DISQUS

Both Melanie and I got a 1984 flash this weekend while listening to an opinion piece on All Things Considered. It was a segment putting forth the idea that Gross National Happiness is a more important metric than GDP or NASDAQ. "I can envision a day when, along with the Dow and the GDP, the NHI, or National Happiness Index, flickers across our TV screens." And even though it lacked any real blatant 1984 bits, it set both Melanie and me off.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

There are voting instructions for those who "fear for their safety".

"State law allows voters to have their name and address withheld from the public list if they sign a statement certifying that they need their name and address withheld for their safety or their family’s safety."

Seems like a good route for fringe JW's who want to vote, but are worried that some overzealous Elders are out to get them deleted from the ranks. :P

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=943

Can you really confirm your registration status online? I'm skeptical. Also unregistered.

Reposting my comment (in part) to The Godless Heathen's blog:

I don't think it's as simple as "just vote for the third-party" and we'll magically have a multi-party system. I think it would require a major overhaul in how we elect the president.

If you look at working multi-party systems around the world, you will find some funky voting systems (two-round, runoff, approval). Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the direction we should be heading, I'm just saying that this is what might be required.

Look up "Duverger's Law" for more on how this works.

I'm also not sure that these third-parties would have such integrity if they actually had a shot at winning. Perhaps Nader or Barr, specifically, would hold their positions (Nader for sure. Barr - well, just look at his record.), but as a general rule I don't see why we shouldn't expect three, four, five parties all moving toward the center. Look at the coalitions of India as an example.

Another thing, from my atheist side, I'd be concerned that the religious wackos might possibly hold together stronger than others. In a multi-party system that doesn't employ things like instant runoffs, rankings, etc, you can have a winner that received much less than 50% of the vote. Then it becomes a matter of who can coalesce 20-30% of the voting population...

I see this as "politics as usual" too.

But not on the side of the politicians.

I agree with this one-sided interpretation. I was sure the last bullet was wrong and it had me all over the place, but sadly it seems true. The key was in the definitions (US CODE: Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, 1801, h, 3). It's a pretty funny jump from this to the prognostication of doom from your earlier post. The only really disturbing bits have been on the books since before I was born!

I still think that after your "this is how fascist police states start" comment I should go back to your "I play with myself in the shower" post and comment, "this is how pedophiles and rapists start." :P I used to think like that. Then an Onion headline showed me how silly I was being.

Obama is Jesus!?!

http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_upload/obama_as_j...

Whoa!

And saying that the UN is preparing to outlaw Christianity and then posting that press release implies that Christianity is nothing but a hateful, discriminatory, and intolerant group. Heheh.

No offense taken. I'm not asking you to "trust my ability to analyze and interpret" the act. If you are limited in your ability to understand it, then I can understand why you've been reading blogs and grabbing news headlines to help you. I'll step back from this one - no problem.

But just in case want to take another shot at thinking for yourself, here's another original source that may be a little easier to read. The text around page 32 or so gets really plain language-y although I think the whole thing is pretty easy to follow. Might help.

http://www.shopfloor.org/wp-content/uploads/bon...

If you want, I can list the page and paragraph numbers for the parts you (your sources) seem to be most interested in.

Oh, and you're right - Barr does have it over on Obama (again). Let's just vote for him then, shall we? :P

Here's the deal. Not on this issue (I'm done with it), but with me.

For about 25 years I let other people dictate how to think. I selected a group of guys to determine my morality, ethics, political ideals etc. I listened exclusively to them for everything from what I should eat and what time I should wake up in the morning to where to work and who to have as friends.

Well, it turned out that the guys I selected for this task weren't very trustworthy. Every bit of Science, History, Archeology - you name it - was altered or translated in such a way that I never really saw an original source.

But I'm not mad at the guys. Turns out nearly everyone does this - alters data (whether intentionally or not) to fit their ideas. No, instead of holding a grudge against them, I've decided to take accountability for my own stupidity.

When I read a news article that interests me, that may shape how I think, I carefully scrutinize it. I find other sources covering the same information. I search out the source material and sometimes I go out of my way to find a dissenting opinion (even if the opinion is from someone I'm sure to disagree with).

What I've found is that everyone is susceptible to making mistakes, misunderstanding, or altering information when trying to compress, translate, and opine on some bit of information. It's unavoidable.

And if you think that news sources, scientists, and professionals are somehow above scrutiny, I will remind you of the time you claimed that a person's mind who's experiencing Cognitive Dissonance "literally STOPS THINKING". It wasn't your claim. You heard it on NPR's Science Friday. I also found it in a number of places on the net, from blogs to news agencies. And it was completely incorrect.

So this bit that the ACLU is making a case doesn't mean anything to me. Especially when they use terms like "sweeping and virtually unregulated". There's no hard fact there. It's all written as opinion. "The amended law eviscerates..." Do you know how many sites are using this same exact wording? Who are they all copy/pasting from?

I ask for a single line from the text that supports your position and you give me link after link of what someone else is saying. Are you letting others think for you like I used to?

Sorry, but I just can't sign up for the idea that there's some authority out there who, once they speak, everyone else must bow to their superior abilities and intellect. Everyone is fallible. Everyone needs to be checked and double checked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_auth...

It may be possible that my mind is finer.

The person being targeted has to be outside the US. Show me the text that says otherwise. It's stated so many times and in so many ways it's ridiculous. There's even a bit that says that you aren't allowed to go after someone outside the US if your true objective is to use them as an excuse for getting info on someone in the US.

Court certification is required - another thing very clearly stated. There is a provision that under circumstances where timing is critical, the certification may be obtained after the fact, but it is still required. Keep in mind, this stuff in question is only dealing with electronic communications. These are special provisions made specifically for the uniqueness of electronic communication.

I'll have to contact them and ask for their copy as well. Mine says:

"SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Are you referring to H.R. 6304? Is that what it says? Funny, my copy doesn't read like that at all.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/text

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

"...I was throwing a bone to David’s Libertarian leanings"

Aww, and here I thought you were starting to make sense. :P

No, you make some good points and it's hard to argue that the ultimate goal shouldn't be to move away from FBO's having a role in this. Still, it seems a little discriminatory or prejudicial. I mean, if the government says that it's taking bids from organizations that are setting up to offer aid to the poor, I don't think it's right to say, "Except for religious organizations - you guys are a bunch of nutters." Or even to say that they are more likely to misuse the funds. Any organization can misuse funds - religion holds no monopoly on that. You've said that atheists are the last group for which it is socially acceptable to discriminate against (or something like that) - I don't believe turnabout is fair play. The day will come when we are the majority. I'd like to think we'll do a better job than they did.

Oh, and why doesn't your blog have a "preview" option for posting comments?

Well you are probably right not to trust them. There's already been problems. But I don't know how effective the Government would be if they designed all their policies around how much they trust people. Who would get a license to drive? Nobody can be trusted to always drive under the speed limit. I won't go on.

According to David Kuo (former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and a person who has actually reviewed Obama's plan), this "expanding" is looking at what isn't working with the program and working on it. If religious groups are abusing the system, that would probably fall into the "not working" category.

I'm also not convinced that your secular institutions don't have something to peddle. Non-religious organizations run all over the place doing charity work. Sorry to break the news, but it's not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. It's PR. But that doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in motivation if there's results.

My wife just got back from the Parenting Oasis. They meet at a church even though they are almost all the crunchy granola alt-faith types. When I rolled my eyes at it being in a church she said, "I think it's good that they let them use the space." Then she went on to describe the community art project that the teenagers were building in the parking lot (some sort of cardboard shark). She told me about the daycare and the cool creations the kids made that lined the halls. They are close to the community and are perfectly positioned to take the lead in charitable work.

Of course if you went there you'd probably spot a cross in one of the clay sculptures and scoff. You'd look at a drawing and sarcastically ask if the little girl who drew it is currently being molested by a priest somewhere. I mean yeah, that's one way to live life. Not mine though.

My brother used to work at a Mall store. As part of his duties he had to make the weekly deposit to the bank. So in addition to the hourly rate he got for working, he also got thousands of dollars in cash and checks given to him every week for doing no additional work. All the other employees tried to get the manager fired because they didn't think it was fair that my brother was given hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more than everyone else. But don't worry, when the manager explained to them that my brother didn't actually get to keep the money and that he was just the middleman between the store and the bank, things quieted down rather quickly. Naturally my brother's arch nemesis still posts on his blog that the store gives my brother hundreds of thousands of dollars for nothing, but he's just a little slow so it's understandable. :P

And yeah, I agree that even if things are carried out as the laws are set up (not likely), it would still serve to strengthen FBO's and I do agree that the Government shouldn't be strengthening FBO's. I do not, however, agree that Obama is trying to give "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions." That's the kind of oversimplification you hear in the news. The kind of uninformed version of the truth that people grab a hold of and make their political decisions on. The kind of thing that got G.W. voted in for a second term. It's just ignorance.

Up until 1996 the Federal Government took it upon itself to take care of the poor. They did this through a really crappy welfare system (AFDC) that handed out tons of money with impunity. Clinton set out to fix the system with a bunch of new laws, rules, initiatives and programs called PRWORA. PRWORA created TANF which replaced AFDC. The big difference between the two programs is that TANF isn't the blank check that AFDC was. There are limits. Recipients of TANF are expected to get jobs and stop having babies (under the old system, "welfare moms" would just pop out another kid as soon as the benefits were about to expire).

Also part of PRWORA was the shift from having the Federal Government take care of all these programs to having the states take on ownership. The idea being that as you move closer to the level of the people in need, the better you'll be able to help them. In this vein, smaller organizations were enlisted by states to help as well. And here's where Charitable Choice comes in to play.

Charitable Choice was also part of PRWORA. What it says is that religious organizations can bid for TANF (as well as CSBG's, SAMHSA's etc.) contracts just like any other organization. You see, states can hire out groups to help disseminate the government funds to the poor. Going on the whole separation of Church and State ideas, religious groups wouldn't normally be included. Charitable Choice made an exception of the Government's typical separation stance. BUT, with certain rules.

Under Charitable Choice, government money cannot be used to pay for religious stuff. The money has to go only to fulfill the public social service goals. Additionally, religious organizations can not discriminate based on religion where these social programs are concerned.

So the whole idea of Charitable Choice is anti-discriminatory. Any organization can bid for these social contracts and religious organizations aren't going to be singled out as long as they keep the social programs separate from religious ones.

But there was a problem. No one bit. The Churches didn't want any part of it because they were sure it would mess with their religious missions and of course there was some apprehension on the government's part because of the Establishment Clause.

Here is where G.W. comes in. He created something called The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose was to get governments and religious organizations together to make Charitable Choice work.

So the conclusion is this. The Federal Government realized that it sucked at getting our nation's poor the aid it needed. It set out to transfer that responsibility to State Governments. To further help, it set up the provision that States could use local organizations to help in this endeavor. Of course, religious institutions are right there in the thick of helping out those in need so special provisions were made to include religious organizations if they kept that portion of their activities separate from their religion. Since there was some apprehension on both sides (state government and faith-based orgs) to partner up, a special department was set up to get things going between the State Governments and the local groups that would most likely be interested in helping the poor.

Obviously G.W. has been criticized for setting this up. What you may not know is that a good portion of the criticism is that he set this up in name only and that it hasn't really done all that it was supposed to do. Obama's expansion of this Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is more about making it work. And good for him.

I will say though that I do understand your concern. Of course, American Atheists doesn't need a special office. They are already more than welcome to bid on TANF's, Welfare-to-Work, and Community Services Block Grants. But do they? (I rather hope so. It would be a good way to show that FBO's don't have a monopoly on charity.)

Also interesting to note is that Clinton created Charitable Choice and both Gore and Bush endorsed it. Obama, Bush, and McCain are all for OFBCI. The only one that I know of that might not be for it is my boy Barr. But of course his concern would be less about whether religions should be involved and more about whether the government should be.

I never realized suburban bus riding had it's own unique set of annoyances. It makes sense, I just never thought about it.

I used to ride the 21. It has its own kinds of problems, but definitely not what you're dealing with. I remember seeing little kids that I wouldn't think old enough to read looking at the bus schedule posted inside the shelters and figuring out when the next bus was coming. You'd see a troop of kids, six, eight years old with no parents in sight helping their even younger siblings get themselves on the bus as quickly as possible. I still bring it up every once in a while when talking about how much smarter and resourceful the inner-city kids can be starting out compared to much of their suburban counterparts - only to lag behind in later years when it comes to test scores and graduation rates.

I miss the bus.

I agree. I also think that political pressure can influence how politicians word their statements which adds even more complexity. The quote from Rutherford B. Hayes, "...I try to be a Christian, or rather I want to be a Christian and to help do Christian work," is clearly not an "I am a Christian" statement. Was he a non-Christian trying to liken himself to a Christian or was he a Christian trying to sound more middle of the road - secular? I don't know the history of the political environment of the time, so I have no idea. It would seem that being a Christian wasn't as important to electability in the past as it is now (in this country).

And I suppose I shouldn't limit that to politicians. That Steven Hawkins guy ended Brief History of Time With something like, "...then we will know the mind of God." I mean, how misleading is that? And why? To sell a few extra books? He was later quoted as saying, "In the proof stage I nearly cut the last sentence in the book... Had I done so, the sales might have been halved."

So yeah, any accounting of Presidential religious affiliation should be taken with a grain...

Oh, and as far as the video, that's awesome. I especially liked the comment about the Defense Department not surviving the application of The Sermon on The Mount and the whole Abraham thing. "The best thing we can do is act in accordance with those things we all see..."

Gave me goose bumps and my wife looked teary eyed.

Feel free to redefine words as you see fit, but "Bigot" includes religion. But let's say it doesn't. Let's take on a new definition that doesn't include "optional belief systems".

Is Christianity an "optional belief system"? For a person who defines themselves by their religion, it may be, but that doesn't represent the majority of people. How many times do you hear people list "Christian" when they are asked to describe themselves? I personally know the spouse's names, hobbies, interests, colleges, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam, of all my co-workers, but only the religious beliefs of two - because I asked. It's not a subject of interest to many and they never question it. So why would they ever think to change? Why should they see an option - it's a non-issue, a family thing, a universal understanding (for them). (And before you question their intelligence, I'll remind you that I don't work at Menard's any more - hehheh.)

The majority of people follow the religions of their parents. It's not that they aren't questioning, thinking people - it's that they are allowed to hold the religions of their parents and still be whoever they want. You and I were not afforded that, but we are the minority.

And you may think, "Well, people like that aren't truly believers," but they are. They just weren't raised as JW's where it mattered so much that even when you decide not to believe, you'd darn better be sure you're RIGHT.

Next, you may say that you agree that Bigotry covers religion, but nothing you said was bigoted.

"There are intelligent, kind, good, honest, hard-working, and amazing people in equal amounts in every race as well as equal amounts of ignorant, evil and lazy ones. People are people, old, young, black, brown, white, etc. You don’t know what they think or how they think without hearing from them. Believers, on the other hand, are a different animal..."

That's bigoted.

You said, "'Hey, even though this guy belongs to a religion that condemns me to burn to death forever and thinks I should have no place in society, I still support him' I have a hard time seeing how you can call that a bigoted statement."

That reminds me of the time JIK said, "She's pretty cute for a black chick." He honestly didn't think it was a racist statement - "What, I said she was hot."

Seriously, it is individuals who "condemn [you] to burn to death forever..." The majority of Christians do not think this way. Even if it were the majority, there are certainly some who do not - you may know a few. This means that you have to "hear from them" before you can "know what they think or how they think" - that's right, Christians too.

But let me be clear about something. I do not think of you as Bigoted. Some of the things you've said here have that sort of ring to them, but I've read your blog for a while now and I know you are fair minded. The definition over at dictionary.com says "utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." This does not define Ryan Sutter.

I don't agree with some of your word choice, but I do agree with what you are saying. The type of Christian that we've had running things and the type of Christian that makes up a large voting block in this country is not the type of Christian I would like to see at the helm of this country. They are a type that taps into their beliefs and religion to inform their decisions. Obama is not that type of Christian. Thank God. :P

I don't know where you did your research, but the rest of the internet doesn't agree.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/fran...
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Sta...

William Henry Harrison - Was a vestryman of Christ Episcopal Church in Cincinnati, Ohio - http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0194730-00

Andrew Johnson - "As for my religion, it is the doctrine of the Bible, as taught and practiced by Jesus Christ." - G.F. Milton (2004). The Age of Hate: Andrew Johnson And The Radicals. Kessinger Publishing, 80.

Ulysses S. Grant - "Ulysses S Grant was a nominal Presbyterian throughout his life. Many sources list his religious affiliation as Methodist based on a Methodist minister's account of a deathbed conversion by Grant." - http://www.adherents.com/people/pg/Ulysses_Gran... (adherents.com - take it for what it's worth)

Rutherford B. Hayes - "I am not a subscriber to any creed. I belong to no church. But in a sense, satisfactory to myself and believed by me to be important, I try to be a Christian, or rather I want to be a Christian and to help do Christian work." - May 17, 1890 Diary entry - http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/Volu...

Franklin Pierce - "Pierce expressed himself in writing at least twice on the subject of religion, once in a manuscript fragment written in later life describing his beliefs in college which show them to be decidedly orthodox... In later life, during the Civil War, he was baptized, confirmed and became a regular communicant in St. Paul's Episcopal Church, in Coneord." - Professor Roy F. Nichols, of the Department of History, in the University of Pennsylvania - http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/fran...

I'll leave the deists alone - three of the four listed are often labeled as Episcopal, but it's obvious these guys were fence sitters.

The next group that you have listed all thought of themselves as Christians, but you seem to have taken the JW stance that it's not up to a person to decide if they are themselves Christian.

To illustrate the point, I used to be a JW. When I joined up with a prayer group at school, no one thought twice about the fact of my Christianity. When I joined the work force, my closest friends were all very active Christians. We disagreed on almost every religious subject, but not once was my Christianity questioned. When I moved to Maryland I was hired to work at Trinity Labs where all upper management were die hard Christians. They welcomed me like a brother. In all cases I was known as a JW who did not believe that Jesus was God and that I rejected the Trinity. At no time was my Christianity questioned.

As a matter of fact, the ONLY time I have EVER heard such a notion was within a Kingdom Hall or from a JW - whether talking about how others supposedly think JW's aren't Christian or that JW's were the only Christians.

Of course, if we get to decide who is and who is not a Christian based on our own beliefs or by popular vote, I'm sure most would say G.W. Bush isn't "Christian". But that would put the kibosh on your idea that Christians have been running this country into the ground for the last 8 years.

Next you have a group that you say are "Nominally Christian, but questionable". Again this is more about outsiders deciding who is and isn't Christian in spite of what each individual claimed themselves to be. In each case there is considerable evidence that they presented themselves as Christian.

Before this post I was under the impression that three Presidents were non-Christians. I'm now open to the idea that it may be as many as five, but also just as likely two. Thanks.

"Despite the fact that Christian leaders have nearly destroyed our country over the last 8 years..."

...after having built it over the previous 200. And please, remind us of the very SHORT list of non-Christian leaders this country has had.

Bigoted much? Maybe you can do a follow-up post: "It doesn't bother me that Obama is black, and here's why..."