dannyman.toldme.com


News and Reaction, Politics, Religion, Sundry, Testimonials

London

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/07/07/london/

(more…)

4 Comments


About Me, Excerpts, Religion

“What of America’s Christian Roots?”

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/07/04/usa-christian-roots-faq/

“What of America’s Christian Roots?”

From what I can tell, the founding fathers were about as Christian as other Americans. Which means, some were plenty Christian and some were pretty open-minded, or minimalist, like me. I think this excerpt from The Week, June 10, 2005 explains our Christian Heritage fairly well: (more…)

3 Comments


About Me, Politics, Religion

“What about ‘Under God?'”

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/07/03/under-god-faq/

You may ask: “what about ‘Under God?'”

When I was growing up, I recited the Pledge of Allegiance every day. “One nation, under God, indivisible . . .” at first, I just went with it. Then I began to wonder why an Atheist should profess to “one nation, under God” . . . if I didn’t believe in God, wasn’t swearing that my nation was “under God” dishonest? Really, didn’t saying “one nation, under God, indivisible” basically negate, for an Atheist, the entire pledge? Was I lying? Was I being disloyal? (more…)

4 Comments


About Me, Religion

I am an Atheist

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/07/02/i-atheist/

These days when America’s leaders are trying to make the place look more “Christian” I worry a bit because old-fashioned Christianity has from time to time endorsed the torture and murder of non-Christians. (more…)

1 Comment


Jokes, Religion

“Dear Jesus”

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/06/13/dear-jesus/

A while back, I signed a petition for the American Family Association to oppose Ford’s support of gay people. I didn’t do this because I agree with them, but as a subversive act to put obviously bogus names on their petition. The idea being that if anyone ever reviewed their anti-gay petition, they would see that “Jesus McChrist” was definitely opposed to Ford’s gay ways.

Every time I see this e-mail, I get a little chuckle: (more…)

1 Comment


Excerpts, Politics, Religion

Catholicism

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/05/20/catholicism/

The words of Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, of Chicago:

“If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality-of-life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fibre of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.”

(more…)

1 Comment


Politics, Religion

Choosing Morality

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/02/13/choosing-morality/

It was the vision of the founding fathers to have a nation of independent, land-owning farmers. Each farm run by a man who was the equal of his peers in freedom and opportunity. Wealth may be inherited but much of it was to be determined by personal enterprise, not to mention the ambitions of the creator …

It is a common belief that a complex entity derives much of its character from the characteristics of its component parts. In a remote colony aspiring for independence, the nation, as a republic, was to be formed in turn by independent states, composed of democratically-run communities, comprised of independent, self-determined farmers, each man his own lord over his private fiefdom. E pluribus unum — from many, one. The strength of independent men makes the strength of the communities makes the strength of the states makes the strength of the Republic, the sum of our national strength, to stand in defiance of the awesome might of the British Empire.

The conservative philosophy is that the moral failings of our government and power structures are the result of moral failures among the constituents that represent society as a whole. Their solution is too often a reactionwe will impose morality. Abortion will be illegal, as will self-serving homosexual relationships. We will seek to weave the notion of Godliness through the public discourse, for it is only through Jesus Christ, our savior, that redemption, and thus morality, is to be found.

But morality is not something you can get from the law, or from uttering some profession of faith. Morality comes from honest dialog with the self and those around the self. Morality comes from looking at the other as a different version of the self, and accepting that as a point from which to work with others. In short, morality comes from personal initiative, and requires independence and responsibility. Morality comes from the need to choose morality. (more…)

1 Comment


Free Style, Religion

Friday and the Sun God

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/02/04/friday-sun-god/

I am having such a Friday. I have been really productive lately, which heightens the sensation of coming in one day, and sitting at one’s desk, and really not doing anything. Not even slacking off, just sort of in suspended animation.

So, let us slack off for a bit. It is important to do. I’ll tell you that this morning, as I was walking across the foggy parking lot to get to work, I looked up in to the sky and saw a sphere. The moon, so late in the morning? But it was pure white, and a bit larger. What an interesting moon. Unless … it is … the sun! I was staring at the sun!

Normally, staring at the sun is a bad thing that will make you go blind. Don’t stare at the sun! But today, the sun was weakened by fog … it was stripped of its wrathful power, and was just an orb in the sky. I thought to take a picture of this, because it was eerie and alien, but when I pulled my camera out a moment later, the sun was gone. It had become invisible in the fog.

Talk about eerie.

As I finished my trip across the parking lot, I thought about how the sun is totally manifest each and every day, even when you can not see it. It is so powerful that usually you can not look at it directly or it would destroy your eyes, but you can feel it shining warm on your body, touching you and everything from up high. No wonder the early people revere the sun as a God. But then, the fact that you can not look at the original Sun God, and you can experience the sun even when you can not see it, well, that opens up people to the idea that you can experience other Gods, even when you can not observe them directly.

Feedback Welcome


Politics, Religion, Technology

2005: A Good Start for Fags

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2005/01/02/2005-good-start-fags/

The site godhatesfags.com has been hacked and shut down by Swedish hellbound faggot defenders, “in cooperation with Activist JudgesTM.” For future viewing pleasure, I have archived the page.

Thanks for the tip, Adam. (more…)

1 Comment


Politics, Religion

Morality Police Investigate Pagan Ritual

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2004/12/14/morality-police-pagan-ritual/

Responding to complaints from vigilant, God-fearing Christians, praise God, the Federal Public Broadcasting Morality Police (FCC) have requested a tape from NBC of the Opening Ceremonies of the pre-Christian ritual known as the “Olympic Games,” which were this year hosted by Greece.

The opening ceremony, as staged in Athens, this year, featured a long parade of actors portraying Pagan Gods, choreographed to modern “interpretive” dance. Some of these actors, clad in bikinis and grey body paint, sported prosthetic genitalia. The Federal Public Broadcasting Morality Police will review the tape to ensure that the most degenerate segments of this heathen performance did not profane the airwaves of the United States of America, God help us.

If such images may have been broadcast in Cristendom, during a broadcast popular among broad-minded Christian families who seek to expose their youth to barbarian cultures, they pose a serious risk to our Christian Republic of spreading sexual degeneracy and moral turpitude, as well as the sin of homosexuality, among our youth.

Vigilance has been raised since the atrocity breached during the last Super Bowl, in which a woman’s teat was exposed to our youth for nearly two seconds during a sports event. President George Bush has recently been re-elected by the Right-Thinking Christian American people, not only because of his ongoing, successful crusade to bring Christian democracy to Arabia, but based on his solemn pledge to protect the fundamentantal Chstian values of our land from those the likes of Kerry the Papist. All Praise to Jesus!

Source: New York Post: “NO NUDES MADE IT TO OLY OPENING”

1 Comment


Politics, Religion

If You Think Bush is Inept …

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2004/09/30/35-children/

From Yahoo, Baghdad Bombings Kill 35 Children.

Thirty five children and seven adults were killed by a car bomber as American soldiers passed out candy to kids during the unveiling ceremony of a sewage treatment plant.

“We hate Americans! We hate candy! We hate sewage treatment! We hate children!”

You know, I never thought I’d say this, but “Dammit, that bullshit better be all over Al Jazeera.” If they’re going to cover American atrocities from stray smart bombs, they sure as hell better carry insurgent atrocities from stray dumb bombers.

The explosions killed 42 people and wounded 141, including 10 U.S. soldiers. The wounded included 72 children under the age of 14, said Dr. Mohammed Salaheddin.

Taking pot shots at American soldiers and beheading contractors, that can all sort of be rationalized, but driving a car bomb in to a crowd of your own children!

The only way that kind of loss can make any sense is if the disgust that people feels somehow helps slow down the violence so the Iraqis can get on their way through the elections, and come up with some sort of decent government that can get the Americans to go home.

This is just disgusting. This is 9/11 style terrorism that reminds us all why we are all opposed to murdering religious fanatics. Just as 9/11 spelled the end of the Taliban, I hope this spells then end of some of the bullshit being perpetrated in the name of Islam.

We may think Bush is inept, but he picks enemies with even less finesse.

1 Comment


Politics, Religion

Amen, Mr. Newdow!

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2004/03/29/amen-mr-newdow/

Okay, so as mentioned previously, I was pretty excited at the prospect of Michael Newdow arguing over the Constitutionality of “under God” before the Supreme Court, which happened Wednesday. He’s a Doctor with a law degree, though he is not a practicing lawyer. He did the ballsy thing of representing his case himself, and by all accounts, he represented himself, and the rest of us Atheists, quite well. I have a new hero.

The New York Times published excerpts from Wednesdays hearing which are an invigorating read. I’ll excerpt a few excerpts here:

JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: What do you make of this argument? I will assume that if you read the pledge carefully, the reference to under God means something more than a mere description of how somebody else once thought. We’re pledging allegiance to the flag and to the republic. The republic is then described as being under God, and I think a fair reading of that would — would be I think that’s the way the republic ought to be conceived, as under God. So I think — I think there’s some affirmation there. I will grant you that.

What do you make of the argument that in actual practice the affirmation in the midst of this civic exercise as a religious affirmation is so tepid, so diluted then so far, let’s say, from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should be, in effect, beneath the constitutional radar. It’s sometimes, you know the phrase, the Rostow phrase, the ceremonial deism.

What do you make of that argument, even assuming that, as I do, that there is some affirmation involved when the child says this as a technical matter?

MR. NEWDOW: I think that that whole concept goes completely against the ideals underlying the Establishment Clause. We saw in Minersville v. Gobitis and West Virginia v. Barnette something that most people don’t consider to be religious at all to be of essential religious value to those Jehovah’s Witnesses who objected. And for the Government to come in and say, we’ve decided for you this is inconsequential or unimportant is an arrogant pretension, said James Madison. He said in his memorial —

JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, I think the argument is not that the Government is saying, we are defining this as inconsequential for you. I think the argument is that simply the way we live and think and work in schools and in civic society in which the pledge is made, that the — that whatever is distinctively religious as an affirmation is simply lost. It — it’s not that the — that the Government is saying, you’ve got to pretend that it’s lost. The argument is that it is lost, that the religious, as distinct from a civic content, is close to disappearing here.

MR. NEWDOW: And again, I — I don’t mean to go back, but it seems to me that is a view that you may choose to take and the majority of Americans may choose to take, but it doesn’t — it’s not the view I take, and when I see the flag and I think of pledging allegiance, I — it’s like I’m getting slapped in the face every time, bam, you — you know, this is a nation under God, your religious belief system is wrong.

And here, I want to be able to tell my child that I have a very valid religious belief system. Go to church with your mother, go see Buddhists, do anything you want, I love that — the idea that she’s being exposed to other things, but I want my religious belief system to be given the same weight as everybody else’s. And the Government comes in here and says, no, Newdow, your religious belief system is wrong and the mother’s is right and anyone else who believes in God is right, and this Court —

JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you had her here in this courtroom and she stood up when the Justices entered and she heard the words, God save the United States and this honorable Court, wouldn’t the injury that you’re complaining about be exactly the same, so you would have equal standing on your account of things to challenge that as you do to challenge what the school district does here?

MR. NEWDOW: I don’t think the injury would be even close to the same. She’s not being asked to stand up, place her hand on her heart, and say, I affirm this belief, and I think that can easily distinguish this case from all those other situations. Here she is being asked to stand and say that there exists a God. Government can’t ever impose that —

JUSTICE GINSBURG: If she’s asked to repeat or to sing, as the Chief Justice suggested, God Bless America, then she is speaking those words.

MR. NEWDOW: Again, if it were a situation where we said, let’s only do nothing else in this classroom, all right, we’ll say God bless America and let’s just say those words or something, I think that would violate the Constitution as well. If it’s just, let’s sing one song a day and once a month we get God Bless America, no, that would be certainly fine. We don’t want to be hostile to religion.

But here we’re not — it’s not a question of being hostile to religion. It’s indoctrinating children and Congress said that was the purpose.

Amen, Mr. Newdow. On the one hand, if you argue that the phrase “under God” is “ceremonial deism” there are some hard-core pious folk that would take offense at you uttering the name of the Lord without due reverence. To take the Lord’s name without reverence is blashpemy. No good. You can not say that “under God” doesn’t really mean anything, especially when uttering the phrase is anti-thetical to us Atheists.

When I was a child we would stand every morning, place out hands over our hearts, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In the ears of every American is a chorus of young schoolchildren drilling on a core belief system every morning. Before it became a bad word, we viewed the pledge as “indoctrination” … repeat these words, and you will come to live by them.

I’ve never been a “religious” person, and the more I thought about it, the less this “under God” business made any sense to me. For years, I’d utter the Pledge of Allegiance, every last word. Every word means something to me … except those two words. I have not come to know God, so who am I to bring it into my pledge of national allegiance? Isn’t that sort of dishonest?

In my youth I was also a Boy Scout. Ostensibly the Boy Scouts of America do not allow Atheists, but none of us really cared so much. One of the Scout Laws that I did stumble on was that a Scout is Reverent. What is Reverence? Well, the “Boy Scout Handbook” explained that Reverence is respect for God, and respect for the belief systems of others. Well, what do I know about God? Nothing. I do know that other people make a very big deal out of their professed knowledge of God. I concluded that, for these purposes, I was an Atheist. I could respect God by not making false pronouncements about it, and I could respect others by not giving them a hard time about their beliefs. Reverence achieved.

Eventually I’d drop that phrase, those two words, from my daily recitations. It wasn’t that I was rejecting God so much as I could not profess — I could not make a false claim — to its nature and its relationship with my nation. To do so would be impious, irreverent, and dishonest with regards to my own belief system.

To see the mentality … the theocratic bigotry, if you will, from out nations leaders, we can turn to Justice Breyer:

JUSTICE BREYER: So it’s not perfect, it’s not perfect, but it serves a purpose of unification at the price of offending a small number of people like you. So tell me from ground one why — why the country cannot do that?

MR. NEWDOW: Well, first of all, for 62 years this pledge did serve the purpose of unification and it did do it perfectly. It didn’t include some religious dogma that separated out some —

… Again, the Pledge of Allegiance did absolutely fine and with — got us through two world wars, got us through the Depression, got us through everything without God, and Congress stuck God in there for that particular reason, and the idea that it’s not divisive I think is somewhat, you know, shown to be questionable at least by what happened in the result of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. The country went berserk because people were so upset that God was going to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Now, I’m really proud of Michael Newdow here for not losing his cool in the face of … well, whatever that was. He pulled us right to the point — we got along perfectly well without those words, without alienating “a small number of people” like me. So, if someone points out, however politely, that this imposition is … well .. kind of rude, right? Does Religion teach us to be rude? To belittle the beliefs of others? If so, then that might explain why a few of us avoid religion.

Now, here is perhaps the one highlight you may have heard from the whole exchange:

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Do we know — do we know what the vote was in Congress apropos of divisiveness to adopt the under God phrase?

MR. NEWDOW: In 1954?

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Yes.

MR. NEWDOW: It was apparently unanimous. There was no objection. There’s no count of the vote.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Well, that doesn’t sound divisive.

(Laughter.)

MR. NEWDOW: That’s only because no atheist can get elected to public office.

(Applause.)

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: The courtroom will be cleared if there’s any more clapping. Proceed, Mr. Newdow.

On NPR, Nina Totenberg reported that “those words provoked an amazing reaction from the courtroom — applause from spectators.” I later read in the Chicago Tribune:

When Newdow said the vote was unanimous, the chief justice responded, “That doesn’t sound divisive.” Newdow shot back with a quick rejoinder: “That’s only because no atheist can get elected to public office.” The remark prompted laughter and applause from his supporters in the courtroom.

Now, I cast a wide net on Google News and haven’t been able to corroborate the claim that it was Atheists cheering this assertion. I read that applause the other way, that the religious folk in the audience were cheering against Newdow, though a lot of articles imply that his supporters were cheering a particularly witty, if depressing comeback. I found the Tribune piece re-hashed in the Salt Lake Tribune with a different by-line. I found the following elaboration at law.com:

That triggered applause from the audience, which is almost never heard in the Supreme Court chamber. It was unclear whether the applause was for Newdow’s rejoinder or for the fact that atheists don’t get elected, but in any event Rehnquist angrily admonished the audience that the courtroom would be cleared if any more clapping occurred.

As the courtroom settled down, Newdow resumed his attack, telling the Court that, in fact, eight states still have laws against atheists holding office — another point that an advocate other than Newdow might not have made.

At any rate, the treatment of the outburst triggered a brief missive from my Hiptop to the Chicago Tribune, who have not responded:

Is this accurate? I recall hearing about this on NPR yesterday and interpreting that the Theists in the audience were applauding the assertion that an atheist could not get elected to public office. I don’t see why an Atheist would cheer such a depressing assertion.

If Mr. Neikirk got this detail wrong he might wish to apologise to your Atheist readers, because in his telling of the story it was an audience of rowdy, cynical, smarmy Atheists disrupting the court proceedings. If he was right then I must make amends for assuming that the court was filled with disruptive, Theist bigots cheering at such a dark notion in an effort to crush one brave, lonely dissenting citizen as he stood before our government, asking them to change two little words that trample on his religious freedom.

Heck, let’s just figure it was a few rowdy Atheists and their detractors.

Mr Newdow? A final word?

I’m hoping the Court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all.

Amen, Mr. Newdow.

/danny

1 Comment


Good Reads, Religion

Good Luck, Michael Newdow!

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2004/03/23/good-luck-michael-newdow/


I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Michael Newdow will be pleading his case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, explaining why those two little words have no place in our nation’s “Pledge of Allegiance”. I hope his arguments prove convincing. We’ll see how our government works. You can read more about what’s up at the New York Times.

/danny

Feedback Welcome


Religion

Getting out from “Under God”

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2004/03/22/getting-out-from-under-god/

I try to be as Theist-positive as I can. But that “under God” stuff has always bugged the heck outta me, and I’ve been omitting those two words from my Pledge since the sixth grade. The money can trust in God all it wants, because, really, money is an act of faith anyway, and I don’t pledge allegiance to it, but my allegiance to my country should not require an appeal to the Invisible Man in the Sky to be sincere.

/danny

Feedback Welcome


Good Reads, Politics, Religion

Rachel Corrie’s Legacy

Link: https://dannyman.toldme.com/2003/03/20/rachel-corries-legacy/

Say what you might about the folly of getting in the way of bulldozers, but thanks to the power of the Internet, and international travel, Rachel Corrie provides us with an insight into life in the occupied territories. If you’re going to risk your life and die doing something, the cause of helping the world understand itself is certainly a noble and worthy one.

Feedback Welcome

« Newer Stuff . . . Older Stuff »
Site Archive