What a Colossal Waste of Time

Hey, have you heard that we are in the midst of an economic downturn, something like the worst recession in the collective memory? I think I heard that somewhere. Did you know that the American health care system it teetering on the verge of collapse? There seems to be some data out there that pointing in that direction. Were you aware that we are facing environmental challenges registering at the "catastrophic for humanity on a world-wide level" level? Seems to me I read about that somewhere.

So what are our legislators working on?

Well, I'll tell ya.

They actually wasted our public time and resources on this steaming heap of bullshit:

H.Con.Res.131

Agreed to July 10, 2009

One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. ENGRAVING OF PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND NATIONAL MOTTO IN CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER.

(a) Engraving Required- The Architect of the Capitol shall engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of ‘In God we trust’ in the Capitol Visitor Center, in accordance with the engraving plan described in subsection (b).

(b) Engraving Plan- The engraving plan described in this subsection is a plan setting forth the design and location of the engraving required under subsection (a) which is prepared by the Architect of the Capitol and approved by the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

Attest: Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest: Secretary of the Senate.

And the vote?

Passed by the House, July 9, 2009: Aye 410, Nay 8, Present/Not Voting 14
Minnesota delegation:

Minnesota
Aye	MN-1	Walz, Timothy [D]
Aye	MN-2	Kline, John [R]
Aye	MN-3	Paulsen, Erik [R]
Aye	MN-4	McCollum, Betty [D]
Aye	MN-5	Ellison, Keith [D]
Aye	MN-6	Bachmann, Michele [R]
Aye	MN-7	Peterson, Collin [D]
Aye	MN-8	Oberstar, James [D]

The Senate: 7/10/2009: Received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7372)

I do believe that some of my Minnesota Congresspeople are going to be hearing from me. I am certainly not shocked about the republicans, least of all Ms. Bachmann, but I am heartily disappointed in Mr. Walz, Ms. McCollum (she's mine), Mr. Ellison, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Oberstar.

What difference does it make? Why do I care? What does it really change in my life? Well, as a nonbeliever, it pushes me further out of public discourse. It contributes to the culture of sanctimonious, hyper-religiosity and to the rewriting of history we have been enduring in America during this round of evangelical madness. It actually carves in stone the false notion that this is a "Christian Nation" that was founded on "Christian Values."

I was not alive when this happened:

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. US Treasury Fact Sheet

Neither was I around when "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. I doubt we are going to get rid of either any time soon, even though we seem to have had this pesky little thing

Article the third [Amendment I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

around for even longer.

Oh, and this:

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, 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.^[27]

Congressional moves like H Con Res 131, "under god," and "In God We Trust" are official actions, taken by the government, that sanction religious beliefs. They are a waste of time, mere political posturing, they place Christianity above all other religions, and they leave out a whole population of Americans checking the atheist, agnostic, nonbelieving, spiritual, and "other" boxes.

Until we stop only putting our patriotism into abstract symbols of nationhood and our trust into deities instead of into our fellow citizens, we will be mired in the same "country first" mentality that plays to politics and not to people. We have real problems, and spending public money to chip arcane and irrelevant words into a visitor center wall will get us no where. Apparently, some section of the American population thinks that America is in a godless tailspin into depravity, and this is a congressman's idea of how to slow it down. I have no idea, but are these not the same people who get their collective feathers all a-ruffle if the government so much as sniffs around their property lines, screaming about privacy? But they are all-too-happy to allow the government into the most private places, as long as it is their own cherished beliefs that the government is supporting or endorsing.

I understand that these are official United States words being carved into official United States walls, but wasn't it bad enough that they were made official in the first place? It's a step in the wrong direction. Mr. Ellison was given loads of heat for taking his oath of office on a Koran. Thomas Jefferson's Koran. He voted "yes." Even if they want to say, well, it doesn't say "in Yahweh we trust," we all know that they certainly don't mean "Allah," and it's a load of bunk to suggest that "God" is somehow all-inclusive, especially in America in 2009.

Wait until Thor finds out.

We could use a good thunderstorm.

No blasphemy for me, thanks. I had sacrilege for lunch.

The United Nations wants to make its anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member countries.

That's right! No more free speech, brought to you by an organization acting outside its charter and 57 Muslim countries worried about their god's popularity rating at the international prom.

Can't god just go on hotornot.com like other insecure individuals looking for approval?

Am I alone in finding the concept of blasphemy to be amusing? What kind of all-powerful god cannot stand up to a little healthy criticism? What kind of god needs to go running to daddy when some kid drawing doodles in Scandinavia calls him fat?

Seriously. I don't think Zeus asked to have any laws passed to keep people from talking about how he was a slut behind his back: it's lightning bolt in yer butt, and you are a smoking stain on the road. Thor running to parliament? Nope. Forehead, meet mighty hammer.

Is Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah really so impotent that he can't take care of his own business?

No god of mine would be calling up its legislator if someone called its mother a hamster. There would be divine retribution of a spectacularly interesting kind. Yeah, the kind of retribution where god laughs off the words of puny mortals because, hey, I'm god.

I kid, but it's serious business. Not blasphemy, unless you are on the wrong side of one of these no-blasphemy laws and are killed by your own government for calling Allah a ninny, but this anti-blasphemy resolution. Serious business. I find it the height of irony that the very countries asking for protection for their religion are the countries that deal with blasphemers in the most medieval of ways. This is also the religion whose followers are the first to leap to violence whenever an off color cartoon is printed, as Mr. Hitchens recently pointed out on CNN.

The "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolution is supposedly meant to prevent violence against the religious, no matter what religion, but it seems more like an attempt to extend the Shariah internationally, and let me simply say "Thanks, but no thanks," just like Sarah Palin. Except, I mean it.

Let's think about this for a minute.
Blasphemy: 13th century (that sounds about right)1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

That there definition casts a pretty wide net. How do you decide who to stone? Can you arrest a celebrity judge on a reality contest show if she says someone has nicer hair than Jesus? Can you tar and feather a professional basketball player who speaks about himself in third person and calls himself god? If you just don't seem enthusiastic enough about the sermon, is that blasphemy? Who gets to decide?

The statement reads in part “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” *ahem* OK. Frequently. And wrongly. Yeah. In fact, no religion gets to say that it is wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism. Even Scientology has its moments, Xenu knows.

How can you defame religion, anyway? I was not aware that religion had a squeaky clean reputation that could be harmed by libel or slander. And isn't religion an institution? I don't remember the lab experiment that made religion sentient.

Our friendly neighbors to the north had some choice words about this resolution:

“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings.”-Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.

Go Canada!

She goes on:
“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.” (emphasis mine)

Thank you.

I feel like a rousing chorus of "Oh Canada" right about now.

Dust up in the Dust Bowl

(I should have busted this one out for Darwin's birthday, but, well, I didn't. Here it is now, from 2007.)

According to an article on yahoo.com, God and Darwin are to “clash again in Kansas.” (February 13, 2007. “God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas.”)

I wonder how that would go.

Because, first of all, Darwin was real, and secondly, Darwin is dead.

Perhaps the scientific theory of evolution is coming into conflict with the religious belief in creation by a supernatural god, but God and Darwin are not having some sort of brawl in the midlands.

I would imagine that in a contest between God and Darwin, some ground rules would have to be laid:

1. God is not allowed to smite.
2. The duel will be limited to the exchange of reasoned, logical arguments based on the evidence.
3. God must limit itself to one manifestation: Yahweh, Allah, Thor, and Zeus are not allowed to tag-team the scientist.
4. God is not allowed to say “because I said so” (See number 2).
5. Darwin is not allowed to roll his eyes and scoff.
6. Darwin will refrain from thwacking God on the forehead and reminding him that “god” itself is a creature of evolution, developed by the human mind over tens of thousands of years.

Religious fundamentalists (antiscientifics?) say that “evolution cannot be proven,” and that it is “not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life.” Well now, I would guess that they would get little to no argument on the second assertion. In fact, I quite agree with them. It appears we have some common ground! As far as the first assertion goes, making a claim of improvability for evolution does not make it improvable, and are they offering up their whole “done in seven days” idea to the rigors of “proof?” Because “The Bible says so, and we’re here, aren’t we?” is not proof.

(I can almost picture the annual meeting of these people: antiscientifics sitting around in little hysterical huddles, talking about the load of crap that is global warming, the clever diversion of evolution, and the affront to god and nature that is stem cell research, while they feed mountains of evidence to little campfires, roasting marshmallows, all the while also lamenting the decline of modern American civilization.)

But I digress.

People who accept a book like the Bible as concrete truth purely on its own merits because “God said it” and do not subject their beliefs to rigorous standards do not seem to have the right to request “proof” of anything.