The Concord Monitor comes out against Rick Warren at Barack Obama's inauguration. . .but not only does the Monitor oppose Warren because of his anti-gay views, the paper (once named by Time Magazine as one of America's best newspapers) comes to the conclusion that inaugural prayers ought to be done away with entirely:

Do we need an inaugural prayer? Somehow, in a country that has become more and more diverse, a country that includes not only Protestants, but also Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and nonbelievers, the tradition seems an anachronism that future presidents would do well to scrap.

Formal prayers by Christian ministers have been associated with presidential inaugurations from the get-go, but they're surely no requirement. And while you might assume such prayers would be of the tepid, generic, non-denominational variety, a quick look back at recent overtly religious invocations will surely give many Americans, regardless of their personal religious affiliations, pause.

I posted the following over on my blog this morning. The specifics of it have very little to do with UTI, but I have some more thoughts to share after it.

* * * * * * *

So, Saturday I stopped in at my local gun shop, needed to pick up some components for a reloading project yesterday. They were busy, which is good to see, so it took a bit before I had a chance to chat with Dave.

"Had a chance to check out the Ballistics by the inch site yet?"

"No, not yet - busy with the holidays and stuff. You know."

"No worries."

"Going well?"

"Yeah, we've had over 350,000 hits in the month since it went up."

"Wow." Pause. "Um, is that a lot?" (They're not real big on computers, these guys, which is why there's just a link to a Yellow Pages listing for them off of our website.)

"Heh. Yeah, that's a hell of a lot. It's gotten quite a lot of attention. More and more, I see it cited as a reference when people are talking about this or that caliber performance."

"Huh. Well, I guess. But everyone knows that it's just basically 25 fps for each inch of barrel. Simple."

That's pretty much my maxim for dealing with any government agency, at any level: no matter what they tell you, the situation will always turn out to be worse the more you find out about it.

You know what's going to happen when they're talking about road construction being delayed or taxes having to go up. I expect it when I hear that the economy is "having difficulties". That's bad enough. But when they start talking about infringements on your civil liberties, you might as well reach for the lube and grab your ankles.

Latest such instance:

More Groups Than Thought Monitored in Police Spying

The Maryland State Police surveillance of advocacy groups was far more extensive than previously acknowledged, with records showing that troopers monitored -- and labeled as terrorists -- activists devoted to such wide-ranging causes as promoting human rights and establishing bike lanes.

Yeah, those evil bike-lane loving terrorists had to be watched!

This morning brings with it two examples of really bad arguments against Michael Newdow's suit to un-God-ify the presidential inauguration. I'll deal with the weaker of the two first, by Dan McDowell who writes a Boston College Democrats column for Examiner.com. I consider it weaker because the piece is peppered with such phrases as "come on" and "what is this?", which I suppose are meant to be informal and familiar, but really only make the author seem, well, twelve.

McDowell doesn't seem to really know where he stands on the issue, as he insists:

I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. It is to the benefit of both that the institutions do not get mixed up with one another.

And then tells us (emphasis mine):

Going after the word God appearing anywhere in the public sphere, including our government, is ridiculous.

Ed Halliwell on the Guardian's blog makes what I can only assume is an attempt at a kind of charming, I'm-okay-you're-okay détente between believers and atheists in an otherwise benign post about the Buddha's unwillingness to delve into the question of the existence of a supreme being.

I suppose that's all well and good, but in his admiration for the Buddha's disinterest, he woefully mischaracterizes the atheist position:

Part of what makes the argument [over God's existence] so comical is how the concept of "God" onto which atheists project is rarely the same as the one defended by believers.

Whatever images of God some atheists might like to invoke in heated antitheistic rhetoric, the God whose existence is denied is not limited to one or another caricature, but all gods, all supernatural beings, all unknowable, mystical, cosmic consciousnesses. So not only is the concept of God that is refuted the same as the one defended by believers, but every concept of God (that is not merely a shorthand metaphor for what actually is).

So, imagine that your job is to help people. People with disabilities. People who need help with transportation, getting on and off the buses operated by the company you work for. Sometimes, these people are entirely at your mercy, trusting you to secure them safely, to see them safely to their destination.

Got it?

Now, what happens when at the end of your shift, and you're running late. There's still someone with cerebral palsy on your bus, strapped in and unable to move. The bus has gone back to the lot, rather than taking the young man to his home, as it was supposed to do. What should you do?

Well, the obvious answer is that you leave that person strapped in overnight, and make sure you don't miss the start of church. At least, that was the answer for bus matron Linda Hockaday:

So, gay? Atheist? Just in favor of the separation of Church and State?

Then have a smile:

Conservatives on 9th Circuit Can't Rescue Boy Scouts From Establishment Clause Claim

Conservatives on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals couldn't muster enough votes to rescue the Boy Scouts from the riptide of an Establishment Clause claim.

The court denied en banc review Tuesday to a San Diego-based Boy Scouts group in a case that raises tough church-and-state questions (pdf). The appeal drew a wide range of amici: the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and a group of states -- including Texas and South Dakota -- sided with the Scouts, while California filed for the plaintiffs.

Just dropped this note to a friend:

So, you guys doing anything particularly celebratory for New Years? We're going to be whooping it up - I got the triple meat pizza rolls! Woo-hoo!

What wild-n-crazy plans have you got?

We're having an open house for our neighborhood tomorrow, so getting plastered and making a big mess tonight has zero appeal for me. Well, even without the open house it would hold almost zero interest, so I suppose that isn't much of a factor . . .

Anyway, what's the haps, my friends?

Jim Downey

So, I went to a funeral the other day.

It was a nice funeral, as funerals go, but it was a decidedly Catholic funeral. You see, Mrs. Inscrutable and I did the flowers for the funeral. My brother's wife's mother died way too young, and we were only happy to put together a wonderful flower arrangement for the family. We asked if they wanted us to stay for the service, and they said it was okay to leave after dropping off the flowers, but we thought that it would be nice if we stuck around and offered some moral support for my brother, his wife, and her family.

Can you say "uncomfortable"?

The priest - "Father Joe", had a high-pitched, whiny voice, which he acknowledged right up front, and had a tendency to repeat himself, to make his points. He insisted on calling the deceased "mom" and "grandma". Over and over. "Mom, and grandma, would have said...", would have wanted, would have been, etc. All I could think was, "didn't this guy have the decency to actually get to know the deceased and her family a bit before spouting off about her "wants" and "needs"? He also sang. In latin. Acapella.

I opted not to deal with Andrew Brown's recent incoherent diatribe against the New Atheists on the Guardian's website, mainly for its messy impenetrability and my own sense that life is just too short.

Today, though, Brown posts again to respond to criticisms of the first posting, particularly the charge that he intentionally leaves out the philosophers of the bunch, namely Daniel Dennett (whom he admits he loathes and therefore can't write about objectively) and Sam Harris.

The crime? See for yourself:

This will not be an easy post to read. If you're looking for something light and happy, move along.

So, when is something an act of revenge and torture? And when is it a simple act of justice?

A doctor can remove your hand to save you from death by gangrene, or a doctor can remove your hand as a state-sanctioned punishment. What is the difference?

My youngest was lamenting the fact that Christmas was very thin this year. Not in a bad, whiny, selfish way, but rather in the general "aw, it's too bad that everyone is so broke this year due to the economy." (His 12 year old brain is finally beginning to realize that there is a wider world out there, and it's all connected - somehow - by this 'economy' thing, among other equally nebulous concepts. And it affects him. Wow! :)) So, we had a little talk about Christmas, the holidays in general, and what is really important.

I asked him to remember back to Christmas, two years ago, and tell me about one gift that he still has and enjoys.

He thought about it for a good thirty seconds - an eternity in 12-year-old land - and admitted that he doesn't have a clue what he got two years ago. He couldn't remember a single thing.

Then I asked him what he does remember about Christmastime two years ago.

"I remember when all of the family came over and we made peanut butter balls and sat around the firepit and played guitar and I jumped on the trampoline with my cousins. Then Uncle Kris fell over the dog and tipped over the pretzels!"

Point made. Family, friends, getting together and just enjoying each other's company, singing songs and laughing - that is the true meaning of Christmas for this atheist family. All that other stuff - the holiday sales, the gift-giving, the decorations, the music, Santa Claus - just gives us the perfect excuse to get together and be a family together. I love this time of year because of that.

I hope your holiday time was happy, all.

Let's see how many people I can piss off . . .

Saw a good thread over on Balloon Juice. In a nice rant about the stupidity of how the mainstream media is covering the effects of the financial collapse on Wall Street, John Cole made the comment "I may have to just shoot my tv."

This particular sentiment was picked up in the discussion which followed. One of the best passages from that said, in part:

Fifteen years ago I was so broke I sold my tv to make rent. I didn’t have much of a withdrawl. I spent the next 10 years without a tv, and I began to notice very weird things. I noticed how a ton of people couldn’t describe an event or situation without referring to some TV show. I call it the Seinfeld Effect, because at that time so many people would try to describe some event in their life and they just couldn’t without saying ‘Omygod it’s just like that Seinfeld where George and Jerry do that thing with..blah blah blah’.

Bloc Raisonneur reader StanB directed my attention to two pieces from the Ottawa Citizen that I think are very important. One is a full-length article, another a short response.

The main article is by Robert Sibley who inspired another post by me only a couple of days ago. I did not realize the degree of revulsion Sibley feels for the New Atheists and atheism in general, but his December 26 essay is brimming with resentment that reveals itself in absurd acts of psychological speculation and rhetorical foul play. What follows are just a few examples. First, my jaw dropped when I read this (my own emphasis added):

Modern philosophy, natural science and psychology are, more often than not, atheistic in outlook. So, too, are many of our social and political institutions. It is a virtual taboo for a Canadian politician to refer to his or her religious faith in public life. The school system teaches students about sex and drugs, but classroom prayers have largely been cancelled.

[continued after the flip...]

A couple of weeks ago, the Pew Forum showed off its latest numbers concerning what Christians are saying about what it takes to get into heaven. I was surprised by one of the statistics: 42 percent of Christians said that atheists could find their way past the pearly gates if they lead a good life.

Now, I know a lot of open-minded Christians who really do believe that Heaven or the afterlife takes all kinds--the old "there are many paths to God" idea. But I have also known some, even very good friends, who despite their affection for me, have told me that my soul is as good as barbecued lest I straighten up and hang with the J.C. Being that the "many paths" philosophy is quite a progressive one, I assumed that a vast majority of Christian Americans fell in the "barbecue" category. Not so, apparently! 42 percent is not a majority, of course, but it's damned closer than I thought atheists could get in the minds of our Christian neighbors.

(And, of course, the number 42 has its own significance, especially to atheists.)

So what's going on here?

In a discussion about the over-influence of religion in British government on MetaFilter, the predictable give & take about activist atheism got going. I read these threads because they provide another snapshot into the current "temperature" of the debate, but once in a while I come across something either insightful or well stated that I like to share. Two such, this time:

Why is it that people complain about atheists evangelizing, but don't complain about the much more ubiquitous evangelism from the religious?

Because atheists are a threat to religion in a way that religion isn't to atheism.

It's like they have open-sourced morality and are undermining the business model of religion.
posted by srboisvert at 4:34 AM on December 28 [24 favorites]

I really like that idea: atheism is an open-source system, versus an entrenched and closed-source authority.

And then there's this:

You know, there's a reason why my email contact information listed here is "crap@afineline.org". Not because I don't want to hear from the many wonderful people who visit UTI, but because I want the kooks who also send me email to have to look at that address in their mailbox and think twice about what they're going to send me. It seems to me that sane people will get a small chuckle out of using that address - they get the joke - whereas the nutters will just be whipped into a greater frenzy.

Take for example one recent email I got, along with about two dozen other people. It started this way:

Subject: Nostradamus predicts the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system and the world-wide socialist revolution which follows

did you ever hear of the 1st amendment? or will you censor me like
everyone you disagree with...

the vote of the deluded, deceived, and brainwashed masses is not
valid.... it is a SHAM DEMOCRACY!

FINAL DRAFT FOR WORLD-WIDE CIRCULATION:

Law professor Paul Campos op-eds in the Rocky Mountain News on the subject of the very real dilemma for progressive atheists: reconciling support for Barack Obama's politics with his overt religiousness.

Campos has apparently come across some folks bandying about the possible insincerity of Obama's religious professions, and it seems to be bothering Campos:

Since it's obviously absurd to claim that people like Obama lack the necessary intelligence to grasp these truths that are so self-evident to the fundamentalist atheist, our fundamentalist friend is left with a couple of options.

First, he can claim that the otherwise intelligent person has been, as it were, brainwashed by his upbringing, his education, his psychological quirks (this latter explanation is especially popular among those who see religious belief as a form of unconscious wish-fulfillment) or some other ideological factor that remains impervious to what fundamentalist atheists likes to call "reason."

[. . .]

The alternative is to assume that obviously intelligent people who profess religious belief are lying. This belief is reflected in the assertion, repeated several times in the responses to my blog post, that surveys showing atheists to be a small minority of the population are inaccurate, because lots of people who are "really" atheists - like, apparently, Barack Obama - lie about it.

OK, Gang - time for confessions. Take a stand: Eggnog, yes or no?

If you say yes, what variety, what kind of alcohol?

If no, you're a heathen destined to live forevermore as an outcast from society.

Me, I like my eggnog with whiskey (Scotch, actually), minus all the milk and egg gunk. With ice.

Jim Downey