A dirty little girl

This is a powerful post by Miranda Celeste Hale, an "ex-Catholic girl," on her childhood experiences with Catholicism. It's short (I need to learn to write like that), so I recommend that you read it all. But here's an excerpt:

Catholic childhood religious indoctrination is chillingly effective. Its most powerful weapons are guilt and the fear of a literal hell. When a child is taught that the simple act of doubting or questioning any of the Church’s teachings is a sin, and that even the tiniest of sins can result in an eternity spent in a literal hell, they quickly learn to suppress those doubts and to feel intense shame, guilt, and fear when they fail to do so.

Think for a second about how cruel that is. To ensure that the Catholic mind virus is passed down through the generations, the Church is willing to crush children’s curiosity and to stifle or completely destroy their ability to think critically.

Then there is the guilt. According to Catholic teaching, humans are born sinners and cannot help but continue to sin throughout their lives. The only way for a Catholic to atone for these sins is to confess them to a priest, do the required penance, and be absolved. As a child, I obsessively recorded in a little notebook anything that I had said or done that could possibly be considered sinful. Then, when the time came for confession, I would recite this list to the priest, my head hanging in shame, my cheeks burning. ...

The mere act of writing this is making my hands shake and my stomach churn with anxiety. Fifteen years ago, I made the choice to leave Catholicism, something that, among the family and community I grew up in, just isn’t done. This choice was, without a doubt, the best and most liberating choice that I have ever made. However, I do not have a choice when it comes to the ever-present guilt, shame, and anxiety that resulted from my childhood religious indoctrination, and which, to varying degrees of intensity, will always be with me.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of ex-Catholics. (And this comes from a woman who wasn't sexually abused by a priest.) In fact, I often hear similar kinds of things from people who are still Catholic. It makes me wonder why they haven't left the church, but I suppose that's a big step to take when your whole family is Catholic and you've been indoctrinated with this stuff from the day you were born.

Peas and Cues

That's a neat video, isn't it? From 1930, apparently. Heck, that would have been great in my science classes in grade school. (No, I'm not that old.)

Here's more information about these early films. And you can even buy them here, if you want.

Kentucky Fried Creation

Here's a different look at the Creation Museum at Petersburg, Kentucky. It's pretty funny, but not entirely unsympathetic:

For the uninitiated, the Creation Museum is a 21 million USD attempt to prove Darwin, Science and General Common Sense wrong. It is a museum dedicated to proving that the Bible was literally right and that the universe was created in 4004 BC. Nice vanity year no? Palindromic too. Like custom registration plates for one’s car. Not 4372 BC or 4197 BC. I’m sure God’s plates must read “D00D” or something.

But my fear of shotgun-wielding redneck evangelical Xenophobic christians turned out to be entirely misplaced. Bad science apart, the place was thoroughly pleasant. Our carefully crafted Christian avatars were about as useful as a comb would be to Patrick Stewart.

I am always disappointed when my precisely nurtured stereotypes fail to come true.

Frankly, I'm so horribly embarrassed by the existence of something like this in my own country that I have trouble taking it lightly. Krish Ashok, though, does a good job of putting it in perspective:

So hahaha, LOL and all that at all these creationist duffers etc. But then, the only difference between a 21 million dollar Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY and people who consult astrologers is budget. It’s easier to laugh at dinosaurs eating pineapples than it is to smirk at someone breaking coconuts for Lord Ganesha. One’s own way of life is always superior no? “Our” philosophy was more advanced than this sort of simplistic nonsense no?

It was interesting that I did not find the sort of people Richard Dawkins always seems to find when he goes about pwning creationists. I just found regular folk who didn’t particularly care much about the complexities of the origin of life, the universe and everything else, not even two score and two times. To them one explanation is as good as the other and while we can bemoan this collective failure of rational thinking, there isn’t much one can do except build a better real science museum right next to this one.

Yes, to "regular folk," one explanation is as good as the other, so they just pick the one that sounds good. Would taking them through a real science museum make any difference? I doubt it. Most people just don't think of science as being of any use in their life, and since religion can promise them some vague paradise after death, why not go for it? Does it really matter what's actually true and what isn't?

It's always mattered to me, but I'm in a distinct minority on this, I think. Most people just don't seem to care. Of course, true believers are frustrated by this, too, I suppose. But at least they've got these casual believers on their side. At any rate, it's hard for me to look at the past hundred years or so and not see how critically important science has been. (Would you really want to see your children dying of disease, as in the old days? Why can't everyone see that?)

More importantly, perhaps, I see how valuable the scientific method has been. We human beings find it very easy to fool ourselves, to just believe what sounds good. The scientific method is the best way we've ever found to determine the actual truth, as opposed to just believing what we want to believe. And that's why there's a consensus about science worldwide - and not about religion. (Obviously, if the founders of this Creation Museum had been born in Iran, they'd be just as convinced in Islam as they are now in Christianity.)

But most people just don't seem to care about that. Perhaps they don't want their illusions to be dispelled. They'd rather believe a pleasant fantasy than understand reality. But, you know, reality is really, really amazing. In most ways, the real world is more incredible than those ancient myths. Plus, it really exists, which should count for something, don't you think?

The 50th anniversary of Kennedy's speech

(photo source)

I wish I'd posted this a week ago, because Sunday, September 12, was the 50th anniversary of Senator John F. Kennedy's famous speech on the separation of church and state, when he was running for President in 1960. Before then, no Catholic had ever been elected President, and Kennedy's religion had become an issue.

The text of this remarkable speech is available here, from the JFK Library. Even better, there's a link to an audio file there, so you can listen to Kennedy himself giving the speech. (Note that the spoken version differs slightly from his prepared speech, excerpted below.) I highly recommend it.

The first paragraph is merely an introduction, but it's fascinating, nonetheless:

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

50 years later, we remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the landing on the Moon. But note also this phrase: "the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills." This was, of course, before Medicare, which was signed into law in 1965 by Kennedy's then running-mate, Lyndon B. Johnson. Thanks to Medicare, derided as "socialist" by Ronald Reagan and other Republicans, old people no longer have to worry about their medical bills.

But then Kennedy gets into the real purpose of this speech:

     But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

     I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

50 years later, this sounds radical, doesn't it? Back then, support for America's traditional separation of church and state was the default position in both parties (if frequently violated in practice). These days, even Democratic politicians would hesitate to be this firm, and Republicans have nearly abandoned freedom of religion entirely.

But John F. Kennedy believes in an America where the separation of church and state is "absolute." No pope tells American politicians how to act, and no minister tells his congregation how to vote. No church or church school is granted public funds, and we American citizens don't base our votes on a candidate's religion.

Even then, this was idealistic, but it sounds positively utopian these days. Still, make no mistake, these are traditional American values. Kennedy was no radical.

Kennedy does not mention non-believers specifically, except in this phrase: "where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice" [my emphasis]. And, of course, he doesn't mention Muslims, either. But ponder the spirit behind this paragraph:

     For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

This time, it was bigotry against Catholics. Earlier, it was bigotry against Baptists. There was always, certainly, bigotry against Jews and atheists. Bigotry against Muslims is no different, not in the slightest. What we are seeing in America these days is a bigotry that's profoundly un-American.

     That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Imagine that! A President's religious views are "his own private affair." It sounds almost quaint, doesn't it? Yet this was our America, up until relatively recently.

I blame Jimmy Carter for starting this nonsense of parading his religious belief, though Republicans have long since taken the lead on that. Still, every President these days must make a big show of how Christian he is - as if he's running for Pope, instead of President.

And even that doesn't do our first black President any good, with at least one-fifth of us loony enough to think that he's really a Muslim. How crazy is that? (I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, "What has happened to my country?")

Well, listen to John F. Kennedy's speech. It's a great one, well worth remembering. I wish I'd posted this a week ago, but better late than never.

Molly Norris disappears

(Zapiro)

Molly Norris, who created that "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" on May 20th this year, has been forced  into hiding:

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

Norris views the situation with her customary sense of the world's complexity, and absurdity. When FBI agents, on a recent visit, instructed her to always keep watch for anyone following her, she joked, "Well, at least it'll keep me from being so self-involved!" It was, she says, the first time the agents managed a smile. She likens the situation to cancer—it might basically be nothing, it might be urgent and serious, it might go away and never return, or it might pop up again when she least expects it.

We're hoping the religious bigots go into full and immediate remission, and we wish her the best.

Disgusting, isn't it? When you can't persuade everyone else that your lunatic views are true, you just threaten anyone who disagrees with you. Oh, yeah, that will convince them, won't it?

What do you think, that if your opinion is the only one everyone else gets to hear, that you might be able to persuade people then? Yeah, you must really have a rational idea there...

The funny thing about this prohibition on drawing Mohammed is that it was meant to keep Muslims from worshiping him, instead of Allah. It's like the "no graven images" command in Exodus (which Christians generally ignore). Believers start to venerate the artwork, the icon, rather than the idea behind it.

But obviously, this is not a concern for people who aren't Muslim. I'm certainly not going to start worshiping Mohammed now, am I? Nor are Christians, or anyone else who isn't Muslim. (And even for people who are Muslim, of course, this should be their own business and no one else's.)

Ironically, these lunatics who threaten cartoonists have started worshiping Mohammed. It's kind of funny, isn't it? They're doing the precise thing that Mohammed was afraid would happen, worshiping him instead of Allah. You can't draw or paint Mohammed, you can't criticize him, you can't do anything that even hints of disrespect, because Mohammed himself has become their god. These extremists have completely turned around Mohammed's teachings.

Well, that's my opinion, but I'm far from an expert on any of this. When it comes to Mohammed's teachings, I don't know and I don't (particularly) care. Muslims have no more evidence than anyone else that the supernatural even exists, let alone their own particular brand of it. Like religions everywhere, they can't even agree among themselves. Like Christianity, like any other religion, it's almost always a matter of how you were raised, what you were taught to believe as a child.

I disagree with them, but they have the right to believe whatever they want. (And I have the right to criticize it.) What they can't do is force their own religious beliefs - whatever they are - on anyone else. Well, they can't do it if we don't let them, anyway. If we're cowardly enough to let this happen, it's our own fault.

You have the right to your own religious beliefs (or disbelief), period. You have a right to express those beliefs. You have a right to gather with people who believe as you do - to worship, if you wish, to debate, or just to socialize. You have a right to teach your children what you believe.

But you do not have the right to tell others what they must believe (although you can try to convince them to your way of thinking, if there's no coercion at all). You do not have the right not to hear contrary views yourself. You do not have the right not to have your feelings hurt. No one else has to respect your beliefs. No matter how sacred they are to you, some people will find them ridiculous - and have the right to say so, just as you can express yourself in return.

And you do not have the right to threaten violence or commit violent acts. Other people have the same rights you do. If you wish to keep your own rights, defend theirs as well.

Well, most of these Islamic extremists have had no experience living in a diverse democracy. For centuries, their own people have lived in autocracies, forced to believe what the rulers believed. That's how they've grown up, so that's how they behave. When the Iranians threw off the autocratic rule of the Shah, they just replaced him with another autocracy. The result has been merely a change in leaders, which is pretty much no change at all.

For those of us in the West, Islam is not the threat. After all, Christianity used to be just like this. Of course, I consider all faith-based thinking to be a threat to civilization, in a sense. I certainly argue against it. But your own belief is still your business, not mine. You're free to disagree with me. (Most people do.) Whether you want to believe in Christianity, in Islam, in New Age inanity, or anything else, you have that right, and I'll defend it.

The real threat is the same as it's always been, the threat of autocrats who want to force their own beliefs on everyone else. This threat can - and has - come from extremists of any persuasion. Muslim suicide bombers are Christian murderers of abortion doctors are Communist gulag commandants. It's all basically the same thing. Liberals are those people who let others decide for themselves, whatever our own beliefs.

Freedom is a good thing, it really is. At least, we haven't discovered anything that works better. People must be free to make their own mistakes. It's the only way.

Richard Dawkins' speech at Protest the Pope rally

Great speech, isn't it? Regarding the claim that Hitler was an atheist, PZ Myers suggests that we look at the guidelines for banned books in Nazi Germany. Along with books dealing with "the false scientific enlightenment" of Charles Darwin, also banned were "All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." Some atheist, huh?

Now Stalin was an atheist. If you want to use guilt by association, there's your man. So why this false accusation about Hitler? Well, the Catholic and Lutheran churches have a long history of promoting rabid antisemitism in Germany. The Holocaust actually grew out of that kind of religious muck. So I suspect that this is simply a way to attack secularists, while also attempting to divert attention from their own culpability.

And, of course, a good offense is the best defense. The Catholic Church has no valid defense for their actions (not just inaction, since they actively protected these pedophile priests and helped them find victims in new parishes) leading to the rape of countless children. So when you have no defense, you attack. Again, you try to divert attention from your own guilt. (Mea culpa, indeed!)

Edit: Also at Pharyngula, here's a list of Hitler quotes, along with with the note that "It's particularly interesting that he outlawed atheist and freethought groups in 1933." Again, some atheist, huh?

The hate campaign

(Jesus and Mo)

Don't ask, don't tell

This is probably the only Lady Gaga video I'll ever post, but she focuses on a serious issue here, the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is up for a vote in the Senate Tuesday. (It passed the House of Representatives in May.)

It's ironic that DADT has become the conservative position these days, isn't it? And as quickly as national opinion has been changing on this issue - and on gay rights in general - it's pretty clear that it's doomed, at least eventually.

(Gallup poll)

At the same time, though, the Republican Party has been rushing ever further towards the extreme right. You really can't be too extreme for the GOP these days. In fact, right now, nearly every Republican politician is terrified of that dreaded "moderate" label.

And so you have people like John McCain flip-flopping on nearly every position he once held, even denying that "maverick" label he used to embrace. He started running to the right as fast as he could in 2008, and he's been running ever since. But nevertheless, he had a primary fight on his hands this year, because he still wasn't considered to be loony enough. Funny, huh?

But he won't make that mistake again. Even now, he's leading the filibuster against ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Of course, that's another complete flip-flop. During the Bush administration, he claimed he'd go along with military leaders on this one. Well, I've long ceased to have any respect for McCain.

This has always been about discrimination. Right-wing distaste for the "immorality" of homosexuality is the whole point. Seventeen years ago, when Congress passed the DADT law, conservatives angrily fought against it. They wanted homosexuals rooted out of the military with McCarthy Era vigor. But since then, public opinion about homosexuality has changed dramatically.

In the Gallup poll noted above, acceptance of gays and lesbians has increased in every single group - men and women, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, the religious and the irreligious. Acceptance among men age 18 to 49 has increased by 20 percentage points in just four years. As I say, it's increased in every single category.

Therefore, the right-wing doesn't even try to argue the morality of it now (except among themselves). Now, they claim it's all about "unit cohesion" (pretty much the same argument they used to fight integration in the military, too). And now, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is their position, the conservative position. But it's a losing proposition in the long run.

Public opinion is changing this rapidly because gay people have been coming out of the closet (a clear lesson for us atheists, wouldn't you say?). More and more people know someone who's openly homosexual - a friend, a co-worker, a neighbor. And more and more people are discovering that a family member is homosexual. Even conservatives frequently become supportive of gay rights when it's all about their own son or daughter. (It's really tragic when this doesn't happen, but the terrible stories about this also help change opinions.)

(CBS News poll)

This is happening much faster than civil rights for racial minorities, and partly, it might be because that long, difficult struggle came first. But mostly, I suspect, it's because homosexuals look just like you do. In fact, they're often a member of the family - literally. Segregation isn't possible when it comes to gays and lesbians, not really. And it's easier to hate and fear someone you don't know, and someone who clearly looks... alien.

It's telling that anti-Muslim bigotry seems to be increasing, in virulence and in frequency, at the same time that anti-gay hysteria is decreasing. But most people don't have Muslim sons or daughters - or even Muslim co-workers. And Muslims tend to be more distinctive in appearance (not always). It's easy to hate and fear "them." It's harder when "they" are more obviously just like you.

So, yes, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is probably doomed, in the long run. But in the short run, people's lives can still be ruined by it. Let's not be complacent. It's not inevitably doomed on Tuesday, that's for sure. Republicans are filibustering, like they filibuster everything. And these days, any politician or conservative pundit who won't go along with a filibuster is considered a traitor to the party.

In the GOP these days, you're not allowed to have personal opinions that differ from those of the party as a whole (or, at least, of the right-wing loonies, especially those on Fox "News," who currently control the party). In the GOP, obedience is the ultimate virtue. And, as I mentioned previously, you absolutely cannot afford to be seen as a "moderate." That's the kiss of death for Republican politicians right now.

Why do you think that John McCain has flip-flopped on this issue and is now leading the filibuster? He's learned his lesson. When the inmates are in charge of the asylum, you absolutely must demonstrate that you're just as loony as they are, if not loonier. It's the French Revolution all over again. When extremists rule, you can't be too extreme - and it can be a grave danger if you don't appear to be extreme enough. (But these days, Republicans only lose their heads in a figurative sense.)

What's hard to understand is why so many Americans seem to be OK with this. Ordinarily, when extremists take control, they lose elections in landslides. In the past, this has kept both parties near the middle. But that doesn't seem to be happening these days. Republicans have been nominating far-right lunatics, often tossing out mainstream conservatives, but it doesn't seem to be affecting their chances much. Well, this is our fault - too many Americans ignorantly buying into this Fox "News" lunacy, or else just being too lazy or too apathetic to bother voting at all.

There is no guarantee on Tuesday, and there is no guarantee in November. And there's no guarantee that America will prosper, or even survive, either. It's up to us. If we're too dumb, too cowardly, or too lazy, it's all the same. A democracy cannot last if the people aren't smart enough, brave enough, and determined enough to do what's right, no matter what. No excuses! You can't control what other people do, but you can control yourself. So, are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

March to keep fear alive

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
March to Keep Fear Alive
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

I would have included this clip in my previous post, but two of these video clips in the same post seems to cause problems here. Colbert's "March to Keep Fear Alive" is the same event as Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity," of course. It's just his shtick to be more Fox News than Fox.

Saturday, October 30th, in Washington, DC - I wish I could go. It sounds like lots of fun.

Rally to restore sanity

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Will this restore sanity in America? Probably not, but it's a valiant attempt.

Will I, at least, take it down a notch here? No. But then, I've never called anyone Hitler. And I've certainly never bought into loony left-wing conspiracy theories, no more than those of the right. I see a much bigger danger to our country on the right, but that doesn't mean that the left doesn't have its own crazies. (But the extremist right pretty much controls the GOP these days, while the extremist left has almost no power at all in the Democratic Party, or anywhere else in America. That's why I don't blog about it much.)

The bottom line is that I'm a skeptic. That means I pay more attention to evidence than to ideology. In scientific issues, like global warming, I accept the consensus of scientists who specialize in that particular field. They may be wrong, but they've got a far better chance of being right than anyone else. And if they are wrong, the consensus will change.

With other issues - economic, political, social - I look at the evidence to tell me what has been shown to work and what has been shown not to work. Inevitably, it seems, that leads me away from the GOP. It does not always lead me to the Democratic Party, although that's the only real alternative. But generally, it does. (Some things, like New Age alternative medicine and anti-vaccine hysteria, seem to be adopted more by the left than the right, but not entirely.)

And I'm all for restoring sanity to America. I just wish I knew how it could be done. Reason clearly doesn't do it, nor does evidence. When we've come this far down the road to crazy town, what can bring us back? Well, maybe celebrities can do it. We Americans seem to be, er,... crazy about celebrities, for some reason. So maybe Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert can use star power to turn us around. It's worth a try.

Panhandlers

Ed Stein's commentary:

The battle over allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans has reached the election year boiling point. The Democrats (finally) are framing this debate properly and putting Republicans on the defensive, so much so that House minority leader John Boehner got spooked and said that he’d support extending the middle class tax cuts even if the cuts for those making more than $250,000 were not included. This was met with derision from the rest of his party, which smells victory in November and is no mood to compromise on anything. Republicans are having a hard time justifying extending a unpaid-for tax cut that will cost the government some $750 billion, while simultaneously demanding that the deficit be reduced. Nobody is buying the old trickle-down theory that the wealthy need that money to create jobs. They’ve got the money; where are the jobs? I do love the accusation that asking for the rich to pay their share is “class warfare.” The top 1% now receive 23% of the nation’s income, the highest level since before the Great Depression. The class war has already been won, and it’s the rest of us who lost.

That said, the GOP somehow still seems to be winning the populist points in this election. Now that the Dems have at least one argument in their favor, perhaps the bloodbath won’t be quite as horrendous come November, assuming the party can stay on message, which never seems to be its strong suit.

From what I hear, the worst of it isn't even that we Americans are too dumb, although that's certainly a major part. But the country is fairly evenly split in political opinion, at least. No, the worst of it is that Democrats are just too lazy or too apathetic to vote. When you look at likely voters, rather than just registered voters, the GOP wins in a landslide.

That's amazing, because less than two years ago, after the 2008 elections, the right-wing was down in the dumps. The Republicans had done nothing right when they held power, their president was (rightly) considered one of the worst in U.S. history (the worst, I'd say), and they were busy running even further to the right, losing every even half-way sensible moderate in the process.

So how did we end up here? I don't get it. Did people just expect the Democrats to wave a magic wand and instantly fix everything it took the Republicans eight years or more to break? We all know it's easier to destroy than to build, and it's been only a year and a half!. What did we expect? I'm not overly impressed with Barack Obama's performance, at least in boldly leading our country in a new direction, as he promised. (Admittedly, he also promised to compromise.) But I'm just astonished at how dumb the American people have turned out to be. Haven't we learned anything?

Or, as I say, how lazy we've turned out to be. We progressives want to change course, but we can't even be bothered to vote! It's just embarrassing. Dumb or lazy, take your pick. Either way, we Americans don't look too admirable. In a democracy, we get the kind of leadership we deserve. Can any democracy survive government by the people when the people are like this?

Warm regards

(Tom Toles)

The pink-faced half-wit

From that premier news source called The Onion comes this article about the pink-faced half-wit:

The most recent pink-faced half-wit has reportedly captured the popular imagination through the conventional vehicles of a nationally syndicated talk-radio program and a cable news television show. According to media analyst Rebecca Ellington, the pink-faced half-wit has mesmerized the nation by spewing out hundreds of predictably reactionary and emotionally manipulative on-air diatribes.

"This particular pink-faced half-wit is at the height of his persuasive powers," Ellington said of the bloated, hateful multimillionaire. "By exploiting citizens' greatest anxieties during an uncertain time in our nation's history, the pink-faced half-wit has been able to promote his own vain, avaricious self-interests under the guise of standing up for the very disenfranchised people whom he himself is fleecing."

"I've seen a number of pink-faced half-wits during my career, and in the pantheon of bombastic demagogues, this one will surely be remembered as one of the most disgusting," Ellington continued. "It's truly extraordinary: He may well be too ambitious and narcissistic to be able to comprehend how much damage he is doing to our country."

According to scholars, pink-faced half-wits have had remarkable staying power throughout history despite their outlandish, easily debunked claims, shameless self-promotion, and complete lack of credentials. More often than not, experts said, these pasty, shallow dullards skillfully manage to control debate on the most important social and political topics of the day.

Squirrel!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Islamophobiapalooza
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Edit: Apparently, putting two Daily Show clips in the same post (even when one is below the fold) causes problems, but only on the home page here. Click the link to view this post separately and both clips appear just fine.

How can people still watch Fox "News"? Are they just a symptom of how cowardly, gullible, and willfully ignorant we've become, or one of the main causes of it?

Below the fold, I'll post a brief follow-up clip from The Daily Show, with Team Mohammad and Team Jesus in strange agreement:

Toraliden, 1053

This is the continuing saga of the settlement of Toraliden, my latest Dwarf Fortress game (version 0.31.12). The first installment is here.

1053 was a rough year at Toraliden. It had started on a high note, when we were declared a barony, with our leader, Aban Joinedfortresses as baroness. Sure, she had demanded better quarters to suit her new rank, with a well-equipped office and a personal dining room, but that wasn't unexpected. Unfortunately, she soon stopped cooking for us. In fact, she started doing little of anything, except for holding occasional parties which pulled productive dwarves from their duties.

Litast Blowrelics, a legendary miner, high master woodcrafter, and talented metalcrafter, replaced Aban as mayor. He insisted on an upgrade in residence as well, and has demanded that we make some gold items, but at least he continues to work as hard as ever. We must be thankful for small favors, I suppose.

The humans sent a trading caravan in the summer, our first contact with that civilization ("The Curled Realm of Blankets" - an interesting name for a nation, don't you think?). But while they were here, they witnessed a terrible industrial accident. Rakust Praisedstockades, working high above ground on our planned goblin trap, misjudged the strength of a construction [my own error, in fact] and fell ten stories when the floor gave way beneath him. Worse, the dust cloud - or perhaps the vibration - knocked two other dwarves off the narrow ledge as well, nearly wiping out our small staff of trained masons. It was really a terrible sight, with arms, legs, and heads flying everywhere.

Rakust and Catten Tribebolt each left a child behind, but even worse, from the standpoint of our fledgling community, was the loss of Kitty Pagefills, a legendary weaponsmith and talented metalsmith who'd been moonlighting as a mason. The loss of any of these three fine dwarves would have been a terrible tragedy, but without Kitty, we can't build the high-quality weapons needed for our defense.

Trapped passage, ten stories above the ground. The pressure plate opens all hatches and the door alongside it.

But we continued to build the structure, using unskilled masons (urged to use extreme caution), finally finishing the job a few months later. Now, in the meadow just outside our moat and drawbridge, a stairs climbs ten stories, ending in a narrow catwalk leading high over the wall. At the other end, another stairs leads down into the heart of our fortress. But the catwalk is cleverly designed with a false bottom. It's a trap to catch trespassers.

Unfortunately, it soon proved to be far from foolproof. That winter, Sigun Patternspear, animal trainer and mechanic, was working at the kennel when he was surprised by goblins. The kennel is on a ledge, partway up the mountain, within our moat and safe from most attacks - but not, as it turned out, safe from arrows and crossbows shot from further up the mountain. Even so, Sigun would almost certainly have survived if he hadn't panicked, running away from safety instead of towards it. And once he was immobilized by a well-aimed crossbow bolt, there was little we could do for him. He bled out from multiple wounds.

Well, after that, we were anxious to get our revenge and watched with glee as the goblins, meeting our closed drawbridge, headed into our shiny new trap. But here is when we realized we hadn't fully thought things through. For one thing, we hadn't enclosed the staircase, expecting that our marksdwarves would get some target practice as the goblins climbed up in plain sight. We'd forgotten that they could shoot back. Even worse, the stair was high enough that they could shoot over our fortifications.

When we discovered our mistake, we tried to move our soldiers to safety, but two young recruits, Atlas Controlhalls and Thor Girderpets, were shot before they could get away. Then, as each goblin climbed high enough, he emptied his quiver into these two targets. (Thor suffocated in his own blood. Atlas is being treated in our hospital, in intensive care, still bleeding profusely and in intense pain, with all his extremities mangled, plus damage to his heart, guts, and pancreas. It's touch and go, and if he does survive, he may be crippled for life.)

Since each goblin stopped to shoot before continuing onward, they ended up well-separated, and when the leader stepped on the pressure plate built into the floor, opening up hatches in the corridor ahead and behind him, only one of his squad fell to his death. Yes, it was a rewarding sight, when that goblin hit the ground, pieces of him flying off in every direction. But it was still only one out of seven.

And that's when we discovered another design flaw. Blocked from going forward or back, the goblin leader (an elf, actually - apparently a snatched child, grown to adulthood among his kidnappers) stepped into the doorway that we'd opened for him. But then, instead of moving back to the stairs, he simply jammed the door open, and when the hatches closed again, he had a clear path into our fortress. Even worse, his remaining followers could also take that path, avoiding the trapped passageway and the pressure plate entirely. The entire goblin warparty ran towards our people, yelling terrifying battle cries.

Luckily, we hadn't entirely trusted our experiment, not without a good test first, so we had backup traps. Those killed two goblins and captured the others (including the elf leader). They're awaiting judgment - death, like that dealt out to the goblins we captured in earlier years (they were disarmed, then forced to face our entire military).

Losing five dwarves - with another barely clinging to life - has been a hard blow to our young fortress. Morale is still pretty high among our residents - we did construct modest bedrooms for everyone, and our dining hall is truly a wonder to behold - but our reputation has suffered. We received no immigrants at all this past year.

But we continue to build and we continue to explore. We've discovered vast caverns underground, amazing places which thrill our dwarven souls. And far, far underground, we think we've discovered magma. It's a long way off, but we might be able to harness it for our metal-forging and glass-melting workshops. We're using coal-fired forges now, but that's just not as elegant as using liquid rock. (On the other hand, coal is abundant and a lot closer to where it's needed.)

A small part of one cavern system, far underground at Toraliden.

Now that spring is here, we're hopeful that the new year will be better than the last (much better, if there's any justice in the world). We plan to make big changes to our flawed trap system, if goblins give us the time we need for rebuilding. We plan to explore the caverns and the magma ocean. (We must decide whether to make that long trek regularly, or instead, move our whole community further down into the heart of the mountain.) And we hope to start attracting immigrants again, since we desperately need a larger labor force. We're down to 55 dwarves right now, and five of them are just children.

We need a better warning system for goblin attacks, and we need to build walls and ceilings to protect against missile fire from above. For that, we desperately need new masons. And we need to improve our military, because we can't depend entirely on traps. Well, we're a young fortress, and there's always too much to do. But we've got a good location, with good resources, and we're becoming a regular stop on several different caravan routes, elf and human, as well as dwarf. Toraliden has only just begun to make a name for itself.

Note: Dwarven last names are composed of two words in the dwarf language (just as "Toraliden" means "Lawpaddles"). In this post, I've started to translate these names, which is different from how I started this  history. I don't know, it just seemed like "Patternspear" was easier to read and comprehend than "Lilarlokum."

Christians don't value human life

It's obvious, isn't it, that Christians don't value human life? Look at the tens of thousands of innocent women put to death - often burned alive - for "witchcraft." Men, too, sometimes.

Oh, they don't do that anymore? That was just a tragic episode in their history? Not true. "Witches" are still being killed in Africa. Furthermore, it's commanded in their holy book, that Christians must kill witches. It's still the same book. That hasn't changed.

If you claim that Christians have changed, that they do value human life these days, then why haven't they edited the Bible to remove that commandment (and the similarly disgusting promotions of genocide, slavery, and child-abuse)? Why aren't Christians protesting against these parts of their holy book? Why aren't they marching in the street, demanding that the worship of such life-destroying acts be ended forever?

Clearly, Christians don't value human life.

Turning to a completely different subject, I thought this article at TPM by Steve Clemons was interesting:

And now the editor in chief of one of Washington's most venerable rights-concerned journals of opinion, Martin Peretz, has written clearly that he doubts that Muslim lives are worth much and that in his gut he doesn't believe Muslims deserve the protections of American laws and civil rights.

Nick Kristoff writes:

For a glimpse of how venomous and debased the discourse about Islam has become, consider a blog post in The New Republic this month. Written by Martin Peretz, the magazine's editor in chief, it asserted: "Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims." Mr. Peretz added: "I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse."

One of my late mentors, Hans Baerwald, taught me that the only way to get a real rather than shallow sense of a political system's norms and operating behavior was to watch it under stress.

With commentary like that we have seen from John Bolton, Martin Peretz, Richard Cheney, Liz Cheney, Glenn Beck, and saw in the political maneuvering of Cheney Chief of Staff, David Addington, we unleashed an America that defiles key aspects of its own DNA and that is less-trustable by the rest of the world today.

To take this further, I think the debate today is not about the treatment of Muslims or those of Arab descent, but about the United States itself.

John Bolton and Martin Peretz, in undermining America's core values of a big-tent approach to accommodating and absorbing other societies, are not performing a patriotic duty -- but are displaying the opposite of American patriotism.

Muslims are impossibly vile and don't deserve civil rights like normal human beings. Just look at the Koran. We all know that believers follow every word in their holy books, right? And religions can't possibly change. In fact, we should probably edit the U.S. Constitution to remove citizenship from every Muslim - and members of every other religion that advocates violence...

Hey, I have no liking for Islam, myself (or Christianity, for that matter). But when did we Americans turn into the exact opposite of what America used to stand for? Is it just that we're such hopeless cowards that any threat at all turns us into gibbering lunatics? Please explain this to me, because I just don't get it.

Pipe dreams

Tom Toles' commentary:

There never is any reason to raise taxes, ever, we are told. It is always a good time to cut taxes, we are told. This is not thinking. This is a badly programmed robot. Sometimes you will hear a discussion of what is the optimum tax level to yield the highest revenue but burden the economy the least, but you won't hear that conversation in the United States because it's against the law here, according to the conservative Supreme Court's narrow reading of the Constitution.

Here's another conversation you won't hear. At what point does the share of U.S. income that is taken in by the richest 1 percent actually start to undermine the economy? This discussion is also illegal here, but I'm taking my chances. That share has DOUBLED in the last thirty years and is now close to a FIFTH of the whole pie! Less share for YOU, if you struggled in math. Is this bad? Would 50 percent be bad? 95 percent?

But they INVEST that money in productive enterprises that benefit us all. But DO they? Mightn't there be a point where there is more money in this storied "investor class" than they can use productively? Why, you might end up with destructive investment BUBBLES! Like, oh, a HOUSING bubble, instead of more exports. Wild conjecture, I know, but just theoretically possible. Or maybe they would spend their time working on elaborate ultra high-speed stock trading that takes wealth out of the market that comes from...where? I don't know, and as long as the conservative media complex is misidentified as liberal media, we never will.

What's even crazier is that this was the exact same thinking throughout the Bush Administration, and it led to nothing but disaster. The wealthy took their money and used it non-productively, creating bubbles in arcane financial instruments, record-breaking budget deficits, and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. And our experience then has made no difference at all.

Republicans are campaigning on the exact same policies that led directly to these disasters - and just recently, too - and they're not being laughed off the political stage. Amazing, isn't it? In fact, it's just beyond belief. You couldn't write fiction like this, because no one would believe it. It's like we Americans have completely lost touch with reality.

Why does no one care that we're becoming a banana republic, with a super-elite minority owning - and controlling - more and more of our nation? Why the insistence that the wealthy pay even less in taxes? What happened to the idea of a strong middle class in America, with fewer at the extremes of wealth, both above and below?

And why do we think that corporations don't have enough power in our political system? Why have we come to see no difference between a corporation and a human being? I thought that television commercials would make us immune - or at least resistant - to corporate PR, but that apparently hasn't happened. We're just as much the gullible, ignorant rubes as ever. No, we're even more so, since I couldn't see this happening decades ago.

What in the world has happened to us?

Non-Belief, Pt. 5: Ethics

My post a week ago, about that discussion thread at Pharyngula, brought this to mind. Commonly, we're supposed to just assume that religious leaders are the experts in ethics and morality. I'll hear that science can't tell us anything about those things. And believers will wonder out loud how - and why - we atheists can be ethical without a god telling us what to do (and enforcing the rules with threats of damnation).

You may not know any atheists (we look like everyone else and often have reason to be discreet), but we all know Christians. Are they all good people? One of the reasons I was skeptical as a child was that church-going didn't seem to improve people. Some of the devout were very nice; some were quite nasty. But there didn't seem to be a correlation between belief and behavior. (As an adult, I still haven't seen one.)

If clerics are such moral leaders, shouldn't people who get more instruction be clearly better than the rest of us? Shouldn't the clerics themselves be the best of all? A look at the recent pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church should tell you that's not necessarily the case.

Oh, but that's not your religion, huh? Well, that's the other problem. How do you pick the right religion, then? The vast majority of us pick it by... being born into it. In other words, your religious belief is simply an accident of birth. If you'd been born in another nation, and especially in some other time, your belief would be completely different,... but just as firm as it is now.

How could we even consider that clerics are the experts in ethics and morality? Have you ever read the Bible? It supports slavery, genocide, child-beating, the killing of "witches" and heretics, and all manner of vile behavior we've risen above these days. To be even slightly moral today, you must ignore or rationalize away a good part of your holy book (whatever it is).

In fact, the progress we've made in ethical behavior has generally come despite the fierce resistance of religion. To be sure, believers have normally been on both sides of every important issue. But churches in the South - the Bible Belt even then - owned slaves, and even sold babies to raise money for spreading the good word. Congregations fought hard against racial integration and women's suffrage. And religious groups today lead the fight against gay rights.

It's true that science doesn't focus on proper behavior. That's not its purpose. But that doesn't mean it can't tell us anything about ethics and morality, either. We can recognize that we evolved certain characteristics because we're social animals, because cooperation has always been essential to our survival. And we can see similar traits in other primates, too - for the same reason. This helps to put things in perspective, so we can understand why we think and feel as we do.

But generally, ethical behavior isn't that difficult to identify. Unless you're a psychopath, you can normally just feel what's right and what's wrong. You may do what's wrong anyway, but it's rarely because you can't tell the difference. (Actively trying to help other people might indeed be difficult, since you must weigh short-term and long-term effects, but that's less a case of right vs wrong than just... trying to decide between two rights.)

If you really want a specific guideline, the Golden Rule works well enough: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." However, this isn't specifically Christian, or even specifically religious. It's been a common philosophy worldwide and throughout our history, in one form or another. But ordinarily, it's only been applied to "us" and not "them," and pretty much the entire advance of ethical thinking has basically been to enlarge the pool of "us" and shrink the number of people considered "them."

Note that another ethical guideline, "turn the other cheek," is often praised, but rarely practiced. And that's for very good reason. Pacifism works sometimes, in specific, very limited situations, but it's a poor philosophy in general. We all know that. We'll all fight to defend ourselves and our families, whatever lip-service we pay to Jesus. In fact, if you won't support a common defense, you'll be a burden on others who do need to defend the community. So I'd argue that "turn the other cheek" is seldom ethical.

So, do we really need god-given guidelines in order to tell ethical from unethical behavior? Let's look at the Ten Commandments. (There are different versions, but they're all similar enough for our purposes. For convenience, I'll use this list, which is near the top in a Google search.)

The first four are just religious observances - prohibitions against other gods, against making representational art, against blasphemy, and against working on the Sabbath. These are similar to biblical prohibitions against eating shellfish or wearing clothing of mixed fibers. If you're not a Christian, they're hardly a matter of ethics. And even Christians normally pick and choose which to obey.

"Honor your father and your mother" might seem like a good rule, but most of us don't need a rule like that. We naturally love our parents, just like they naturally love us. And if your parent did not deserve your love - if your father beat you or raped you, for example - you shouldn't honor him. So as an ethical guideline, this is either completely unnecessary or erroneous, depending on the circumstances.

The next four are quite reasonable guidelines, as far as they go, being prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and perjury. But, again, they're hardly necessary. Religious or not, we all know that these things are wrong. This doesn't help with the difficult questions, like whether or not capital punishment is "murder." And it doesn't include other kinds of behavior that are equally wrong, like rape.

And the last commandment is not to covet what belongs to someone else. (Yeah, rape isn't important enough to be a commandment, but envy is. Go figure!) Is this really a valid ethical rule? Well, that might depend on your definition of "covet." You might admire your neighbor's wife, envy his house, and lust after his ass (or his ox), but none of that is wrong if it's not taken too far. In fact, it might even be beneficial, if it causes you to work harder to get a similar house (or wife) yourself.

So how can we atheists be ethical without a god telling us that murder is wrong? Well, you know that rape is wrong, and there's nothing in your Bible about that. You know that raising hybrid cattle isn't wrong, despite biblical prohibitions. And you know that it's not right to beat your kid with a stick, even though the Bible says it is. Ordinarily, this isn't rocket-science. And for really difficult ethical questions, your religion is no help anyway.

OK, so much for the how. How about the why? Why would atheists behave themselves without the ever-present threat of hellfire (or the promise of heaven)? Well, I'm not a sociopath, so I don't like to cause suffering to other people. I've felt pain myself, physical and emotional, and it's not fun. Why would I want to inflict pain on someone else? I'd feel terrible about that!

When I've done something wrong, I've felt ashamed of myself. If I've hurt someone else, I've felt like a heel. I don't like that feeling. I have empathy. I recognize that others are people just like me. I can imagine their pain. When I was a child, maybe I needed the threat and the promise of Santa Claus to behave well, I don't know. But I certainly don't as an adult.

If I couldn't feel those things, as a natural consequence of being a normal human being, I would hope that I could still think my way into knowing what was wrong and what was right. And if I could tell right from wrong, why would I want to do what was wrong? Well, some people do (and the vast majority of them - like people in general - are religious believers). I'm no expert on why that happens, but I do know that religious belief doesn't seem to prevent it.

Traditionally, the mafia was a big supporter of the Catholic Church. (I don't know if that's still the case or not.) They certainly weren't atheists. So, why didn't they believe they were going to Hell? Why did they continue murder and theft, biggies in the Ten Commandments? Their religious beliefs certainly didn't stop them, so why would you think that atheists couldn't be moral without religion?

We do have secular laws, and at least part of the justification for them is as a deterrent. If I really wanted to murder someone, the consequences under our legal system might indeed deter me. Frankly, they almost certainly would. So the threat of Hell, in addition to that, would be completely immaterial.

Also, I strongly suspect if I really wanted to murder someone, I could probably convince myself that it was approved by my god. The Bible, for example, contains all sorts of justification for murder. You just have to pick and choose which parts  you want to obey. Certainly believers have had no problem killing people for centuries - witches, heretics, adulterers, abortion doctors, atheists, criminals, enemy soldiers,... the list goes on and on.

Atheists are at least as ethical as believers, and religious leaders are not experts in ethics or morality, despite their claims. And since there's no consensus in religion (unlike in science), even if they were, you'd have to first pick the right religion (and then, likely, the right denomination within it). I don't need any of that, and neither do you. It's rarely hard to tell right from wrong. And when you understand that you depend on a community of people, you'll understand why you should do the right thing.

___
Note: The rest of this series is here.

More sleazy campaigning

I just received a telephone call which turned out to be a fake poll - from the Nebraska Republican Party. Of course, they don't tell you that, at first. They have to tell you that they paid for the poll, eventually, but it's set up as a real poll - only with terribly slanted questions. By the end of the thing, even the guy hired for this purpose was laughing as he was asking them.

Like that previous instance of sleazy campaigning, this was the Nebraska GOP trying to influence the state legislative race, an officially non-partisan position, in my district. My current state senator, Danielle Conrad, went door-to-door in my neighborhood last April. We talked for quite some time, as she answered my questions.

But the only thing I know about her opponent, besides his name, is that he must be a Republican, since the Nebraska GOP is making such a big effort on his behalf. (Of course, this is basically a one-party state, so they don't need to spend money on partisan races.) From Chad Wright himself, I've heard nothing at all. I've certainly heard nothing about his positions, about how he'd act differently than Conrad. No, it's been nothing but negative campaigning on his behalf by the Republican Party.

I hope this sort of thing isn't rewarded, but I wouldn't be surprised if he won. This is a very red state. People vote Republican because they've always voted Republican, and they believe what they hear on Fox "News." After those eight disastrous years of the Bush Administration, ending in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, it's hard to believe that anyone still votes Republican. But people aren't that rational, I guess.

Burn a Quran Day

Do I have to point out that this is a parody? Heh, heh. I hope not!

Yeah, this is all crazy talk from a few lunatics, but TPM makes a good point about taking responsibility:

Speaking just now on MSNBC James Zogby made a very good point -- and pressed Andrea Mitchell on it. His point was that sure, this Pastor Jones fool is one guy, who's managed to get worldwide attention for his stunt. But you cannot separate him, as I noted below, from the whole climate of hate speech and anti-Muslim agitation from the Newt Gingriches and the Sarah Palins and the rest of them.

At that point, Mitchell jumped in and said, wait, Palin said she disagrees with the Koran burning. To which Zogby replied, something to the effect of 'C'mon'. And that's just the right reply. This is the standard approach of race haters and demagogues. They keep stirring the pot, churning out demonizing rhetoric and hate speech. Then some marginal figure does something nuts and suddenly ... oh, wait, I didn't mean burn Korans. Where'd you get that idea from? We were just saying that Islam is a violent, anti-American religion and that American Muslims should stop building their mosques and focus on apologizing for 9/11 and maybe get out of America. But burn the Koran? No way.

That's a bit much.

Actions have consequences. This isn't about one guy.

Note that this isn't about criticizing Islam, either. You don't have the right not to get your feelings hurt. No matter what you believe yourself, other people have the right to criticize and, yes, ridicule it. And this Jones guy does have the right to burn his own property, no matter what any other religious group might think about it. There's absolutely no question about that.

No, this is about anti-Muslim hate speech which encourages not just this sort of thing, but actual violence to innocent Muslims (which has indeed increased in America recently). After all, it's also a fact that you have the right to practice your own religion in this country - no matter what I think about it, no matter what anyone thinks about it. We also have a culture that considers your religious beliefs to be your own business, by and large. That's a good thing.

Again, it doesn't mean that your beliefs are immune to criticism. It doesn't mean that people won't laugh at them. It doesn't mean that you won't get your feelings hurt by comments, jokes, or... cartoons. What it means is that, bottom line, no matter what, you have the right to believe what you want. It also means that you should be treated as an individual, not as a stereotype. Whatever your race, whatever your religion, whatever your national origin - none of that matters. You are still an equal citizen of the United States of America.

There may be a fine line between criticism/ridicule and whipping up anger and hysteria towards an entire class of people, but there is a line, a very definite line that is normally quite easy to discern. You don't step over that line by accident. And unfortunately, the recent climate of "hate speech and anti-Muslim agitation" from the right-wing has very definitely crossed the line. In particular, note that, in this case, the only reason for Koran-burning it to try to provoke a violent response from Muslims. (Do I really need to point out that this response would be even more wrong than provoking it? C'mon!)

I have no liking for any religion, and I dislike Islam more than most. I will continue to criticize it, and even ridicule it, as I see fit. At the same time, you have the right to disagree with me. If you're a Muslim, that's your own business. It doesn't mean that you're a terrorist. It doesn't mean that you're not a real American citizen, that you're not a "patriot." (Honestly, I'm heartily sick of the assumption by Republicans that you have to be a Christian to be a patriotic American.) It does mean that I'll treat you just like everyone else.

The fact is, I disagree with most people I know, including friends and relatives. So what? We're a diverse country, and we can agree to disagree. This isn't difficult. We do it all the time in America. Your neighbor is a Republican (or a Democrat). Your neighbor is a Catholic (or a Protestant or a Jew or any number of other religions). Your neighbor is Hispanic (or black or white or Asian). Your neighbor is a gay, atheist, libertarian mime. You can think whatever you like about any of this, and you can express your opinions (although common politeness might mean that you won't bring up the subject unnecessarily), but fundamentally, it's their business, not yours.

We all know this. It's how we live in civilized countries. This is what it means to be an American. Whipping up hysteria about any group is fundamentally un-American (although, yes, it's happened time and time again in our country). It's not a matter of limiting debate, not at all. It's just the recognition that we all have to live together, whatever our differences. Even if you're not an American, we're all human beings. We still have to live together, and we still have the right to our differences. This is not rocket-science, it really isn't. So why are we still having problems with this kind of thing?