Partisan STUPIDTY

Have you ever had the pleasure to observe someone incredibly competent, thoughtful, skillful, and a leader in their field perform a job (such as brain surgery)? And then some fucking retard who hasn't the foggiest clue how to do this job criticizes ("What I'd do is cut right through that there Medulla Oblangata...")? Watching the way the Republicans are criticizing President Obama over his reaction to the Iranian Election protests is sort of like that.

Do the Republicans WANT to be a tool for the hardline government? Do they ENJOY being played like some ten cent banjo? Do they have no understanding of the history we have in that country that stretches back sixy years? When a statesman like Henry Kissinger says you are handling things correctly, don't you think the retards with an (R) after their name can listen?

I was particularly dismayed at the comparison one congresscritter had with President Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business." mental drivel. Does he really thing that the situations are even on the same planet of comparison? Is he so daft as to think that the history is remotely the same? Again, if the GOP wants to be a viable party, they need to find people who have IQs higher than room temperature to represent them (I'm not saying that Rebuplicans actually ARE retarded, but they are acting like it!).

Again, I urge all to support the Demonstrators in Iran, and we should hope for some sort of regime change. However, UNDERSTAND that it is not the place of the President of the United States (no matter who) to really take sides. He's screwed either way, but the sure fire way to give material support to the hardliners is to issue unequivocal support for the reformists. Read that again. Now think about it for a while, and maybe you can understand the staesmanship actualy involved here.

No matter how this turns out, also keep in mind that we have the spectre of a nuclear Iran to deal with. When the dust settles, no matter who is in power, we will still need to deal with them. Again, but interfereing or even taking sides, we potentially cut off any opportunity to tackle this issue. And the reformists are smarter than the Republicans apparently, and understand this. Iran is an intensely proud nation, and they understand that their revolution needs to come wholly at their own hands. And if we lend aid, we're just repeating the fiascos we seem to cause on a regular basis in that region.

Tell the congresscritters and talking heads that are criticizing President Obama to shut the fuck up and let the grown ups do real work, okay?

More Florida Fucktardery - School Prayer

Okay, the story linked in the title is about the ACLU suing the Santa Rosa School District regarding a systematic government endorsement and fostering of the christian faith in the local school district. Of course, some theitard made the claim that the Ccnstitution guarantees freedom OF religion, Not Freedom FROM religion.

This claim is common (as seen in the comments section), but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. And maybe that's their point?

Richard Dawkins Gives a Speech

Best I can say is that atheists really need to put a stop to this American Theocracy that seems to be budding. I know that I have spent 20 years defending the constitution, and while the 1st Amendment gives freedom of religion, there is also a corresponding freedom from religion embedded in that statement as well. First of all check out the video on the TED website. Good stuff.

Freedom of Religion Requires Freedom From Religion

Conservatives insist that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and argue against strict separation of church and state. Too often, though, conservatives seem to have a flawed understanding of what freedom from religion really entails and fail to realize that freedom from religion is crucial to religious liberty in general.

It is evident that a person misunderstands the concept of freedom from religion when they say that promotion of the idea is part of an effort to eliminate religion from the public square, to secularize America, or to deny religious believers a voice in politics. None of this follows from a belief that people have a right to be free from religion.

Freedom from religion is not a demand that one never encounter religion, religious believers, or religious ideas at all.

Freedom from religion is not freedom from seeing churches, encountering people handing out religious tracts on the street corner, seeing preachers on television, or listening to people discuss religion at work. Freedom from religion is not a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, that religious believers never voice an opinion, or that religiously-inspired values never have any impact on laws, customs, or public policies.

Freedom from religion is thus not a social right to never encounter religion in public spaces. Freedom from religion has two relevant aspects: personal and political. On the personal level, a right to be free from religion means that a person has the freedom not to belong to any religion or religious organization. The right to be religious and to join religious organizations would meaningless if there did not exist a parallel right not to join any at all. Religious liberty must simultaneously protect both the right to be religious and the right not to be religious at all — it cannot protect a right to be religious, just so long as you pick some religion.

When it comes to politics, the freedom from religion means being "free from" any government imposition of religion. Freedom from religion does not mean being free from seeing churches, but it does mean being free from churches getting governing financing; it doesn't mean being free from encountering people handing out religious tracts on a street corner, but it does mean being free from government-sponsored religious tracts; it doesn't mean being free from hearing religious discussions at work, but it does mean being free from religion being a condition of employment, hiring, firing, or one's status in the political community.

Freedom from religion isn't a demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, but rather that they not be endorsed by the government; it's not a demand that religious believers never voice an opinion, but rather that they not have a privileged status in public debates; it's not a demand that religious values never have any public impact, but rather that no laws be based on religious doctrines without the existence of a secular purpose and basis.

The political and the personal are closely related. A person cannot be "free from" religion in the personal sense of not having to belong to any religion if religion is made a factor in one's status in the political community. Government agencies should not endorse, promote, or encourage religion in any way. Doing so suggests that those who accept the religious beliefs favored by the government will, by extension, be favored by the government — and thus a person's political status becomes conditioned on their personal religious commitments.

The claim that the Constitution only protects "freedom of religion" and not "freedom from religion" thus misses an important point. Religious liberty, if it is to mean anything, cannot merely mean that the state won't use the police to stop or harass adherents of certain religious ideas. It must also mean that the state won't use more subtle powers, like those of the pocketbook and the bully pulpit, to favor some religions over others, to endorse certain religious doctrines rather than others, or to take sides in theological disputes.

It would be wrong for the police to close synagogues; it is also wrong for police officers to tell Jewish drivers during a traffic stop that they should convert to Christianity. It would be wrong for politicians to pass a law banning Hinduism; it is also wrong for them to pass a law proclaiming that monotheism is preferable to polytheism. It would be wrong for a president to say that Catholicism is a cult and not really Christian; it is also wrong for a president to endorse theism and religion generally.

This is why freedom of religion and freedom from religion are two sides of the same coin. Attacks on one ultimately serve to undermine the other. The preservation of religious liberty requires that we ensure that the government not be handed any authority over religious matters.