This is not a post about the current situation in the Middle East. This is about the religious roots of the recent events in Ferguson, MO. I am not saying that the killing of Michael Brown was directly motivated by religion. I see it as a somewhat racist event. Why would a white policeman feel it necessary to shoot an unarmed black man six times in order to stop a perceived threat other than the fact that he was black?
In order to see some of the religious roots of racism in America, one needs to
look back into history. When the slave trade began, the whites who bought the slaves already looked upon people with differently colored skin as less than human or otherwise inferior to themselves. Since this was to be their labor pool for the manpower hungry agriculture the were doing, they needed to teach them english. They also went about forcibly converting the slaves to their brand of christianity in order to "civilize" them. Of course they used the bible verses that backed up their worldview that the slaves were inferior, and that god wanted them to be slaves and do what they were told.
After a century of this kind of brainwashing and indoctrination, the slaves were set free. Now the whites faced a problem. They could either accept the blacks as equals and go against what they had been taught for generations, or continue to oppress the blacks and continue teaching their children that they were the superior race because "god said so". They took the second option because it was much easier to continue what they knew instead of thinking for themselves and changing their worldview. Meanwhile the blacks learned to read and found the verses in the bible that contradicted what they had been taught by their former masters. The began to demand equal treatment. It took a hundred more years to bring about equality in the law, and we are not done with that task.
The divisions that christianity in America makes today are far more subtle, but one only needs to look at the white extremists who say that god is on their side to know that the religious roots of racism are still there. It is part of the reason that black men in particular are seen as dangerous by many whites in this country.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Been busy
Although waiting is a big part of the job, sometimes a truck driver has
no time for anything. The past three weeks sent me from the Philadelphia
area to Chicago to Los Angeles to northern Utah to South Carolina to
Florida to Indianapolis. Now I am in Ohio between Columbus and
Cleveland, headed towards Schenectady, New York. I get to see alot of
the country. I see all the tourist attractions as I drive by, never
having enouth time to stop and take them in. Maybe when I retire I will
go back and see some of the things I can only drive past now.
no time for anything. The past three weeks sent me from the Philadelphia
area to Chicago to Los Angeles to northern Utah to South Carolina to
Florida to Indianapolis. Now I am in Ohio between Columbus and
Cleveland, headed towards Schenectady, New York. I get to see alot of
the country. I see all the tourist attractions as I drive by, never
having enouth time to stop and take them in. Maybe when I retire I will
go back and see some of the things I can only drive past now.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
The Hobby Lobby Decision
I have pondered for a while on what I should say about this. The Supreme
Court handed down its decision in this case, allowing closely held
corporations to hide behind the RFRA when they want to ignore certain
portions of the ACA. I am concerned that these corporations will now try
to push the boundaries of that ruling.
Since it is health care, their first step would be to deny spousal
coverage to same-sex couples where it is legal for them to be married.
That would take care of the two most important social issues for the
religious right, gay marriage and the bodily autonomy of women. But
then, they would begin to push out of the health care arena to other
aspects of life. Would we see them hire a chaplain and then make chapel
services mandatory for thousands of employees? After all, their holy
book says that they must share their beliefs with all the world. A
corporation owned by muslims could then require all female employees to
wear the hijab and never speak to any man unless spoken to first. Can
you imagine the outcry from that?
The flaw is in the RFRA. The goal of that law when it was passed was
laudable. Its intintion is to make sure that the government has a
compelling reason to restrict the religious rights of and individual.
Key word: individual. Thanks to unintended consequences, corporations
are now held to be individuals with respect to the RFRA. It now does not
matter that allowing a corporation to exercise its religious freedoms
can restrict the religious freedoms of millions. The solution is to
repeal the RFRA, or at the very least, replace it with something that
defines religious freedom as belonging to individual people living in
the country.
Court handed down its decision in this case, allowing closely held
corporations to hide behind the RFRA when they want to ignore certain
portions of the ACA. I am concerned that these corporations will now try
to push the boundaries of that ruling.
Since it is health care, their first step would be to deny spousal
coverage to same-sex couples where it is legal for them to be married.
That would take care of the two most important social issues for the
religious right, gay marriage and the bodily autonomy of women. But
then, they would begin to push out of the health care arena to other
aspects of life. Would we see them hire a chaplain and then make chapel
services mandatory for thousands of employees? After all, their holy
book says that they must share their beliefs with all the world. A
corporation owned by muslims could then require all female employees to
wear the hijab and never speak to any man unless spoken to first. Can
you imagine the outcry from that?
The flaw is in the RFRA. The goal of that law when it was passed was
laudable. Its intintion is to make sure that the government has a
compelling reason to restrict the religious rights of and individual.
Key word: individual. Thanks to unintended consequences, corporations
are now held to be individuals with respect to the RFRA. It now does not
matter that allowing a corporation to exercise its religious freedoms
can restrict the religious freedoms of millions. The solution is to
repeal the RFRA, or at the very least, replace it with something that
defines religious freedom as belonging to individual people living in
the country.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
The accident in New Jersey
I suppose I should weigh in on the accident in New Jersey that was
allegedly the fault of a tired trucker. I am sure there will be calls to
restrict trucks even more than they are now in order to keep those big
dangerous things away from people. Reports are that the driver was
fatigued. It has been said that he had been awake for 24 hours prior to
the crash. It is possible. It is also possible that the driver of the
limousine was more at fault. It is also possible that it was unavoidable
by anyone involved.
I saw a comment concerning this incident, someone thought that the 70-82
hours a week that we drive is just insane. This person seems to think
that the maximum possible hours that are available for driving are
always used driving. I get a restart on my hours maybe once a month, at
the end of each day the hours that I either drove or spent otherwise on
duty from eight days prior are added to my clock. I very rarely end up
using every minute of that 70 hours during one week. As I write this, I
only have 6.5 hours left for driving. I must stop by around 7 pm central
time today because of another part of the rules that dictates how much I
can do in a day before shutting down for 10 hours. Most of the truckers
out here will follow the rules. Trucking is a very safe industry.
If the person who beleives we should cut back the hours we can drive
thought it through, they would realize that it would make the roads more
dangerous and more congested because we would need twice as many trucks
to deliver all the things that make the country go.
I feel that everyone who gets a driver's license should be required to
ride with a trucker for a week so they can understand just what it takes
to handle a truck. Maybe then, they would not complain about trucks in
the way and automatically blame the trucker in an accident.
allegedly the fault of a tired trucker. I am sure there will be calls to
restrict trucks even more than they are now in order to keep those big
dangerous things away from people. Reports are that the driver was
fatigued. It has been said that he had been awake for 24 hours prior to
the crash. It is possible. It is also possible that the driver of the
limousine was more at fault. It is also possible that it was unavoidable
by anyone involved.
I saw a comment concerning this incident, someone thought that the 70-82
hours a week that we drive is just insane. This person seems to think
that the maximum possible hours that are available for driving are
always used driving. I get a restart on my hours maybe once a month, at
the end of each day the hours that I either drove or spent otherwise on
duty from eight days prior are added to my clock. I very rarely end up
using every minute of that 70 hours during one week. As I write this, I
only have 6.5 hours left for driving. I must stop by around 7 pm central
time today because of another part of the rules that dictates how much I
can do in a day before shutting down for 10 hours. Most of the truckers
out here will follow the rules. Trucking is a very safe industry.
If the person who beleives we should cut back the hours we can drive
thought it through, they would realize that it would make the roads more
dangerous and more congested because we would need twice as many trucks
to deliver all the things that make the country go.
I feel that everyone who gets a driver's license should be required to
ride with a trucker for a week so they can understand just what it takes
to handle a truck. Maybe then, they would not complain about trucks in
the way and automatically blame the trucker in an accident.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
More signs in the South
Today, I was driving through Alabama and Mississippi. Today was primary
day in Alabama, so I saw a large number of political signs. Nearly all
of them were promoting various Republican party candidates. No surprise
there. Not even surprising that a few of them were supporting the
re-elecion of Justice Moore.
However, there were a few signs that were a bit disturbing. These signs
were reminding people of the voter id law. In Alabama (as well as
several other states) one must present a government issued photo id in
order to be allowed to vote. The right wing supporters of laws like that
will tell you that the purpose is to prevent fraud at the polling place.
I have never heard of an actual case of fraud at the polling place.
The real reason is mainly to prevent as many minorities from voting as
possible. The billboards simply stated "you must have photo id to vote"
in very large letters. The message was accompanied by an image of an
attractive young black woman holding out an id card. The message is
clear. If you are a minority, don't bother trying to vote unless you
play by the white man's rules.
The other signs that I found a little off-putting were the ones for
various locally owned motels. They emphasized the fact that they were
"American owned". It is probably a safe bet to say that these motel
owners were white, overwhelmingly religious, and politically
conservative. They are advertising that they do not originally come from
some other place like India or Pakistan. They do not really understand
that the Indians and Pakistanis have likely been in the US long enough
to have become citizens, and are therefore just as American as they are.
It is even possible that these "non-american" owners are second
generation, having been born here to immigrant parents. Every single
white person in the South is either an immigrant or has immigrant
ancestry. This is hypocrisy. This is the subtle but pervasive racism to
be encountered in the American South.
day in Alabama, so I saw a large number of political signs. Nearly all
of them were promoting various Republican party candidates. No surprise
there. Not even surprising that a few of them were supporting the
re-elecion of Justice Moore.
However, there were a few signs that were a bit disturbing. These signs
were reminding people of the voter id law. In Alabama (as well as
several other states) one must present a government issued photo id in
order to be allowed to vote. The right wing supporters of laws like that
will tell you that the purpose is to prevent fraud at the polling place.
I have never heard of an actual case of fraud at the polling place.
The real reason is mainly to prevent as many minorities from voting as
possible. The billboards simply stated "you must have photo id to vote"
in very large letters. The message was accompanied by an image of an
attractive young black woman holding out an id card. The message is
clear. If you are a minority, don't bother trying to vote unless you
play by the white man's rules.
The other signs that I found a little off-putting were the ones for
various locally owned motels. They emphasized the fact that they were
"American owned". It is probably a safe bet to say that these motel
owners were white, overwhelmingly religious, and politically
conservative. They are advertising that they do not originally come from
some other place like India or Pakistan. They do not really understand
that the Indians and Pakistanis have likely been in the US long enough
to have become citizens, and are therefore just as American as they are.
It is even possible that these "non-american" owners are second
generation, having been born here to immigrant parents. Every single
white person in the South is either an immigrant or has immigrant
ancestry. This is hypocrisy. This is the subtle but pervasive racism to
be encountered in the American South.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
On christian privelege
I am sitting at a truck stop in Alabama to make a delivery tomorrow.
Alabama is the home of Justice Roy Moore, the man who seems to feel it
is perfectly ok to put a 3 ton granite slab bearing the ten commandments
on the courthouse lawn. He truly cannot understand why that violates the
First Amendment. Mr Moore and his supporters appear to believe that the
First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion means that a person is
allowed to choose which denomination of christianity they will follow.
They will see any effort to bring some equality in how religion and
nonreligion are treated by the government as persecution of christians.
They cannot see that the so-called persecution is only removing the
favored and privileged status that their belief system enjoys.
In my last post, I proposed adjusting the holiday at the end of December
to a specific day of the week in order to eliminate the christian
privilege inherent in a government holiday for christmas. They will see
that as an attack on the foundations of our government, as well as an
attempt to eliminate god from the public sphere. They do not understand
that I don't care what religious things they do. In fact, I would
encourage them to continue celebrating christmas. It is a major part of
their belief system, and who am I to prohibit that? All I want is for
the government to end the priveleges that christianity has over all
others, religious and nonreligious alike.
Alabama is the home of Justice Roy Moore, the man who seems to feel it
is perfectly ok to put a 3 ton granite slab bearing the ten commandments
on the courthouse lawn. He truly cannot understand why that violates the
First Amendment. Mr Moore and his supporters appear to believe that the
First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion means that a person is
allowed to choose which denomination of christianity they will follow.
They will see any effort to bring some equality in how religion and
nonreligion are treated by the government as persecution of christians.
They cannot see that the so-called persecution is only removing the
favored and privileged status that their belief system enjoys.
In my last post, I proposed adjusting the holiday at the end of December
to a specific day of the week in order to eliminate the christian
privilege inherent in a government holiday for christmas. They will see
that as an attack on the foundations of our government, as well as an
attempt to eliminate god from the public sphere. They do not understand
that I don't care what religious things they do. In fact, I would
encourage them to continue celebrating christmas. It is a major part of
their belief system, and who am I to prohibit that? All I want is for
the government to end the priveleges that christianity has over all
others, religious and nonreligious alike.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Holidays
When Easter came and went last month, I started to think about religious
holidays. Specifically, I began to wonder why the federal government
observed them. The First Amendment requires that no religious holiday
should be mandated by the government. So I checked the list of federal
holidays, and discovered that the only religious holiday the government
actually observes is Christmas.
Since Christmas is a christian holiday, this means that the government
is promoting christianity. I would like that to stop. I have nothing
against the christians celebrating their holidays, but the government
has no business promoting it.
This brings me to the "war on Christmas" baloney that is trotted out by
the likes of Bill O'Reilly every December. They all seem to think that
being more inclusive and recognizing that other cultures and other
religions have holidays around that same time of year is somehow
undermining and attempting to get rid of their holiday. They will even cry
"persecution". It is not persecution to remove christianity's
privileged position, and treat them as all others are treated.
I would like to propose a way to eliminate Christmas from the federal
holiday calendar. When the First Amendment argument is brought up as a
reason for eliminating the holiday, I am sure that there will be
objections. The most valid one is that the holiday itself has become
secularized to the point that most who are not christian celebrate it.
It will also be said that it is tradition and therefore should remain.
So, I propose that the holiday be renamed on the federal calendar to
"Winter Holiday". It should also be moved to the fourth friday in
December, instead of always being on the 25th. This would keep the
holiday available for the traditional celebrations that christian and
non-christian alike share. It also makes it more efficient for the
federal offices that would be affected.
As an added bonus, it would greatly increase productivity at private
employers. Since most employers follow the federal calendar to varying
degrees when determining their own holiday schedules, this would make
the winter holiday a three day weekend, even when the 25th is in the
middle of the week. No more juggling the floating holidays around to
accommodate the day of the w
eek on which Christmas falls. Of course,
private employers would still be free to observe Christmas directly.
There is precedent in federal law for moving a holiday from it's
traditional date to a specific day of the week. The Uniform Holidays Act
of 1968 adjusted Washington's birthday, Memorial Day, and Columbus Day
from their traditional dates to a specific day of the week.
holidays. Specifically, I began to wonder why the federal government
observed them. The First Amendment requires that no religious holiday
should be mandated by the government. So I checked the list of federal
holidays, and discovered that the only religious holiday the government
actually observes is Christmas.
Since Christmas is a christian holiday, this means that the government
is promoting christianity. I would like that to stop. I have nothing
against the christians celebrating their holidays, but the government
has no business promoting it.
This brings me to the "war on Christmas" baloney that is trotted out by
the likes of Bill O'Reilly every December. They all seem to think that
being more inclusive and recognizing that other cultures and other
religions have holidays around that same time of year is somehow
undermining and attempting to get rid of their holiday. They will even cry
"persecution". It is not persecution to remove christianity's
privileged position, and treat them as all others are treated.
I would like to propose a way to eliminate Christmas from the federal
holiday calendar. When the First Amendment argument is brought up as a
reason for eliminating the holiday, I am sure that there will be
objections. The most valid one is that the holiday itself has become
secularized to the point that most who are not christian celebrate it.
It will also be said that it is tradition and therefore should remain.
So, I propose that the holiday be renamed on the federal calendar to
"Winter Holiday". It should also be moved to the fourth friday in
December, instead of always being on the 25th. This would keep the
holiday available for the traditional celebrations that christian and
non-christian alike share. It also makes it more efficient for the
federal offices that would be affected.
As an added bonus, it would greatly increase productivity at private
employers. Since most employers follow the federal calendar to varying
degrees when determining their own holiday schedules, this would make
the winter holiday a three day weekend, even when the 25th is in the
middle of the week. No more juggling the floating holidays around to
accommodate the day of the w
eek on which Christmas falls. Of course,
private employers would still be free to observe Christmas directly.
There is precedent in federal law for moving a holiday from it's
traditional date to a specific day of the week. The Uniform Holidays Act
of 1968 adjusted Washington's birthday, Memorial Day, and Columbus Day
from their traditional dates to a specific day of the week.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Wife on the road too
My wife is on the road now. She is taking a trip to the pacific
northwest with her father. Helping him to navigate is taking quite a bit
of her time, so I don't get anywhere near as much time on the phone with
her as I usually get. It makes for some long days, it starts getting to
me.
northwest with her father. Helping him to navigate is taking quite a bit
of her time, so I don't get anywhere near as much time on the phone with
her as I usually get. It makes for some long days, it starts getting to
me.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The Wait
As Tom Petty once put it, the waiting is the hardest part. I am
currently sitting in Iowa waiting for a load of meat to be ready. This
is nothing new, most of the time when I need to pick up meat I have to
wait. The destination for this load is Boston. I have about 1200 miles
to go to get it there, and it needs to be there by 9 pm Sunday. It is
now Thursday.
There is not much to do while waiting for a load to be ready. It could
come at any time, and there is only so much sleeping I can do. I may
have to drive for six or seven hours after being up all day. I may get
to sleep all night then move out in the morning. I may get to sleep all
night then wait all day then drive for ten hours to get close enough to
make it to the delivery point on time. It is a lonely job sometimes.
currently sitting in Iowa waiting for a load of meat to be ready. This
is nothing new, most of the time when I need to pick up meat I have to
wait. The destination for this load is Boston. I have about 1200 miles
to go to get it there, and it needs to be there by 9 pm Sunday. It is
now Thursday.
There is not much to do while waiting for a load to be ready. It could
come at any time, and there is only so much sleeping I can do. I may
have to drive for six or seven hours after being up all day. I may get
to sleep all night then move out in the morning. I may get to sleep all
night then wait all day then drive for ten hours to get close enough to
make it to the delivery point on time. It is a lonely job sometimes.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Taxes
Tax time is upon us here in the USA. I pay my taxes willingly, as I see
it as the duty of all Americans to pay what their fair share. However, I
am dismayed by the preferential treatment given to some in the US tax
code.
Of course, I am talking about churches. Nearly all churches are
organized as non profit corporations. Although I have no personal use
for churches, I do not begrudge them their non-profit status. The
preferential treatment that bothers me is the fact that all other
non-profits must file certain forms each year, and churches do not.
If a non-profit is not a church and is either a charitable foundation or
has income greater than $5000, they must file a form 990. They must also
submit an application with a fee of up to $500 to be registered as a
non-profit in order for the IRS to recognize them as such. Churches
(which includes parent organizations such as the Southern Baptist
Convention) are not required to do so. What this means is that if I were
to set up a small secular charity run by unpaid volunteers to give food
to the hungry in my small town and it receives donations equal to $5000,
I must spend the time to fill out the form 990, and also must use ten
percent of those gifts in order to be known as a non-profit. At the same
time, the aforementioned Southern Baptists can have well-paid staff and
take in millions of dollars in donations without having to spend a dime
to report anything to the IRS.
This is not fair. This is unconstitutional. Churches, being religious
entities, should not be singled out for unfair advantages in the tax
code. They should be required to follow the same rules as other
non-profit organizations, or all non-profits should be given the same
exemptions as churches.
it as the duty of all Americans to pay what their fair share. However, I
am dismayed by the preferential treatment given to some in the US tax
code.
Of course, I am talking about churches. Nearly all churches are
organized as non profit corporations. Although I have no personal use
for churches, I do not begrudge them their non-profit status. The
preferential treatment that bothers me is the fact that all other
non-profits must file certain forms each year, and churches do not.
If a non-profit is not a church and is either a charitable foundation or
has income greater than $5000, they must file a form 990. They must also
submit an application with a fee of up to $500 to be registered as a
non-profit in order for the IRS to recognize them as such. Churches
(which includes parent organizations such as the Southern Baptist
Convention) are not required to do so. What this means is that if I were
to set up a small secular charity run by unpaid volunteers to give food
to the hungry in my small town and it receives donations equal to $5000,
I must spend the time to fill out the form 990, and also must use ten
percent of those gifts in order to be known as a non-profit. At the same
time, the aforementioned Southern Baptists can have well-paid staff and
take in millions of dollars in donations without having to spend a dime
to report anything to the IRS.
This is not fair. This is unconstitutional. Churches, being religious
entities, should not be singled out for unfair advantages in the tax
code. They should be required to follow the same rules as other
non-profit organizations, or all non-profits should be given the same
exemptions as churches.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom
This week, oral arguments were heard in the Hobby Lobby case. The Hobby
Lobby corporation wants to be exempted from the Affordable Care Act's
requirement that employer sponsored health insurance must provide
contraceptives at no cost to the employee. The owners of the company
happen to be right-wing christians (no big surprise there). This is a
bit disconcerting. Can a corporation have religious freedom rights?
I don't think so. Most of the arguments were made on this point.
Most of the supporters of Hobby Lobby's position seem to think that the
corporation's rights are the same as the owner's rights. However, I do
not believe that the US Constitution allows for corporate entities to be
considered equivalent to a citizen of the US. Can a corporation then
vote? Or be counted by the census? Can it serve in the armed forces?
Can it hold public office? Can it serve on a jury? If we must extend
religious freedom to a corporations, we must extend these other rights
and responsibilities to them.
The most troubling aspect of this is that it would allow the corporation
to violate the religious freedoms of it's employees. Would they be
allowed to require it's employees to go to church? After all, the
employee would have to make accommodation for their company's religious
stance. What about other religiously fraught debates? If a gay man works
for Hobby Lobby, and is in a state that allows same-sex marriage, can
they deny his partner health coverage when they get married?
I heard a program on NPR that had a panel discussing this. Every member
of the panel except one referred to the medications in question as contraceptives. That is the purpose of these drugs, to prevent conception. The lone standout was one of the attorneys for Hobby Lobby. He insisted on
calling them "abortion drugs". This is one of the ways that the religious
right operates. If they are against something, they try to change the
terminology to make their position look like the best one, regardless of
the science or other facts that oppose them. Calling contraceptives
"abortion drugs" is deceptive at best. It is an attempt to paint all
women who use them as being sexually promiscuous and having low regard
for human life. It refuses to acknowledge that there can be other
reasons to use them, unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It refuses to
acknowledge the fact that monogamous heterosexual married couples may
need to use them to become temporarily infertile so they can have
children on their own schedule. It completely ignores the rights of all
people to control their own bodies.
I am certainly hoping that the Supreme Court decides this against Hobby
Lobby. That would maintain the freedom of the most people.
Lobby corporation wants to be exempted from the Affordable Care Act's
requirement that employer sponsored health insurance must provide
contraceptives at no cost to the employee. The owners of the company
happen to be right-wing christians (no big surprise there). This is a
bit disconcerting. Can a corporation have religious freedom rights?
I don't think so. Most of the arguments were made on this point.
Most of the supporters of Hobby Lobby's position seem to think that the
corporation's rights are the same as the owner's rights. However, I do
not believe that the US Constitution allows for corporate entities to be
considered equivalent to a citizen of the US. Can a corporation then
vote? Or be counted by the census? Can it serve in the armed forces?
Can it hold public office? Can it serve on a jury? If we must extend
religious freedom to a corporations, we must extend these other rights
and responsibilities to them.
The most troubling aspect of this is that it would allow the corporation
to violate the religious freedoms of it's employees. Would they be
allowed to require it's employees to go to church? After all, the
employee would have to make accommodation for their company's religious
stance. What about other religiously fraught debates? If a gay man works
for Hobby Lobby, and is in a state that allows same-sex marriage, can
they deny his partner health coverage when they get married?
I heard a program on NPR that had a panel discussing this. Every member
of the panel except one referred to the medications in question as contraceptives. That is the purpose of these drugs, to prevent conception. The lone standout was one of the attorneys for Hobby Lobby. He insisted on
calling them "abortion drugs". This is one of the ways that the religious
right operates. If they are against something, they try to change the
terminology to make their position look like the best one, regardless of
the science or other facts that oppose them. Calling contraceptives
"abortion drugs" is deceptive at best. It is an attempt to paint all
women who use them as being sexually promiscuous and having low regard
for human life. It refuses to acknowledge that there can be other
reasons to use them, unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It refuses to
acknowledge the fact that monogamous heterosexual married couples may
need to use them to become temporarily infertile so they can have
children on their own schedule. It completely ignores the rights of all
people to control their own bodies.
I am certainly hoping that the Supreme Court decides this against Hobby
Lobby. That would maintain the freedom of the most people.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Fred Phelps
I suppose I should weigh in on the recent death of Fred Phelps. He was a
man who followed his religion to it's logical extreme and taught nothing
but hate. There is now one less man spreading hate, and that is all that
needs to be said.
man who followed his religion to it's logical extreme and taught nothing
but hate. There is now one less man spreading hate, and that is all that
needs to be said.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Culture Shock at the Truckstop
This evening, I was heading into the truckstop to take a shower and I
came across a group of muslims conducting their evening prayers. I then
began to wonder just what the other truckers thought about that. My
thoughts are that the islamic variety of imaginary sky daddy is just as
ridiculous the christian one. However, I certainly don't want to refuse
them the right to believe as they wish. Elsewhere in the truckstop were
the usual christian literature stashes, evidence of the general
right-wing christian leanings of the typical trucker.
It occurred to me that most truckers observing the muslim prayer ritual
would likely think that "those people" shouldn't be allowed to do that
in front of good, decent Americans. Somehow, I don't think they would
feel the same if a religious minority came out and said the same thing
of them.
came across a group of muslims conducting their evening prayers. I then
began to wonder just what the other truckers thought about that. My
thoughts are that the islamic variety of imaginary sky daddy is just as
ridiculous the christian one. However, I certainly don't want to refuse
them the right to believe as they wish. Elsewhere in the truckstop were
the usual christian literature stashes, evidence of the general
right-wing christian leanings of the typical trucker.
It occurred to me that most truckers observing the muslim prayer ritual
would likely think that "those people" shouldn't be allowed to do that
in front of good, decent Americans. Somehow, I don't think they would
feel the same if a religious minority came out and said the same thing
of them.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Alabama: Deep South in action
The Alabama state legislature is looking to show how uninformed about
the First Amendment they really are. A house committee in the state has
pushed forward a bill to require that she school day open with a
christian prayer. Not just allow, but require. link
Wasn't this issue settled fifty years ago by the Supreme Court?
Their reasoning is that if Congress can open with a prayer, then so can
schools. I personally feel that Congress should not be opening with an
officially sanctioned christian prayer. The constitutionality of that
practice can be debated. But when you have a captive group of children
that cannot come and go at will from the proceedings, that definitely
oversteps the boundary set up by the First Amendment. It has always been
legal for children and teachers alike to pray while in school, it is
the mandated, school-led prayer that is prohibited.
I looked at the text of the bill, it thinly disguises the prayer
requirement by saying that the prayer time is to instruct the students
in the opening procedures of Congress. The prayer is to be one of
the prayers that was given by the House or Senate chaplain, or a guest
member of the clergy. If this actually becomes law, I would encourage all
teachers in Alabama to research and find a specifically non-christian
prayer that was offered to open Congress, and then encourage their
students to go home and tell their parents what religious tradition the
daily prayer comes from to the christians can get an understanding of
what their privileged viewpoint actually does. You can bet the law
would be repealed in a hurry.
the First Amendment they really are. A house committee in the state has
pushed forward a bill to require that she school day open with a
christian prayer. Not just allow, but require. link
Wasn't this issue settled fifty years ago by the Supreme Court?
Their reasoning is that if Congress can open with a prayer, then so can
schools. I personally feel that Congress should not be opening with an
officially sanctioned christian prayer. The constitutionality of that
practice can be debated. But when you have a captive group of children
that cannot come and go at will from the proceedings, that definitely
oversteps the boundary set up by the First Amendment. It has always been
legal for children and teachers alike to pray while in school, it is
the mandated, school-led prayer that is prohibited.
I looked at the text of the bill, it thinly disguises the prayer
requirement by saying that the prayer time is to instruct the students
in the opening procedures of Congress. The prayer is to be one of
the prayers that was given by the House or Senate chaplain, or a guest
member of the clergy. If this actually becomes law, I would encourage all
teachers in Alabama to research and find a specifically non-christian
prayer that was offered to open Congress, and then encourage their
students to go home and tell their parents what religious tradition the
daily prayer comes from to the christians can get an understanding of
what their privileged viewpoint actually does. You can bet the law
would be repealed in a hurry.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Cognitive dissonance part 2
The Conservative Political Action Conference has broken its agreement to
allow a booth hosted by American Atheists. (press release at
http://news.atheists.org/2014/02/25/press-release-cpac-boots-atheist-booth)
Although I am very liberal in my political viewpoint, I know that there
are other atheists who are quite conservative. The position of CPAC
seems to be that it is not possible to be conservative without being
religious. Their stated reason for excluding atheists? The "tone" of the
message from American Atheists. Huh? This from a group that welcomes
such people as Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter? Their "tone" is much
harsher toward non-conservatives than the idea that religious equality
is a good thing no matter what political views you may hold.
allow a booth hosted by American Atheists. (press release at
http://news.atheists.org/2014/02/25/press-release-cpac-boots-atheist-booth)
Although I am very liberal in my political viewpoint, I know that there
are other atheists who are quite conservative. The position of CPAC
seems to be that it is not possible to be conservative without being
religious. Their stated reason for excluding atheists? The "tone" of the
message from American Atheists. Huh? This from a group that welcomes
such people as Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter? Their "tone" is much
harsher toward non-conservatives than the idea that religious equality
is a good thing no matter what political views you may hold.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Cognitive Dissonance and the Deep South
For the last week or so, I have been running around the southeastern US.
The region strikes me as a hotbed of cognitive dissonance. There is a
disconnect between what the locals will tell you is right and where the
facts actually are. After the recent chemical spills related to coal
mining that affected the drinking water in parts of the south, one would
expect that there would be an outcry condemning coal mining. There are
still residents of Charleston WV who will not drink the water weeks
after they have been told the chemicals have been completely flushed
from the system. And yet, these same people will tell you that coal is
the best thing we have for generating energy, and are still staunchly
opposed to any government regulations that might cost the coal companies
money.
This disconnect is not limited to coal. They consistently vote against
their own interests. The south is one of the poorest regions of the
country, and yet they tend to vote for the Republican agenda of cutting
taxes and cutting programs that help the poor. They are usually opposed
to the Affordable Care Act, though it helps them get the health care
they need. They will call it socialized medicine, not realizing that it
is a big boon to private insurers. They insist that Medicare stays as
it is, even though Medicare is a socialized medicine program.
They are opposed to abortion and birth control. This in states where
teen pregnancy is the highest in the land. This in states where poverty
is rampant, and family planning services would do the most good.
Mississipi has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US and
one of the highest poverty rates.
The region is also called the Bible Belt. Some of the places seem to
have a church on every other corner. They also have a bar or adult
bookstore on every opposite corner. Don't get me wrong, bars and adult
bookstores are good things to have in a well-adjusted society. However,
having so many of them right by so many churches that preach against
them seems a bit hypocritical, especially when many who patronize one
also attend the other.
Someone needs to reach out and try to educate them so they can learn to
use reason.
The region strikes me as a hotbed of cognitive dissonance. There is a
disconnect between what the locals will tell you is right and where the
facts actually are. After the recent chemical spills related to coal
mining that affected the drinking water in parts of the south, one would
expect that there would be an outcry condemning coal mining. There are
still residents of Charleston WV who will not drink the water weeks
after they have been told the chemicals have been completely flushed
from the system. And yet, these same people will tell you that coal is
the best thing we have for generating energy, and are still staunchly
opposed to any government regulations that might cost the coal companies
money.
This disconnect is not limited to coal. They consistently vote against
their own interests. The south is one of the poorest regions of the
country, and yet they tend to vote for the Republican agenda of cutting
taxes and cutting programs that help the poor. They are usually opposed
to the Affordable Care Act, though it helps them get the health care
they need. They will call it socialized medicine, not realizing that it
is a big boon to private insurers. They insist that Medicare stays as
it is, even though Medicare is a socialized medicine program.
They are opposed to abortion and birth control. This in states where
teen pregnancy is the highest in the land. This in states where poverty
is rampant, and family planning services would do the most good.
Mississipi has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US and
one of the highest poverty rates.
The region is also called the Bible Belt. Some of the places seem to
have a church on every other corner. They also have a bar or adult
bookstore on every opposite corner. Don't get me wrong, bars and adult
bookstores are good things to have in a well-adjusted society. However,
having so many of them right by so many churches that preach against
them seems a bit hypocritical, especially when many who patronize one
also attend the other.
Someone needs to reach out and try to educate them so they can learn to
use reason.
Friday, February 21, 2014
I miss my wife
Trucking can be lonely. I just came back out from four days at home, and
already I miss my wife. I miss her smile. I miss the way she curls up
with the cat on one side and me on the other. I miss hearing her sleep
next to me. We spend hours on the phone every day just keeping in touch.
Trucking is definitely not for everyone. It takes someone very special
to put up with the long times I am away from home, and it takes a great
deal of patience to be out on the road. There are the stresses of the
job, from dealing with rush hour traffic in three cities over two states
in one day to waiting hours and sometimes days for your trailer to be
loaded or unloaded. Even with everything I must deal with on the road,
she needs to take heroic measures to maintain our home, from dealing
with all the bills because I can't get the mail to calling repair people
when things break. Too many things happen that would be easy if I were
there, but are difficult because I am out driving the truck.
Because she is so wonderful to me, I try to do little things to bring
out that smile I miss so much. One of my hobbies is knitting, and I
am making her a pair of socks.
already I miss my wife. I miss her smile. I miss the way she curls up
with the cat on one side and me on the other. I miss hearing her sleep
next to me. We spend hours on the phone every day just keeping in touch.
Trucking is definitely not for everyone. It takes someone very special
to put up with the long times I am away from home, and it takes a great
deal of patience to be out on the road. There are the stresses of the
job, from dealing with rush hour traffic in three cities over two states
in one day to waiting hours and sometimes days for your trailer to be
loaded or unloaded. Even with everything I must deal with on the road,
she needs to take heroic measures to maintain our home, from dealing
with all the bills because I can't get the mail to calling repair people
when things break. Too many things happen that would be easy if I were
there, but are difficult because I am out driving the truck.
Because she is so wonderful to me, I try to do little things to bring
out that smile I miss so much. One of my hobbies is knitting, and I
am making her a pair of socks.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Signs on the highway
As I travel through the country, I see a lot of billboards advertising
everything. I see ads for television shows and fast food restaurants.
There are signs extolling the virtues of this soft drink, or that beer.
All of this advertising is a common and expected part of the landscape
in 21st century America. However, about every 50 or so miles, I see a
billboard with a religious message.
Of course, thanks to the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the
US constitution, the people placing the billboards have every right to
put their messages up there. I am not saying they should be removed. I
sometimes find them entertaining. I chuckle to myself about the sheer
arrogance that these protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists are
displaying. Once in a while, the sign has a Catholic slant, but by
and large, they display a fundamentalist protestant worldview. They are
attempts at proseletyzing, which is the mandate that these types of
Christians follow. The arrogance comes in when you realize that the
messages on the billboards begin by assuming that the viewer already
believes in the Abrahamic god, and they just need to be told how to find
Jesus. These people forget that 3 in 10 Americans do NOT believe in
their god. Do they really think that all it takes to convince an atheist
or a pagan or a hindu to convert is to say "Jesus Loves You"? I don't
think so.
One variant of the message is the "God Bless America" type of message.
The arrogance shown by these billboards is the assumption that in
order to be a good citizen of the US, one must believe in god. It tends
to relegate any non-christian into second class status. They truly
seem to think that it is not possible to be a good American without a
belief in the Abrahamic deity. They forget that the "In God We Trust"
motto has only been there since the 1950s. The motto that has been there
since the founding of the country is "E Pluribus Unum", or, from many,
one. The pledge of allegiance was written by a baptist minister and did
NOT include the phrase "under god", because he recognized that his
freedom to worship as he believed applied to all people, including those
who had no religious beliefs.
The other variant I frequently see is the anti-abortion billboard. The
arrogance there is the insistence that the bible is absolutely against
abortion. News flash for the fundamentalists: the bible does not mention
abortion. The closest thing it gets is in the old testament where it
speaks of the penalty to be paid when a man assaults a pregnant woman.
The punishment if the woman dies is death by stoning. The punishment
if it only causes a miscarriage is a fine paid to the woman's husband.
Kill a pregnant woman: capital murder. Kill an unborn baby: property
damage. A lot of these billboards provide a toll free number for a young
pregnant woman to call for help. How much help is being provided? You
can bet that the only help will be a free pregnancy test and pressure
to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. None of them would give
real medical and financial assistance to these young women who need it.
None of them would mention abortion except to pressure the young woman
to avoid that at all costs. Nothing would be done to ensure that the
woman makes the right decision for all concerned, and nothing would be
done to help the woman deal with the consequences of her decision.
I feel there is a need to advertise reason. More needs to be done to
show people that there is a better way, that they can think for
themselves. They do not have to rely on an imaginary being to tell them
how to live their lives. They can take responsibility for themselves.
everything. I see ads for television shows and fast food restaurants.
There are signs extolling the virtues of this soft drink, or that beer.
All of this advertising is a common and expected part of the landscape
in 21st century America. However, about every 50 or so miles, I see a
billboard with a religious message.
Of course, thanks to the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the
US constitution, the people placing the billboards have every right to
put their messages up there. I am not saying they should be removed. I
sometimes find them entertaining. I chuckle to myself about the sheer
arrogance that these protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists are
displaying. Once in a while, the sign has a Catholic slant, but by
and large, they display a fundamentalist protestant worldview. They are
attempts at proseletyzing, which is the mandate that these types of
Christians follow. The arrogance comes in when you realize that the
messages on the billboards begin by assuming that the viewer already
believes in the Abrahamic god, and they just need to be told how to find
Jesus. These people forget that 3 in 10 Americans do NOT believe in
their god. Do they really think that all it takes to convince an atheist
or a pagan or a hindu to convert is to say "Jesus Loves You"? I don't
think so.
One variant of the message is the "God Bless America" type of message.
The arrogance shown by these billboards is the assumption that in
order to be a good citizen of the US, one must believe in god. It tends
to relegate any non-christian into second class status. They truly
seem to think that it is not possible to be a good American without a
belief in the Abrahamic deity. They forget that the "In God We Trust"
motto has only been there since the 1950s. The motto that has been there
since the founding of the country is "E Pluribus Unum", or, from many,
one. The pledge of allegiance was written by a baptist minister and did
NOT include the phrase "under god", because he recognized that his
freedom to worship as he believed applied to all people, including those
who had no religious beliefs.
The other variant I frequently see is the anti-abortion billboard. The
arrogance there is the insistence that the bible is absolutely against
abortion. News flash for the fundamentalists: the bible does not mention
abortion. The closest thing it gets is in the old testament where it
speaks of the penalty to be paid when a man assaults a pregnant woman.
The punishment if the woman dies is death by stoning. The punishment
if it only causes a miscarriage is a fine paid to the woman's husband.
Kill a pregnant woman: capital murder. Kill an unborn baby: property
damage. A lot of these billboards provide a toll free number for a young
pregnant woman to call for help. How much help is being provided? You
can bet that the only help will be a free pregnancy test and pressure
to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. None of them would give
real medical and financial assistance to these young women who need it.
None of them would mention abortion except to pressure the young woman
to avoid that at all costs. Nothing would be done to ensure that the
woman makes the right decision for all concerned, and nothing would be
done to help the woman deal with the consequences of her decision.
I feel there is a need to advertise reason. More needs to be done to
show people that there is a better way, that they can think for
themselves. They do not have to rely on an imaginary being to tell them
how to live their lives. They can take responsibility for themselves.
Monday, January 27, 2014
A beginning
Welcome!
I am an over the road trucker based in the United States , who happens to be a liberal atheist. This is somewhat unusual for the industry. On this blog, I will give my views on atheism, religion, politics, the trucking lifestyle, and the ways that all these things can interact. I welcome all comments.
I am an over the road trucker based in the United States , who happens to be a liberal atheist. This is somewhat unusual for the industry. On this blog, I will give my views on atheism, religion, politics, the trucking lifestyle, and the ways that all these things can interact. I welcome all comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)