My Zen Arcade

So Florida is considering a vanity plate with a christian message (’I believe’ and a cross).

Of course, many might not see this as crossing the church/state divide.  But those arguments collapse thanks to this telling line:

[Rep. Edward] Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, isn’t sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an “I Don’t Believe” plate, for example, he would probably oppose it

Time’s Top 25 blogs

Now, I actually like a number of the blogs on this list.  But I’m not sure there’s any online publication less relevant to the world of blogging (or the web in general) than Time (even though an old friend of mine writes for them).  There are many who are equally irrelevant, but I doubt any surpass it.  And none of them had the complete…I don’t even know what the word should be…but whatever it is, no one else made ‘You’ man of the year last year. 

At what point do you simply stop and put a bullet into something?

CNN decides that, by asking the questions CNN should be asking, a high school girl is heckling McCain

This is simply sad.  The question (basically, ‘why are you here if not for political reasons’) is exactly the kind of question the MSM and professional reporters should be asking.

But, apparently, only THEY can ask the questions.  Anyone else is a heckler.

Wow, I didn’t realize how horribly dangerous we were.

Now, while I think that Rob Sherman (if he’s who I think he is) is using his child, I agree with his cause.

I also think that anyone who finds their faith threatened by someone believing something else, or by someone rejecting that faith, then they really don’t have a very strong faith at all.

Interesting…Islam likes to say pretty much the same thing about people who don’t believe in Allah, or worse, those who leave Islam.  Leaving Islam, apparently, damages all muslims.

What is it about ‘people of faith’ that scares them so about people who don’t buy what they bought?

Oh, right…fantasies are pretty damn hard to maintain when someone keeps saying that its all make-believe.

So, as you’ve probably heard, at some courthouse in Crossville, Tennasee, there’s now a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (along with Jesus, etc.).

Someone, apparently, is quite upset by the whole thing.  Its not completely clear what he is upset about, but at the very least he is poorly informed about almost everything he discusses.  As a disclaimer, I have to admit (if you don’t already know it) that I don’t see any significant difference between FSM and Jesus, or, at least, I don’t see one of them as more or less bizarre or likely than the other.  Interestingly, I don’t see this as an insult to Christianity.  I think that, once you have an omnipotent, supernatural being, and his son being sent to Earth, and all these miracles, you just gone into the realm of the strange so far that it becomes difficult to see anything as being impossible.

That said, the Josh appears to be suffering from some sort of persecution syndrome which is common amoung those who have a massive majority (whites, men, christians) or disproportionate amounts of power in society.  They become very agitated when their views are not taken as law, or they have to share their space with others, etc.  One has to wonder, would Mr. Hayes be so quick to jump to the defense of Scientology?  Buddhism?  Taoism?  Probably not. 

Here’s my initial breakdown.

1. He’s complaining that people who vote based on their religions are being kept out of public debate.

“In our present context, those advocating for a completely secular state
discriminate against those who appeal to Christianity or the Bible for
guidance in public policy by merely labeling their agenda as religious”

But it seems to me that if you are guided by your religion, and your religious text, then by definition you have a religions agenda.  Call me nuts.
Further, once you have a religious agenda, there’s no point to debating.
Let’s see an example using abortion.
Person 1: Abortion should be illegal because the child within that womb has a soul and is therefor alive.
Person 2: Abortion should be illegal because the foetus is sufficiently developed to be considered alive and human.  Further, the foetus feels pain when the abortion is done.
Person 1 is stating a dogmatic belief which can’t possibly be argued against.  It may, in fact, be true, but there’s no point in debating it.
Person 2, however, is offering up evidence and making an argument.  His first statement may be a little hazy, but his second statement is clear as day.  Either one of these could be discussed and new information could be introduced to support or undermine his claims.

If Person 1 is prevented from taking part in a debate (and I’ve yet to see any evidence of this sort of thing happening…just look at the Republican Presidential debates), its only because they aren’t bringing anything to the table that can be debated (I suppose you could have a theological debate about whether or not the ‘child’ has a soul). 

2. Secular people are not neutral.

 ”In spite of their best efforts to appear as the objective, rational party, those opposed to Intelligent Design and the influence of religion upon the state have shown themselves to not be so “neutral” after all.”

I’m not at all certain what he’s talking about here.  In what way does any of this show a lack of neutrality? Further, where does rationality imply neutrality? 
A rational person approaches a situation or issue with an open mind, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a priori knowledge.  If you tell me a rock is made of gold, I can approach it rationally, and, knowing what I
know, test to see if it is really gold.  That test does not mean I am biased towards or against it being gold.
I have acquired knowledge and applied it.  Further, more than just factual knowledge can be applied to situations a rational person finds themselves in.  If we decide that logic is a useful tool, then in every situation, I can then apply logic to help me judge truth from fiction.  I do not have to recompile all the rules of logic in every situation.
In the case of I.D., the same thing applies.  Arguments might be made for Intelligent Design against evolution, but that doesn’t mean that both theories must wiegh equally (which is what proponants of I.D. want you to see as ‘fairness’).  Were one to apply this rule to all things, then we’d have to include, say, ‘time cube’ in out classrooms and all conspiracy theories about the moon landing, JFK’s assasination, and the Masons.  That isn’t neutrality.  Neutrality would be looking at the arguments for and against each side and determining which makes the stronger case, without presupposing the outcome (assuming you have no knowledge of the topic).
Again, neutrality doesn’t mean not having an informed opinion, nor does it mean going into every situation tabula rasa.  A rational person need not claim neutrality as a characteristic.  A rational person claims adherance to facts in evidence and logic.

3. He appears to be angry at Darwin

” While the idea of creation via the Flying Spaghetti Monster may seem ridiculous, modern Darwinist dogma is even more ridiculous in saying the universe came into existence out of nothing. To put it in mathematical terms, nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything”

Of course,   Darwin, and evolutionary biologists don’t make that claim at all.  In fact, that claim falls well outside the boundaries of biology.  So this may be the result of anger based on a misunderstanding, I suppose. 
Mr. Hayes, I do suggest that perhaps your energy spent writing this ‘editorial’ would have been better spent reading about rational thought and evolutionary theory (Darwinism, Neo-darwinism) so that you at least know what your opponant is actually saying.

Am I the only one who sees the contextual differences between the three statements below?
That aside, the fleeting expletive policy is just insane. What if Bono had gotten up there, tripped and banged his head and said ‘FUCK!’, which would be a pretty understandable thing to say?
The fact is that if hearing ‘fuck’ or ’shit’ on the air is going to corrupt your children’s morals, then, I have to say, you are doing a pretty crappy job of raising your kids.
I’m honestly not making fun the desire to keep this language on the air by people who don’t want their kids to hear it. What I’m making fun of is their belief that their children are not only a hair’s breadth away from going all evil and horrible, but that somehow a single word might do it.
We make a number of concessions to this attitude, and many of them reasonable. For example, we keep alot of things (not just words) relegated to timeslots of 10pm and later. I have no problem with asking parents to do something similar, like not letting their kids watch live awards shows.

Court will examine profanity rules - Yahoo! News

The FCC changed its policy on indecency following a January 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show by NBC when U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase “f—— brilliant.” The FCC said the “F-word” in any context “inherently has a sexual connotation” and can trigger enforcement.

NBC challenged the decision, but the case has yet to be resolved.

The Fox programs at issue in the case before the high court are a Dec. 9, 2002, broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards in which singer Cher used the phrase “F— ‘em” and a Dec. 10, 2003, Billboards broadcast in which reality show star Nicole Richie said, “Have you ever tried to get cow s— out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f—— simple.”

This is, of course, both crazy and disturbing.  What the school is saying, in effect, is that they have control over all public statements made by students both in school and outside of school.
The argument they are using is that the student posted the statements on a blog that was likely to be read by other students.
Therefor, if you are some place where other students hang out, you had best keep your mouth closed, or at least keep your voice down.
No matter how you feel about minors and how they stand under the Bill Of Rights, the school most certainly doesn’t have the authority to restrict free speech anywhere it feels like.

Teen’s free speech rights at issue after blog post | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

NEW YORK — A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn’t have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.But a lawyer for the Burlington, Conn., school told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that administrators should be allowed to act if such comments are made on the Web.

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school’s annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: “‘Jamfest’ is canceled due to douchebags in central office,” and also referred to an administrator who was “pissed off.”