Monthly Archives: February 2010

Randomness: Olympic Gold Style


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
TRIPPING ALL OVER HIMSELF - Russian Alexander Tretyakov finds out there's a reason they call his event "skeleton"

TRIPPING ALL OVER HIMSELF - Russian Alexander Tretyakov finds out the hard way that there's a reason they call his event the "skeleton".

The Thrill of Victory, the Agony of Da Feet

Robots in Search of a Reason

Consumerism: The Oil for Humanity’s Third Wheels

What the Hell is Wrong With People?

COPS! Live with the Men and Women of Law Enforcement

Nowhere Else to Go

Japan, Land of the Weirdly Rising Sun

OLYMPIC BLOW JOB - The thanks of a greatful nation are bestowed upon bronze medal-winner Scotty Lago

OLYMPIC BLOW JOB - The thanks of a greatful nation are bestowed upon bronze medal-winner Scotty Lago.

Related articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Religion as a Foreign Concept


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
RIGHT RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS RIGHT? - Using religion as part of the US foreign policy toolkit is a good idea in a world full of religion as long as we guard against attempts to introduce religion into our own government.

RIGHT RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS RIGHT? - Using indigenous religions as part of the US foreign policy toolkit is necessary as long as we resist attempts to introduce religion into our own government.

A new study from the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs says US foreign policy is being weakened by a strong focus on, “uncompromising western secularism”. A religion-neutral foreign policy is a tough sell in a secular America, but it’s essential if we are to deal with countries that are, or near, total theocracies. And even as an atheist, I can see they’re right.

Dealing with countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Israel without accounting for the intertwining of government and religion is a recipe for disaster. The past two administrations have made some headway on beefing up this component of foreign policy and should be commended by the religious and atheists alike. However, foreign policy is supposed to help advance the nation’s goals – goals that according to the US Constitution should be free and open, unlike the goals of a theocracy like Iran.

But as with most things, there’s a slippery slope that must be tread lightly to avoid even worse problems than simply having religion as part of the foreign policy mix. Although the Council is comprised of all major faiths, much of the public, many in Congress, and the administrations themselves focus almost exclusively on Christian religious principles. In essence, they use Christianity as a synonym for religion.

Using religion as a tool to solve global comfilcts involving theocracies doesn't have to be incompatible with our own separation of church and state.

Using religion as a tool to solve global conflicts involving theocracies doesn't have to be incompatible with our own separation of church and state.

For example, Bill Clinton’s nominee for Ambassador to the Netherlands was kiboshed in Congress because he was gay, a frequent Christian strawman and grounds Christians ofttimes use to defeat anything they can reasonably or unreasonably pull into the Christian moral sphere. Even liberals were pleased by the last administration’s efforts to increase AIDS funding to Africa, but not so pleased when the aid went only to countries that promised not to do abortions. That restriction, driven by religious beliefs, deprived many of treatment on a continent rife with the disease and weakened, what was at the core, a good policy?

It’s not as though religions don’t already have some experience with mixing different religions, particularly in dictatorships. Christians work hard to convert the masses, whether they be Islamic, Buddhist, or simply another variation of Christianity than their own. Some of the target flock may go along; others may just rise up and create a Christian martyr. This is the slippery slope in action.

For our foreign policy to best succeed, we all need to understand the role religion plays in many cultures. We need to make sure religion, to the extent it makes sense, is not just a way to transmit Christian ideals to non-Christian nations. We need to understand that not all Muslims are crazies dressed in Brooks Brothers’ suicide suits any more than not all Christians are like the screed screaming Westboro Baptist Church crowd. The issue here is not which religion to use in our policy; it is the freedom for diplomats and the countries they serve in to use the religion at hand to accomplish America’s goals.

Goals like the freedom to practice or not practice religion as you please.

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

I Pledge Allegiance…Or Not


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is about upholding and exercising the freedoms that the flag represents - whether you happen to agree with those freedoms or not.

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL - Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is about upholding and exercising the freedoms that the flag represents - whether you happen to agree with those freedoms or not.

When – during the campaign – Barack Obama chose not to wear a flag pin, he was excoriated as an Islamo-Terrorist pinko by many on the right, notwithstanding George Bush making the same sartorial decision from time to time.  God only knows what would’ve happened had Obama refused to pledge allegiance to his lapel pin had he been wearing one.

Now we have an idea.

When a 13-year old Maryland kid refused to take the pledge, her teacher allowed other students to taunt her while she jack-booted her from class. When Mom asked for an apology, the principal said it was the teacher who should be receiving the mea culpas, not giving them.

Attention: For the Irony-Challenged
Let’s forget for a moment the written school district policy forbidding such actions. Let’s not touch on the state of Maryland’s laws which explicitly excuse students or teachers from being forced to recite the pledge. Let’s also conveniently forget that in 1943, the US Supreme Court affirmed your right to refuse the pledge.

But for the irony-challenged, let’s look at what the actual pledge says:

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

That last line is clear. The words “liberty” and “justice” aren’t limited to just your liberties or only specific liberties with which you agree. The Constitution is for ALL. Each time that teacher or principal took the oath, they pledged allegiance to the “republic for which it stands” – a republic governed by the US Constitution and backed up by laws at the local, state, and Federal levels – including those cited above.

PINKO COMMIE? - You may not have liked Obama's decision to forego a flag pin and not cover his heart, but the choice was his to make.

PINKO COMMIE? - You may not have liked Obama's decision to forego a flag pin and not cover his heart, but the choice was his to make.

I ask you, who is the better citizen here? Is it the student who exercised her rights or the teacher and principal who morally perjured themselves by taking an oath and then not following it. They are dishonoring this republic by depriving someone else of their liberties. This cannot stand.

I find the trend toward blithely giving away, denying, or changing civil rights because we don’t like or agree with them disturbing. Each day civil liberties disappear while many whack the ACLU for supporting the Constitution. BTW, they’ve also defended Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh just as strongly as this girl and her family.

I’m a Flag Lover
I love the flag and the Constitution. I love my republic. That’s why I’m a big supporter of the pledge and honoring the flag. I am a veteran who proudly served this republic.

I wish the kid had seen things differently and Mom had instilled these values. But they didn’t and they were free not to. However, they’re no less American or patriotic than the screed-screamers who only consider hypocrites wrapped in the flag to be patriotic.

Those who don’t recite the superfluous “under God” line (added in 1954) as part of their religious or irreligious beliefs aren’t unpatriotic either. In fact, those complaining about the kid or dissing someone for not wearing the politically correct flag pin are equally free to express that opinion…and more power to them. However, they aren’t permitted to deprive someone else of their rights. Even if they are greatly offended.

It’s all part of that pledge to support “the republic for which it stands” thing you see.

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]