A guiding principle: The ends don’t justify the means

The ends don’t justify the means. That principle states that it’s unacceptable to do bad things even if they’re intended to achieve what you regard as good goals. This principle was emphasized at the fundamentalist Christian schools and churches I attended in my youth, and it’s an important guideline, no matter your religious persuasion.

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal to amend California’s constitution to require the state to spend more on higher education than prisons ever makes it to a ballot, I hope Californians remember this principle.

I support Schwarzenegger’s goal of spending more on the state’s once-envied UC and CSU systems than prisons. As the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “The state spent $9.3 billion on prisons last year and only $6.5 billion on higher education. It’s hard to look at numbers like those and imagine California as a state with a bright future.”

But Schwarzenegger’s method has a fatal flaw: Using ballot-box budgeting to achieve any end, even a laudable one, is wrong. It’s also bad for the state.

Thoughts on true courage

Kurt Westergaard has true courage; he’s the Danish cartoonist who criticized religion (in this case, Islam) in his work and is now the target of Muslims who cannot tolerate any criticism of or disagreement with their ideology.

The critical thinkers who publish Atheist Ireland have responded to the implementation of an anti-blasphemy law (that imposes a €25,000 fine) championed by Christians who cannot tolerate any criticism of or disagreement with their ideology; they responded by publishing a list of 25 “blasphemous” quotes from people like Jesus, Frank Zappa, and George Carlin, my favorite on their list:

Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

Christians — who make up 78 percent [PDF] of the US population — like to pretend every December that they’re persecuted, that they’re brave by indulging their delusions of harassment that amount to harassing anyone who disagrees with them in the best case and attempts to destroy the Constitution’s separation of church and state in the worst case.

They should take a look at Kurt Westergaard and Atheist Ireland for examples of true courage.

And we should all use Westergaard and Atheist Ireland as reminders of how important it is that religion not be exempt from rational criticism.

Wishes for a patriotic, tolerance-filled holiday

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” ~  Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, appointed by religious right hero Ronald Reagan, concurring with the majority in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky deeming courthouse Ten Commandments displays unconstitutional.

War on Christmas zealots make these points ad nauseam during their annual holiday persecution delusions:

• Most Americans are Christians.
• The words “separation of church and state” are not in the United States Constitution.

So what? Those points are irrelevant red herrings in their imaginary war on Christmas. The real and frightening war is the one they’re waging against American principles of liberty and freedom.

Idiocy run amok

The Boston Globe reports that a Methuen, Mass., woman named Mary Jo Coady believes Jesus appeared on her dirty old Wal-Mart iron. Here’s the image:

Here’s why this is idiotic:

1. No one knows what Jesus looked like.
2. The person in this image looks like she either has the mumps or is gathering acorns for the winter in her left cheek.
3. With all the problems in the world that could benefit from supernatural attention — for example, world hunger, war, genital mutilation, AIDS, childhood cancer — why would Jesus spend his time appearing on an iron (or a grilled cheese sandwich, or a store window, or a water tower, or any of the other ridiculous places the faithful have claimed to spied him)?
4. Given all the problems that Coady herself is facing — the Globe reports that recently Coady “separated from her husband; moved out of the home they owned and where they had raised their family; watched her hours get trimmed at work; and unpacked slowly in the rented two-family house where she now resides with her daughters, up against Route 110″ — why in the world would this dumb image be “uplifting” for Cody?
5. Does this look any more like the European, non-Jewish Jesus that appears in most Christian images of Jesus than it looks like, say Minnie Driver, or even Coady herself? Sheesh, it barely looks human.
6. This is news?

At least this critically thinking-challenged Christian is just seeing Jesus on an iron, instead of doing real damage like so many other religious folks who are busy trying to impose their supernatural beliefs on every one else and decimating the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state in the process.

Update 12/2/09:

Travis Morgan tells Mary Jo Coady that he’ll see her “Jesus” on an iron and raise her one Flying Spaghetti Monster on an iron:

Can you see his noodly appendage?

Supernatural beliefs contradict our smug sophistication

Supernatural — of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil (Merriam-Webster)

New Gilroy Dispatch columnist Erika Mailman (welcome to the club!) recently wrote about her 17th-century ancestor who was twice accused and acquitted of being a witch. With our 21st-century sophistication, we smugly scorn the ignorance and gullibility that allowed our forebears to accept supernatural explanations for mysterious phenomena.

Mailman correctly notes that witch hunts aren’t confined to history. She cites present-day witch hunts in Africa, India and Papua New Guinea and looks for motivations, concluding that witch hunts often result from “desperation, as war-torn families found themselves with limited food supplies. If one person is pushed out of the house, there is more food for those doing the accusing.”

Her assessment might be correct in some cases, but it misses the bigger picture: Tolerance of supernatural beliefs allows witch hunters to successfully persecute innocent victims.

If enough people reject supernatural explanations as the utter nonsense that they are, if they demand evidence for assertions, identify and reject fallacies, and think critically, witch hunts will disappear like dodo birds and dinosaurs.

Unfortunately, that’s hard work, so it’s not the way most people operate, even in the savvy 21st century.

New word: scaliar

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court today, Justice Antonin Scalia made it clear that he’s so steeped in his own culture, religion, or point-of-view that he cannot appreciate that other folks come from cultures, religions, or points-of-view that differ from his. That’s a downright frightening trait in a Supreme Court justice.

This became clear during arguments in the case of Salazar v. Buono, which involves a dispute about a cross placed on public land to honor war dead. An attorney in the case was trying to point out that the cross — an overtly Christian symbol — doesn’t belong on public land because it excludes members of other religions, for example, Jews. Scalia’s response, as reported by the New York Times, makes me afraid, very afraid:

“What would you have us erect?” Justice Scalia asked. “Some conglomeration of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”

I’ll put aside the valley girl aspects of a Supreme Court justice who uses “you know” during oral arguments.

Instead, I’ll ask this: Gee, Justice Scalia, why didn’t it occur to you to consider a monument with no religious symbols at all?

After all, this is a secular nation and even if the public land in question sported a monument featuring symbols from the three religions you named, that monument would still omit all agnostics, all atheists, and all members of the hundreds or thousands of other religions represented in the United States. So, I’m forced to wonder: Did you flunk the parts of your constitutional law classes about the separation of church and state, which protects the most religious among us, or did you just decide that you know better than the Founding Fathers?

After I read the New York Times story, I searched for a word to describe this trait — so steeped in one’s own culture, religion, or point of view that one cannot begin to fathom differing cultures, religions, or points-of-view — but couldn’t come up with quite the right word. Parochial, insular, and close-minded all came up during my search, but don’t quite convey the precise meaning I need. So, I’d like to coin a new term: scaliar.

Stephen Colbert got truthiness added to the dictionary. How do I go about getting scaliar entered?

Voting rights only for those who vote your way

In an ideal world, anyway. That’s the bottom line for conservatives John Derbyshire and Ann Coulter, according to Talking Points Memo, which recounts Derbyshire’s appearance Alan Colmes radio show:

“What is the case against female suffrage?” Colmes asked. “The conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left,” Derbyshire responded nonsensically.

And:

Previously, Ann Coulter has suggested that women shouldn’t have the right to vote:

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Wow: The ends justify the means, apparently. It explains widespread conservative support of torture, of broad executive powers when the president happens to be a Republican, of violating the separation of church and state, and so much more.

I was taught in my conservative, fundamentalist Christian schools that the ends never justify the means, that situational ethics, or consequentialism, are wrong. What happened to that principle?

Fisking Kirk Cameron

Perfect:

Kirk Cameron’s video promoting his creationism-tainted version of Origin of Species is so full of easily disprovable lies (“Our kids can no longer pray in public,” “The Ten Commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places” among many others) that I think he must be considering a run for office as a member of the GOP. He’s got the dishonesty part down pat. He’s got the lack of critical thinking skills down pat. And he’s got the lack of respect for our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state down pat as well.

Sad and scary.

‘Hubby Hubby’

That’s the (for now) temporary name of Vermont-based Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavor originally known as “Chubby Hubby,” gawker.com reports:

The company will send out a truck to spread their delicious love today and, for the next 30 days, will use the “Hubby Hubby” moniker in its Vermont locations. They are, however, considering changing it permanently, but we’ll see if they actually follow through on that.

The reason? Celebrating the beginning of same-sex marriage in Vermont. An excellent reason!

Meanwhile Vermont residents aren’t letting hatemongers from Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church — the folks who picket with “God Hates Fags” signs at soldiers’ funerals and recently at Adam Lambert’s American Idol tour appearance in San Jose — intimidate them, the Burlington Free Press reports:

The night before same-sex marriage became legal in Ver­mont, more than 400 people met at Burlington’s First Con­gregational Church to take a pre-emptive stand against pro­testers from Kansas who planned to crash today’s party.

Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because I’m passionate about the Constitution, about liberty, about separation of church and state, as I wrote in 2004:

Laws banning gay marriage, Bush’s proposal to amend the Constitution, the hateful rhetoric and the doomsday predictions will be remembered with shame and embarrassment by our children, and by many current gay marriage opponents.

Didn’t we learn from the civil rights movements that separate can’t be equal? We can’t have lesser unions, civil unions that differ from state to state, without making homosexuals a lesser class. We can’t deny our homosexual citizens the right to marry and still claim to be a nation where “all men are created equal.”

Here’s what the United States Constitution’s 14th amendment says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

Prayers that ego and hate produce

Rev. Wiley Drake, who made a name for himself by praying for the deaths and persecution of officials of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State (because they complained to the IRS after Drake endorsed Mike Huckabee on his church’s letterhead), is back at it. Now Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, is praying for the death of President Barack Obama, the Associated Baptist Press reports:

“You would like for the president of the United States to die?” [Fox News Radio host Alan] Colmes asked once more.

“If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct.”

This is so unchristian, so unpatriotic that words fail me. So I’ll let Cary McMullen of Lakeland, Florida’s Ledger speak instead:

What [Drake] thinks of as following biblical example shows a true misunderstanding of imprecatory prayer. He assumes that his cause is God’s cause, and that is the very definition not of a gadfly but of a fanatic. As Colmes intuited, expect to see the Secret Service pay a visit to Drake.

It reminds me of Rev. Arnold Conrad, past pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church, who delivered a prayer at a John McCain rally and took the opportunity to give God advice that dismissed all other religions and political viewpoints: It takes a hell of a lot of ego and hate to pray these kinds of prayers.