bit, then set some sleep so I can be sharp as I scoot around town in my Mini-E tomorrow (It's not exactly a "zoom," more of a "whoosh.").
XXX
NOTE: Yes, there were Christians among the Founding Fathers. And yes, some of them wanted religion in the Constitution (probably most notably Patrick Henry). If you want to challenge my statements about American ideals based on the religiosity of America at the time of its founding, have at it. I'll be happy to point out examples of why religion was purposely kept out of the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)