MORALS OF AN ATHEIST

The issue of morals and ethics have often been a subject of contention, particularly amongst theists of just about virtually every creed and religion.

Ask the average Muslim, and he or she will tell you that praying five times a day, in the direction of Mecca, Islam's holiest city, is a moral, religious duty. Christians and Muslims, by and large, regard women's submissive roles as being in tandem with the state of morals, enshrined in religious texts of some long-forgotten era.

In short, every theist will have you know that religious guidelines are crucial as to how homo sapiens behave, and possibly, at the end of their rather monotonous, law-abiding lives, they get to meet their makers with the hope of a reserved seat with their lords/gods, living their eternal lives in relative bliss, as a reward for living a pious, mortal life.

In short, there is a code of conduct, albeit sometimes outdated and not in sync with the standards of modern society, that binds religious people together. Atheists, however, enjoy no such luxury.

Unlike religions, atheists do not live by a codified rule of conduct, written specifically for this infidelic group. While atheists generally have no problem with that (and in fact, thrive on this freedom), our theist counterparts seem to have a problem with our perceived lack of morals. They reckon that, without the moral hand of deities and the comforts of specific religious rules, atheists have no affirmation nor obligation to live a codified, moral life.

In short, the monopoly of morals is being laid claim by theists, and atheists have, in fact, been viewed as being devoid of this over-rated virtue.

This is what a Christian has to say about his atheist counterparts:

If you're going to be an atheist, at least get it right

By DALE REICH
Posted: Jan. 29, 2006

A few days ago, I took off my religious beliefs and locked them in a closet.

Then, in a further act of mental gymnastics, I put on the robes of disbelief. I wanted to see how I looked and felt without my lifelong commitment to Christianity.

It was pretty chilling. I didn't like the emptiness, the disconnectedness, the lack of direction and the prospect of it all ending when I die.

It wasn't long before I reached back in that closet. I had gotten religion, so to speak, and I was glad to be back under the umbrella of my faith.

I know lots of non-believers, and I like a lot of them. They're generally nice people. A few have made fun of me for my beliefs and even implied that I'm intellectually inferior for believing in things as seemingly irrational as God and creation. ("Dale, have you ever been inside a whale? Do you really believe someone could live in a whale for three days?")

I haven't minded their challenges, but now, I have one for them.

Friends, if you're going to be atheists, start thinking and acting like it. Get rid of your own irrational beliefs and embrace the world as you say it is: a purely physical and random place where goodness and evil don't really exist and where the rules set down by organized religion and thousands of years of human history are no more meaningful than two rocks colliding at the bottom of a mountain after an avalanche.

What I learned from my foray into disbelief was that most atheists have it all wrong. They've merely substituted their own irrational belief system for the one I was given from 2,000 years ago.

Pretty scathing, I must say. First, the writer starts off with a quaint, mental challenge of sorts. He claims to pretend, or a make-belief exercise of sorts, to be an atheist.

He then speaks of his infidelic experience as "emptiness, disconnectedness, and lack of direction", and his relief of being back in the comfort zone, i.e religious faith.

It seems that, there is more to it than a mere disconnected sense of direction, as the writer continues:

One of my friends told me the other night that he had stopped to help a stranded motorist.

"Why would you do that?" I asked.

"Because it was the right thing to do. She needed help."

"But," I protested, "that doesn't make any sense. You wasted your time and efforts on a complete stranger, and for what? You got nothing out of it. You should have kept right on driving."

He gave me a puzzled look.

What I meant to say is that God is the basis for good and evil, and once you reject him and his rules, you're left with nothing but self-serving and self-preservation. In short, you're left with being your own god.

It's funny. Calling my beliefs irrational hasn't kept virtually all of my non-believing friends from coming up with a set of beliefs on their own. They find them in tradition, in rational thought, in politics, in philosophy, in the moon and the stars, in Tarot cards and even in the cookies where they get their Chinese takeout.

More insinuations of the bigoted kind.

Of course, moral rules, as the writer suggests, can only come from a deity, GOD. The writer implies that, short of the moral rules spelt out by his religions, atheists have absolutely no reason to do good deeds, like, say, stopping to help a stranded motorist in need. Hell, the atheist isn't going to heaven anyway, why does he have to be that nice guy?

In short, no rewards, no good works. Its like saying, humans are no better than donkeys: They have to be driven by a carrot dangling in front of them via a stick an a string, with a whip on their ass (pardon the punt). He enthuses that, without God, man is a genuine, self-serving individual, with no thought of society as a whole.

Dale further expounds that, in an attempt to substitute their loss of religion, atheists seek alternatives to for solace: tarot cards, rational thought, politics, and even Chinese fortune cookies.

In short, any passionate issues that are acquired by the individual infidel becomes a substitute for something lost, i.e religion.

In sum, Dale's assumption is that, without a belief in God, Man ceases to exist as a law-abiding, compassionate, human being.

As an atheist, how am I, and my fellow atheists, have to say to address such frivolous, hare-brained presumptions?

THE CONCEPT OF MORALS

Perhaps, before I commence, let us perhaps dissect the meaning of "moral", not from a religious viewpoint, but an entirely secular one:

According to Oxford's:

• adjective 1 concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character. 2 conforming to accepted standards of behaviour. 3 psychological rather than physical or practical: moral support.

I guess, then, morals have a close, or perhaps mutual, relation with standards. Standards of right and wrong. Standard principles. The question arises: Whose standards should we apply in relation to our behavorial instincts?

The Christians, along with other theists, point out that their respective scriptures are their individual sources of codified codes of conducts. So, what standards do atheists abide by?

While I may not speak for every atheist, the average atheist derives his or her morals from several secular, less malignant sources:

1. Laws of The Land (Secular law, for most countries): First and foremost, the laws of the land. No one wants to be punished by the rule of law, so this is the first guideline to follow.

Morals arising from secular law provide a general outline to the survival and orderliness of society, without which, chaos and anarchy ensues.

Certain laws, such as those pertaining to crimes, such as robbery, theft and murder, are standard universal laws that are to be abided at almost all costs.

Of course, some would argue, that laws of the land may or may not be the most relevant guide to sensible, astute morals.

Say, for example, you live in Burma, where freedom of speech and other rights are severely curtailed. Would that imply that bowing down to unfair laws, laws that subjugate the rights of man, be obeyed, in order to achieve a state of morality?

Or laws, such as those prescibed by muslim nations, that call for women to wear compulsory, restrictive clothing (e.g burkas)? Should such laws be abided?

Or, in the case of Singapore, anyone found making public speeches without a due, valid permit could be hurled up in court and incarcerated. Should such laws, then, be adhered to?

Unfortunately, I do not have hard, fast answers for every predicament. Every nation has its own set of laws, so it is imperative to use common sense. When faced with laws that are as unreasonable and despotic, it is best to exercise prudence to avoid unnecessary punishment.

2. Morals Pertaining to Common Good:

Morals, or otherwise standard, behavorial principles, should be aligned to what I term as "The Common Good".

What this means is: Morals are prescribed not for the purposes of religion, nor to please any number of deities, but simply to serve the masses in whichever shape and form.

For example, donating to charities helps the poor and underprivileged, and can be considered as good, moral deeds pertaining to the general welfare of society.

Likewise, helping the motorist on the street is a good moral deed, since it involves helping a down-trodden fellow in need.

Unlike the religious mode of conduct, the principle of the Common Good does not enshrine the "rewards and punishment" system so favored by the religious folks.

In short, morals must serve mankind and his needs, not as a tool for gratifying imaginary deities.

That morals which align with the common good often come into conflict with religious morals is hardly surprising: Religious fanatics, faced with the inevitable tide of social change brought about by the Scientific Revolution and other philosophical ideals, have often reacted in a way that is often conservative, archaic, and resistant to change.

Scientific advancements bestowed upon mankind, through hours of hardwork with stem cells and embryos, are deemed to be murderous and unethical, for reasons that are as ridiculous as "treating embryos as full-fledged human babies".

Vaccines treating diseases related to sex, such as cervical cancer vaccines, have also been vehemently opposed by religious groups (click here), on the pretext that such vaccines promote sexual promiscuity by providing a false sense of security to women.

While the average atheist would no doubt feel appalled with the existence such archaic, non-sensical religious views, these arcane views have often been the bane to scientific advancement, particularly under the Bush Administration in America, who have exerted their influences over many scientific and medical institutions, so much so that abortions have been curtailed (Third tremester abortions banned).

3. MORALS IN ACCORDANCE TO CIRCUMSTANCES

Atheists are generally more in tune with nature and its mysterious ways; hence most of us would generally avoid the practition of absolute morals.

Morals, in any shape and form, must be subjected to the circumstances that may or may not justify a certain act.

Take, for example, theft. Secular law spells it clearly; thievery is a crime. Under certain circumstances, however, it would not be considered a travesty even in the court of law.

Having said that, I doubt any lucid mind would heap criminal accusations against a man who steals from a 7-11 store in a flood-ravaged county (Think Katrina).

For the same reason, while does not deem a person a murderer for killing another man in the name of self-defence(provided, of course,the act of self-defence has been proven by the court of law).

MORALS: FROM A NON-RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW

Given the unorganized nature of atheists as a group, it is hardly surprising that atheists haven't exactly have a textbook of morals to subscribe to.

While it is not my intention to start introducing one, what I have done is perhaps provide a rough mental sketch of the average atheist's mindset.

In any case, morals are subjective issues; while some have endured the passage of time (E.g: murder as a crime), others, such as the crimes of blasphemy and heresy, amongst others, predate to an era of widespread superstition and religious oppression, and do not stand the test of time.

Even the Presidential BM is classified.

Sometimes people ask why I don't write more spoofs. The short answer is, I don't have to. Not when you have reality and the Bush administration.

According to the Huffington Report, The Presidential turds are not dumped into any old toilet. He has a special portable potty that a secret service agent packs around when he is out of the country.

Even Bush's crap is classified top secret. According to our Austrian sources, Austrian newspapers are currently abuzz with special security details of George W. Bush's recent trip to Vienna...

it was White House 'toilet security' (TOILSEC), which has Austrians talking the most. The White House flew in a special portable toilet to Vienna for Bush's personal use during his visit. The Bush White House is so concerned about Bush's security, the veil of secrecy extends over the president's bodily excretions. The special port-a-john captured Bush's feces and urine and flew the waste material back to the United States in the event some enterprising foreign intelligence agency conducted a sewage pipe operation designed to trap and examine Bush's waste material....

Even Bush's toilet paper was flown in from the U.S. Air Base at Ramstein, Germany.

I guess he is afraid there will be a chemical the Austrians put in their rolls of toilet paper that will cause him to get hemorrhoids or something. The paranoia of this white house is unbelievable.

Having this guy as the President is an embarrassment (he also uses a food tester, according to the end of the article).

Can you imagine being the Secret Service agent who is tasked with overseeing the Presidential poo and making sure it gets back to the states alright?

WHEN RESPECT SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD: RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY UNRAVELLED

In an increasing secular, technologically advanced world, there exists a bunch of archaic, bigoted group of imbecilical creatures, who are hell-bent (literally) on imposing their faiths on just about every aspect of secular life.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. I am writing about this very unique species of homo sapiens.....the religious fundamentalists, or fundies for short.

These religious nutters come in all shapes and sizes: From the turban wearing terrorists of Osama and his merry gang, to the hatred, gay-hating morons of Pat Robertson, these religious fanatics have only one aim in mind:

To create a New World Order, whereby or other creeds and faiths are either subjugated to the point of oblivion, or at worse, annihiliated.

HOW RELIGIOUS FUNDIES STRUT THEIR STUFF

Few would imagine that, in democratic, civilized societies, people would actually feel threatened, or coerced, to limit freedom of speech in the name of respect.

Inevitably, though, conflict arises between members of secular free press and the respective religious authorities, and from time to time, such conflicts may lead to sacrilegous outrage, the likes of which may lead to calls ranging from minor restrictions to freedom of the press and speech (Think book burning), or at the extreme end of the spectrum, calling for the heads of the purported perpetrators of the perceived blasphemy.

1. THE CASE OF SALMAN RUSDIE

SALMON RUSHDIE: WELL-HATRED BY ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS

One of the most publicized, if not notorious, incident, involved a certain writer of Indian origin, Salman Rushdie.

In Sep 1988, publications of his controversial work, The Satanic Verses, which, amongst other things, was a direct impliance to a little-known fact of the Islamic religion, that of the three pagan goddesses, which was written, according to an Arab historican, Ibn Ishaq (Approx. A.D 700), by Muhammad and incorporated with the Islamic religion. Muhammad himself later revoked the goddesses, claiming he was under the influence of the Devil.

This inference, it seemed, was deemed too blasphemous by the Muslims world, and subsequent violent protests erupted in many parts of the world. India, Rushdie's homeland, became the first to ban the book. Iran's Ayatollah at that time, Khomeini, issued a fatwa (death edict) and issued a bounty for his life. The book's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was assassinated, stabbed to death at his university. Others, such as Italian translator Ettore Capriolo and publisher William Nygaard, survived assassination attempts.

Following the footsteps of India, many bookshops refused to sell Rusdie's book. Religion, it seems, has enforced its own standards on secular freethought: Respect, it seems, can only be earned through death threats, bloodshed and cold-blooded murder.

2. DANISH CARTOONS: A PENULTIMATE TEST FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

RIOTS SUCH AS THIS WERE WIDESPREAD AFTER THE DANISH CARTOONS WERE PUBLISHED

Fundies from the Christian world, it seems, have caught on with this wave of self-censorship.

Of course, who would forget the ignominy of the widespread riots, protests, and blood-cuddling cries for the heads of the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for a series of cartoons mocking the figurehead and founder of Islam, Prophet Muhammad. First published in September 2005, the cartoons were a relative unknown, till some disgruntled Danish muslims decided to raise a ruckus, and the subsequent violence and riots that ensued made CNN headliines in Feb 2006 (link to my article on the cartoon fracas here).

While no riots broke out in Singapore, incidents of bloggers being arrested under the bogus crime of "sedition", such as making "racist" remarks, and drawing cartoons depicting Jesus as a evil, baby-eating zombie, did make headlines.

Clearly, religious fundamentalists have stoked the flames of religious bigotry: As long as you insult someone's religion, be prepared to live under the shroud of fear. Pure, unadulterated, religious fear.

3. DAN BROWN'S BESTSELLER: DA VINCI CODE

THE DA VINCI CODE: A WORK OF BLASPHEMOUS FALSEHOOD?

One would admit, of course, that Christianity is one of the major, bitter rivals of the Islamic sect. However, this has not prevented Christian fundamentalist baffoons from drawing a leaf from her enemy's books: Decrying the works of Da Brown as sacrilegous, falsification and distortion of "factual" history (as if the bible was "factual" in the first place), many Christians have cried hue over the subsequent released movie of the novel, and demanding it to be banned. It seems that, Dan Brown's works are a threat to the faiths of a couple of billion Christians around the world.

Well, they did succeed in getting it banned in Manila, and parts of India, but the underlying, disturbing issue is this: Why such outbursts of rage?

Da Vinci code was written as a novel. "Factualization" is not a must for any novel, even if the book proclaims to be "based on a true story". Besides, if a mere novel-cum-movie has the impact of affecting the faiths of people, what does that say about Christianity and its inherents? As fragile as a deck of cards?


THE DISTURBING TREND: USING MASS OUTRAGE TO SUBJUGATE ART AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

In sum, these fools are demanding that, art, in any shape and form, should respect people's feelings and beliefs.

Demanding respect? Let me see.......

How does Christianity demand respect when:

1. Numerous priests of the Catholic Church have yet been committed of paedophiliac crimes against altar boys, thanks to the massive cover-up by the Catholic Church?

2. The majority of the Christian fraternity has yet to convince their leaderships that gender equality is no longer sacrilegous?

3. That condoms, birth control pills and its inherents are not the products of the devil, but painstaking research by well-meaning practioners of the medical field?

4. Recognizing the fact that gays and lesbians have every right to demand for civil liberties just like everyone else?

How does Islam demand respect when:

1. Most Islamic women in fundamentalist countries are subjugated by stifling laws and mandates that restricts their clothings and confine them to their homes?

2. Acts of terrorism being acted out in the name of Islam, but rarely have they been condemned by leading muslim clerics?

3. That instead of mass protests against American tyranny in the Guantanamo and other atrocities, that they take up issues as trivial as cartoons drawn by some Danish newspaper?

Folks, don't get me wrong. I respect people, and I respect the fact that the masses have a right to subscribe to their individual faiths and creeds.

But please do not expect me, and other infidels the likes of me, to respect your individual faiths.

I may respect the guy next to me, but I certainly wouldn't admire his dedication of flagellating himself in the name of some deity. Nor would I respect someone's ritual of praying five times a day in the direction of some obscure, desert city.

Respect is a reciprocative affair: One is only respected when one has achieved a certain status, or stature, to actually earn that respect for himself or herself.

Demanding respect through the use of violence, intimidation, and other scary tactics is definitely not my cup of tea, nor anyone else with a sane mind, for that matter.



"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

Presidential Speech

My fellow Americans,

As some anti-American members of the elitist liberal media have recently pointed out, America's standing in the world has declined. The rest of the world has repeatedly sided with terrorists, and in fact many countries now either harbor terrorists or have ties with those who do. Our former 'allies' in Iraq have abandoned us in droves, and in fact many of them no longer support our mission, meaning they are siding with the terrorists.

Even while nations like Iran and North Korea develop weapons of mass destruction, the rest of the world supports this by doing nothing about it and preventing us from taking necessary action. And they are supported by an active fifth column within the United States. We cannot trust any of these other countries, which I have reliable intelligence that indicates they have recently been meeting in Germany while plotting strategy, developing offensive maneuvers, practicing shootouts, and determining a new heirarchy in the world, a heirarchy in which it was determined early on that America would rank at the bottom of, with the final choice coming down to a contest between France and Italy on Sunday (the day obviously chosen because most Americans will be in church and not be paying any attention). These are two nations from the 'Old Europe,' who traditionally have only been good for cuisine, surrender, insulting American tourists and vacations on the Riviera, but our intelligence shows that they both have special teams of operatives who will determine on Sunday which of them will become the head honcho in the world.

In times like this, pre-emptive war becomes not only necessary, but the only choice to prevent aggression from the rest of the world.

Therefore, I am announcing today that we have begun a pre-emptive action to conquer the world. Once the rest of the world is safely under our control and protection, we will usher in a new era of peace, the people will welcome us as liberators, and will sign up to join the Republican party in droves. The first big victory in this new war has already been won, as special forces teams have secured the United Nations building in New York City, encountering only sporadic resistance, which was quickly defeated following a surgical airstrike against the Cuban offices on the fourteenth floor.

Now THAT explains A LOT!

-----The following post comes from FUBAR: AMERICA'S RIGHT WING NIGHTMARE by Sam Seder and Stephen Sherill. Published in 2006 by Harper Collins. I am publishing it here because it explains a lot about the homophobia on the far right.
-----"In 1996, three scientists from the University of Georgia--Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright Jr, Ph.d., and Bethany A.Lohr--published a study called "Is Homophobia Asociated with Homosexual Arousal?" in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.
-----"The study involved twenty-nine nonhomophobic men and thirty-five homophobic men as determined by something called the Index of Homophobia scale. All sixty-four men described themselves as completely straight.
-----"Each man was shown three kinds of videotape (for free): heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian. While they watched they were hooked up to something called a penile plethysmograph, which measures tumescence, a fancy word for erection.
-----"There was no difference between the two groups of men while they were watching heterosexual videos or the lesbian videos. But here's where it gets interesting. While watching the male homosexual videos, the homophobic men were more than twice as likely to be aroused as the nonhomophobic men--54 to 24 percent. Only 20 percent of the homophobic men showed little or no arousal while watching the homosexual videos.
-----"What's more, when asked to give their verbal opinion about their arousal, the nonhomophobic men were fairly accurate for all there kinds of videos. The homophobic men were accurate for for only two of the video categories. They significantly underestimated their arousal for the other category. Can you guess which one that was?
----"So what does all this mean? For one thing it's perfectly normal to be really, really antigay and yet be gay. But does it mean that all homophobes are actually gay? Yes it does."
-----Now this makes we wonder. Is it a coincidence that so many people on the far right are serial monogamists? Could it be that they keep looking for the perfect mate in the opposite sex when what they want--REALLY want--is a hot, totally shattered young hunk such as...oh, I don't know...like myself? Could it be that they are mentally and physically incapable of finding happiness with an Eve, a Stan, and a Marianne, and are secretly yearning for a Steve, an Anne, and a Marion? My God, Now I feel sorry for them. Instead of finding that well-endowed hunk that they've been fantasizing about for all those years, they've married, and married, and married, but never quite figured out what they were looking for and why they were so angry and unhappy most of the time. You know what I'm talking about. Do you watch C Span? Have you ever noticed how these right wing nut burgers wear perpetual frowns. Of course you have. You'd be frowning too if you were as frustrated as this crowd. Think about it. If Dick Cheney were to ever have a satisfying sexual experience (and he clearly needs one), or for that matter, if he were to simply smile, the chances are that his ass would crack into a thousand Humtpy Dumpty pieces. If Oral Hatch were issue a heart felt grin because of a pleasurable sensation below the waist, his eyebrows would fall off. And what about Lindthay Graham--are we really supposed to believe that this limpwristed inbred has ever had a straight thought in his entire miserable life?. Is there anyone out there who really believes that Graham and Rick Santitorium wouldn't give a new meaning to the word "dilatation" if they were ever allowed to spend the night together in a cheap motel room? (Of course this would be especially dangerous for Graham because Sanitirium has inadvertently revealed some rather bizarre fantasies, but I'm sure that if Lindthay were to sport that black and white Dalmatian outfit, Sanitorium might experience a certain degree of...satisfaction. But that won't happen--no matter how badly they dream, hope, and fantasize about it. They will never act on their natural orientations (or in Sanitorium's case, his UNnatural orientations) because they are too afraid to loosen up.----
-----Instead of acting out their repressed, homoerotic fantasies, the right wingers enjoy themselves vicariously. Was it an accident that so much of the torture that we have witnessed during this administration was of a homoerotic nature? Hey, don't blame me. I'm not the one who came up with the idea of using female operatives to come on to Islamic prisoners, and I sure as hell didn't think of putting underwear on detainees' heads. Those are the actions of some truly repressed and frustrated people. And I think you realize by now that I am anything but repressed. I actually have a partner with whom I am well pleased and to whom I am decidedly loyal--and that's a lot more than can be said about the frustrated, red state hypocrites who jump from spouse to spouse as if they were engaged in a competitive spouse hopping contest; thinking the next heterosexual union will be "the right one" but invariably disappointing themselves and then moving on to the next temporary relationship. And they say gay males are promiscuous. Again folks, I'm not the one who got caught smuggling in a bottle of viagra from the Dominican Republic.
--- Of course the part that annoys me is the way that these frustrated old farts project the bigotry and hatred that might be leveled against them, releasing it in verbal or even physical attacks on the people they hate to love. All right. Not every right winger is a latent homosexual. I'm sure that some of them are just your typical, run of the mill bigots who get off on the pain and repression of others. But I am stall certain that a number of them are openly trying to sound straight to as to protect themselves from potential accusations and persecutions.
----So here's the solution. I think we should take a page out of the George W. Bush playbook on buggery and hypocrisy. Look at W. He may be a rapacious, intellectually-stunted megalomaniac with delusions of adequacy, but he at least had the courage to satisfy his homosexual desires. I am of course referring to the rumor that George W. Bush had a homosexual fling with Victor Ashe, our current ambassador to Poland, while they were still hot young bucks in 1984. Don't get me wrong. I applaud the fact that W. might have had the courage to trip the light fantastic with another guy. I'm glad that he found a few fleeting moments of satisfaction.
-----But the part that bums me out is the fact that George managed to satisfy himself and then turned his back on his own kind. I mean really...Having an affair with the future ambassador to Poland is one thing, but scratching his itch and then betraying your buds in the gay and lesbian community is another.
-----Of course it might just be that I'm a little jealous of Mister Ashe. I've seen pictures of W. When he was a young, manly stud: that dark wavy hair, and those piercing, ice blue eyes; not to mention those stunningly handsome features and broad powerful shoulders. What vivacious, gay American male wouldn't be attracted to a rough and ready politician with a face like a cinema star and a body like Anne Coulter on steroids? But like I said. I have a partner, we are mutually loyal to one another. And that's more than the serial monogamists on the right can say.
----

Happy Fourth of July

If I could but own an irony mine...

RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT: MEDICAL CURE ENCOURAGES SEXUAL PROMISCUITY

Cancer, as we know it, is one of the most dreaded diseases known to Man. While cervical cancer afflicts specifically women, it is one of the most common forms of cancer known to women, and believe you me that these type of cancer is particularly dangerous, because my mum was stricken with this type of cancer, and she had to endure a painful surgery plus months of chemotherapy.

And, according to a recent news article, the scientific community has found a vaccine to deter this deadly disease, and it has proven to be very effective, so far.

Suffice to say, this is joyous news. Now, why, you would ask, am I so damn bloody mad?

Because the Conservatives, once again, are going ape over what they deem as "an erosion of morals".

Excerpts from San Francisco Bay Guardian:

Sex vs. death

Will the religious right stymie the first-ever cancer vaccine?
By Tali Woodward

tali@sfbg.com

One might think a medical breakthrough that could prevent most cases of cervical cancer would be met uniformly with joy.

Think again.

Two separate but similar vaccines for human pampillomavirus, a sexually transmitted infection that is the primary cause of cervical cancer, have recently been developed. In clinical tests they have proven to be shockingly effective. Medical researchers say the vaccines, if administered routinely, could virtually eradicate the second most fatal type of cancer in women.

The problem is this: It makes sense to administer the vaccine to women who haven't yet been exposed to HPV – in other words, women who haven't had sex. The best way to do that is to inoculate preteen girls. But some conservatives see the vaccine as an invitation to be promiscuous – and are gearing up to limit its reach.

Even though many people have never heard of HPV, it's the most common sexually transmitted infection around, infecting up to 80 percent of Americans at some point before they turn 50.

Public health officials have found stemming the spread of HPV particularly challenging because it can be transmitted simply through the contact of skin in affected areas, with condoms offering only limited protection.

Most women have immune systems strong enough to kill HPV. But in some, HPV causes genital warts. And in others, the virus causes potentially cancerous cells to develop in the cervix. (It's possible, though significantly less common, for HPV to cause cancer in men.)

Cervical cancer – which researchers believe is almost always tied to HPV – kills more than a quarter million women each year. Women who live in developed countries where regular Pap smears are the norm are fairly well-protected because the test can detect precancerous cells that doctors can then remove. Still, in the United States about 3,900 mostly lower-income women die of the disease each year.

But in recent years, two pharmaceutical companies, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, have announced development of a vaccine – administered in three doses over six months – that protects against HPV, and therefore against cervical cancer. In clinical tests both have proven extraordinarily effective: They blocked contraction of the two most dangerous types of HPV in every woman who had been inoculated.

Dr. Joel Palefsky, a UC San Francisco professor who is an expert on HPV, said he thinks the development of these vaccines is "the most important thing since sliced bread in the HPV business" and something that ranks high on any list of recent medical advances.

But not everyone is greeting the vaccine with such enthusiasm.

Conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, have already suggested that vaccinating young girls would send them a message that premarital sex is acceptable. Christian-oriented Web sites have also been following objections to the vaccines more closely than mainstream news organizations.

"Concerned Women for America"? They should perhaps call themselves "Witch-hunters of America". Seriously, what is going on through the minds of these narrow-minded baffoons?

Does anyone, anyone at all, in the fundamentalist groups that have any idea as to what they are objecting? So, am I to say that the procedure to reduce short-sightedness in people will encourage more people to play more computer games, which is one of the major causes of short-sightedness?

This is one of the primary reasons why I ardously support the Church-State Separation: When both co-mingle, you get the worst kind of ignorant crap and rubbish from these pious fools.

A vaccine that would otherwise have saved a huge portion of the 3900 people dying from this dreaded disease is abandoned, because some religious nut opposes it: This really takes the cut.

And they could jolly well do that, as the writer continues:

But if conservatives interfere with the CDC process, or prevent government funding of the HPV shots, access to this breakthrough vaccine could be seriously curtailed.

Alan Kaye, who became the executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition after the disease killed his wife, told us he hopes critics of the vaccine back down. "I can tell you, with a ripped heart, that anyone who's ever battled cancer themselves or with family or friends would be for it," he said. "I mean, how can you not be for a cancer vaccine?"

I totally agree and concur with Alan Kaye's views. Allowing these religious nuts to bushwack their way to get a potential vaccine banned is no less evil than denying standard health treatment for the general public.

It seems to me that the fundamental right might want to cease this opportunity to assuage some of the wounded pride suffered in the recent ID Dover trial. But to choose this as a platform to launch another one of those silly campaigns is terribly sick; it really goes to show how low these idiots are willing to stoop just to achieve their godly purposes.

It is time for atheists to stand united and say "NO" to these kind of bullshit, especially when innocent lives are concerned.

Sincerely
The Beast

Before I pull out of here, I want to offer a very public "I'M SORRY" to Lily for the way she was treated during her stint on our blog. Thanks to a breakdown in communication that was entirely my fault, I foolishly "downsized" a very caring and decent individual who deserved to be treated a lot better than she was. We have since discussed the issue, discovered the source of the breakdown and I will certainly make certain that nothing like this happens again.

Lily, you're all right by me, and I'm sure the rest of the crew here is sorry about the misunderstanding that nearly undermined the relationships here.

Have a good weekend, and feel free to visit us at any time

The cast and crew of THE COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA

NOW HIRING

LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM EMPLOYMENT?

Do you enjoy living on the edge? We are searching for a person or persons of Islamic, Mid Eastern descent to serve as our next bogeyman. Must have a strong stomach; a short temper; a proclivity for barbaric behavior; advanced techniques in the proper and improper uses of a pruning saw, and a thorough understanding of electronics, explossives, weapons, and insurgency movements/terrorist methodologies. Applicants need not provide basic identitfication, but should look mean and threatening to xenophobic, white, middle class, American Christians. We also ask that applicants be willing and able to work on all Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Holidays. Pay negotiable. No fringe benefits nor health care. If you look good with a machine gun in hand, and if you have a talent for uttering the words "Great Satan" and "American Infidel," please be so kind as to contact us at 1-888-IAMBUSH. Ask for Karl.

You may also snail mail your application to:

Propaganda Minister Karl Rove
c/o The SECRET GOVERNMENT IN THE BASEMENT
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20050

Allow 6 to 8 weeks for a top secret, unofficial response.

ANOTHER RANT: SPEAKING TRUTH TO THE ROVE PROPAGANDA MACHINE

"The great masses's receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding is small, but their forgetfulness is great. As a consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda has to limit itself only to a very few points and use them like slogans until even the very last man is able to imagine what is intended in such a word."

From the original, full- length version of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When it comes to propaganda, 21st Century Republicans make their Nazi forefathers look like rank amateurs. Hitler and Goebbels were good, but Karl Rove is even better--just as warped as his fascist idols, but genuinely talented in the fine art of deception.

In a stunning display of duplicity our beloved Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda has unleashed another underhanded campaign of delusion, half truths, and out right prevarications. In another attempt to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein, Herr Rove has unleashed anew smear campaign of unabashed falsehoods to link 911 with the ongoing invasion of Iraq. Once again we are hearing the half-baked myth that this ill-fated invasion is a focal point in the war on international terrorism; and yet anyone with an IQ of 60 or above knows that international terrorism is just that--an international phenomenon.

Perhaps, if Reich Minister Rove had said that he and his beloved Fuhrer, George W. Bush, had turned the now failing state of Iraq into a training ground for home grown Iraqi insurgents and a handful of al Quaida fanatics, Herr Rove would have finally said something that resembled the truth, but that isn't what he did.

Instead of telling the truth, he offered a delusional tale about a glorious, patriotic war (of choice) and ignored the sectarian civil war that he he and his pupper Fuhrer have spawned. Instead of coming clean with the American people, our pudgy, pink, propaganda minister wove a demented narrative of talking points in which anyone who disagrees with his beloved pretender is a traitor.

The eleven hour debate that we watched in the Republican-dominated Reichstadt was nothing more than a series of calculated sound bites for the 2006 midterm elections. And the part that both amused and infuriated me the most was the fact that the Republicans are so unaccustomed to independent thought that they had little choice but to read their statements--they were so lacking in creativity and spontaneity that that stood there reciting the same, hackneyed missives that we have already heard a thousand times before: Begin with 911, end with Saddam Hussein; use the words "God Bless America," and smear the Democrats as weak on terrorism. All that after Bush and Rumsfeld dropped the ball on Afghanistan (where the Taliban has returned with a vengeance) and transformed Iraq into an over-glorified training camp for homegrown insurgents and terrorists.

It makes me wonder.

If this regime was truly concerned about terrorism, why did it fail (on three separate occasions) to either capture or eliminate Zarqawi? Oh, Jeeze. Do you think it was because this highly political administration saw Zarqawi as a very useful bogeyman? Do you think that it might have had something to do with the fact that handling the Zarqawi situation at the proper tome would have interfered with their attempt to build a coalition of the gullible?

All right. Maybe I'm being a little hard on the regime. I'm sure that the regime didn't know what it was doing when it proposed the half baked idea of handing over our port security to a country with ties to 911. And I'm sure they didn't mean it when they cut anti-terrorism funding to New York City. I mean, it wasn't as if New York has any important cultural or historical icons. The Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, Broadway, the New York Public Library, The Empire State Building, Saint Patrick's Cathedral, the United Nations Building, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Opera, the New York Philharmonic, a couple of museums, maybe a few universities, the Bronx Zoo, Radio City Music Hall, Madison Square Garden, Rockefeller Center: Who would want to protect places like those when we can save French Lick, Arkansas, or Arm Pitt, Mississippi from eager-to-marry homosexuals?

Okay, maybe I'm missing the main point. Maybe I should celebrate the fact that while our Republican members of the Reichstadt were conducting a pre-written loyalty oath to their beloved Fuhrer, the latest leader in Iraq was granting amnesty to those insurgents who had only killed American soldiers. Maybe I should be more like the blood thirsty Republicans who celebrate the fact that we now have more than 2,500 dead American troops. Maybe Propaganda Minister Rove has the right idea when he gleefully ignores the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis, or the wounding of more than 59,000 American soldiers.

Hell, for all I know the Iraqi Constitution, which establishes Islamic law, is a good thing. Yeah. That's right! Giving support to Iraqi Shias,who have strong ties to Iran, only strengthens Iran's position in the Middle East as a whole, but maybe, just maybe, Propaganda Minister Rove has a another propaganda campaign in mind for an even bloodier and more costly war against both, Iran and Iraq!

Wow! I'm impressed!

We spent 11 hours debating a meaningless, nonbinding resolution, which by its very nature, offered an honorable promise but not a single, solitary solution as to how that promise would be kept. Yup. We're going to win the war on terrorism, but we're not going to talk about the inadequate prewar planning or the lack of a post war plan for creating a viable Iraqi government. Nor are we going to discuss the failed strategy. But then again, it might just be that Rove and his puppets in the Republican-dominated Reichstadt are living in a bizarre dream scape in which an unseen, flag-draped coffin is better than a living father, brother, or son.

Sarcasm aside, I was nothing less than elated when certain Democrats grew internal body parts which resembled back bones. Perhaps-just perhaps--the bad old days of complacent lefties are a thing of the past. At long last we see Democrats--real Democrats--pushing back against the Rove propaganda machine.

In fact, I was especially impressed by the following remarks by Connecticut Democrat John Larson"

"What a sham this is today, when we're denied any alternative resolutions. As Mister Lantos eloquently stated earlier today, when he talked about George Michael and his eloquence , standing on the floor, talking about speaking truth to power. And that's what's so upsetting to the American people, and why Mr. has been recognized all around this country for standing up and speaking the truth to the American people--something this administration, and frankly, this Congress, has been unable to do--level with the American people.

"Let's start with leveling with the American troops, leveling with all those families of reservists and national guardsmen, who I speak with on a regular basis, who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed, and redeployed, again and many times, because we haven't had a plan.

"Here we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe, and you guys bring to the floor a political document not designed for a new direction, or to bring the country together to discuss the issue this issue the way that it should be; but instead, as talking points outlined by Karl Rove out in New Hampshire, sandwiched between the President's photo op and a picnic this evening.

"Americans are outraged that we don't have a citizenry and members here who are willing to stand up and have accountability. We all support the war on this terror, And this party from Roosevelt, to Truman, to Kennedy, to Jack Murtha, has stood on the watch wall of freedom and stood there valiantly , but collectively, with the American people, and in this body and in this chamber.

"But that's not what's going on here today. Instead its right out of the play book. Attack Jack Murtha, attack the messenger. That's a formula that works. It worked against Max Cleland, it worked against John Kerry. Jeeze, that'll work against Jack Murtha also. Discredit this guy. Discredit what he had to say because he had the temerity to speak truth to power in an administration that can't level with the American public.

"Why don't they criticize General Batiste, General Zinni, General Van Riper, all of these generals. Are they all wrong too for speaking truth to power? Shouldn't we be talking about how we can collectively move forward, instead of a tried and true playbook of political jargon on a resolution that's nonbinding?

"Speak truth to power. I'm proud to associate myself with Mr. Murtha and everything he stands for."

Congressman John Larsen, speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 15 2006.

What can I say? It's about time.

Have a good weekend.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL: CROUCHING FUNDIES, LYING BUSHIES

CRAZY FUNDIES: CALLING FOR A BAN ON "FAGS". REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THEM. ZEUS BLESS AMERICA.

In recent weeks, the Bush Administration has been rallying conservative Christians across America to support the "Marriage Protection Amendment", which, if passed with a majority of two thirds in Congress, would be inked into the US Constitution, henceforth banning gays from the so-called "sanctity of marriage".

Before I broach the issue a little further, perhaps the biggest irony of this "Marriage Protection Amendment", it seems, is never really about protection. In true Republican, fascist fashion, the amendment's objectives, in tandem with just about practically every Republican policy, is really to hijack more civil rights from the average American.

From the despotic terms of the Patriot Act, to the Bush Administration's handling of the prisoners of Guantanamo, tis clear that Bush and his fellow despots do not think that human rights and civil liberties are worth a dime. To them, the average American is just a small fry for the big fishes(big corporations, despotic characters, etc), willing to be exploited with minimal fuss.

So, the question that ought to be asked, at this point of time, is: Are the Bushies really that concerned about gays, or are they such a threat to the institution of marriage (if there really ever is such a institution), that they have to go through all the muss and fuss to bring up the whole issue to Congress?

BUSH ADMINISTRATION: FAILURES, FAILURES, AND MORE FAILURES

CLUELESS BUSH: HE JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET ANYTHING RIGHT

Ever since Bush took over the helm as the "Commander-in-chief" (Read: Simian-in-hiding), America has been under seige, one way or another.

Which really is kind of unfortunate, if you consider how Christians consider America to be blessed (God Bless America).

Pardon the punt, but if this is the same looney Gawk is blessing America with, I'd think of God as some looney in a bin, rather than an aloof, stuck-up, all powerful deity they made him out to be.

First, it was the terrorists who struck on the tragic day of Sep 11, 2001. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed.

And then there was the penultimate "God-sent" disaster: The New Orleans flooding.

In the midst of trials and tribulations, not only have the Bush Administration not risen to the ocassion, they have been found wanting, with George Simian Bush being the chief culprit of them all.
IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN

OSAMA BIN LADEN: AMERICA'S BOGEYMAN

While the American Armed forces have been swift in destroying the renegade bastions of the Taliban and Saddam respectively, the abject failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden, the chief master of terror, in the rugged, mountainous regions of the Pakistani-Afghan border(thought to be the hiding place of Osama), and the subsequent failures to arrest the continuing violence and anarchy in Iraq (Despite the installment of a puppet Iraqi government), has drawn continuing criticisms from critics, who charge that the ineptness of the Bush Administration to think beyond techno-wizardries, has brought about this terrible, tragic mess.

HURRICANE KATRINA: BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE?

Hurricane Katrina

The events leading to Hurricane Katrina cruelly exposed the frailities of America's elite units, both military and non-military, and much of it can be attributed to Bush's ineptness. By activating the Reserve Guards for military stints in Iraq, America was left exposed to the elements.

In the hour of need, the Reserve Guards, who were supposedly formed to contain such civil contingencies, was found wanting, no thanks to the unexpected burden borne in by them in Iraq.

ABU GHARIB, GUANTANAMO: AMERICA'S SHAME

Guantanamo:Gulag Camps Of Fascist America

Failures aside, policies instated by the Administration, geared towards protecting "American Interests", are merely cheap imitations of fascist and nazi policies, with the gulags of Guantanamo and Abu Gharib being the most notorious of them all. Thousands of "suspected" terrorists have been held, against their will, in detention camps, which are held in such secrecy that little or nothing ever leaks out from these appalling gulag camps. News of inmate abuse are rife, and recent reports of 3 Guantanamo inmates hanging themselves with bedsheets only highlights the tension between these detainees and their guards. With virtually no chance of a parole and freedom, the Guantanamo camps have become a symbol of what the Bushies really stand for: The Fascist States of America.

Even American citizens are not spared from Bush's policies. The Patriot Act, a carbon copy of the "Internal Security Act" of Malaysia and Singapore, actually provided legal provisions to federal law enforcement agencies to secure and imprison suspects without trial. Phones can be tapped by these agencies, without explicit approval from the local courts. In other words, the Bush Administration has been empowered to pry into the private lives of ordinary American citizens, and should anyone wishes to run for office in politics, they do better think twice, or live the life of a monk or nun. Because chances are, there is no telling whether anyone can misuse such information for cheap political and financial gains.

In light of such criticisms, support for the Bush Administration, both home and abroad, have dipped, and a recent Gallup Poll suggests that support for Bush and his inept policies have dropped to an all-time low of 31% (2005, May).

Al-Zarqawi: Killed by American forces

Oh sure, they killed Zarqawi (Chief of Al-Qaeda guerillas, Iraq) alright, parading his mangled corpse for all asunder (Funny you don't hear cries of censorship from those violent-phobic Christians), but the whole truth is, Osama is still alive and kicking, America is embroiled in two theatres of war, one of which was never justified in the first place, and America is no less vulnerable to terrorist attacks since the 911 incident.

In short, the Bush Administration has completely failed to achieve its agenda, and despite the rhetorics and counter-arguments, the unbridled truth is that, Bush screwed up. And America has to pay that price for his failures.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE

Understandably, the Administration's glaring errors, both at home and abroad, have triggered opposition towards the Bush Administration.

What really matters, however, is waning local support. With the mid-term elections coming up, the Bush Administration is banking on their last bastion of support from the one group amongst the masses: The Conservative Fundies.

Quite possibly the staunchest republican supporters of the lot, these fundies will be the ones the Bushies must appeal to, because they are a sizeable lot, and they are the ones the Republicans bank on for the last two terms.

In an hour of desperate need, the Republicans are gambling on one of their last chips in hand: A ban on gay marriage.

By bringing up the seemingly fraudulent concerns of "marriage protection", the Republicans have effectively married themselves with right wing bigots.

And that, my friends, is what the Republicans are after.

THE FLIP SIDE OF THINGS

Of course, the flip side of this obnoxious "marriage", really, is that you open a can of worms for preceding Presidents to follow. If the Constitution could be amended to accomodate erroneous laws of a religious nature, and worst still, a deprivation of basic human rights(which the Patriot Act has already done), the American Constitution will really be nothing more than "a god-damned piece of paper".

Deceptions and religious fundamentalism aside, too much precious time has been spent on debating on the marriage issue.

More debates in Congress should focus on bringing the American troops back home, and combating real terrorism. Throwing Muslims and other suspected terrorists into gulag camps does not eradicate terrorism; neither will blatant use of phone tapping technology.

As long as Americans keep voting for Republicans, you can be assured that these dastardly politicians will make use of conservative policies at the expense of civil rights to fool the masses away from the real issues at hand.

A Message from THE DIVINE...sort of

Blessed are the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,

for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,

for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst

for justice,for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,

for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,

for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,

for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I said it two thousand years ago. And yet you refuse to listen to me. You elect greedy, self-centered politicians who wage wars against poverty by waging war on the poor. You wage war for the enjoyment of waging war. Your leaders lie, cheat and steal. You have a Republican Party that invokes my name on a regular basis but which ignores what I taught.

With that in mind I would like to ask a question.

WHAT TO HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

Do you you think that dying on that cross was a picnic? Do you think that I allowed myself to be whipped, tortured, and killed so that a bunch of phony-balony "Christians" could invoke my name and make a mockery of everything I taught while I walked the face of the earth?

I have news for you. When I told you to be kind and compassionate to your fellow man, I meant it. When I told you turn the other cheek, I meant it. When I told you to forgive and when I told you that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to enter my kingdon, I meant that too. And yet I see nothing but greed where ever I look. I even see a political party--the Apostate Republicans--who believe that greed is good! I see Bible quoting hypocrites who spit on my teachings as they trample on the the weakest among you. I see people who have embraced me as the messenger but who have forgotten my message!

Well, my children, it's time to get your act together. Come November I will remember the Republicans; I will remember the so called Christian Right. I will remember all of them when I come back in a blaze of glory and send the whole right side of the political spectrum on a glorious, one way journey to a place that doesn't use oil to keep the fires going. Remember. The Republicans are going to Hell in a handcar, and if you vote for them you will provide them with plenty of company.

And now, if you will excuse me, I have to talk to the Angel of death. It seems as if we have another mess to clean up in the Middle East.

Yours Truly

Sweet JESUS CHRIST

Reich Wing Activist Judges

"There is no independence of law against National Socialism. Say to yourselves at every decision which you make: 'How would the Fuhrer decide in my place?' In every decision ask yourselves: 'Is this decision compatible with the National Socialist conscience of the German People?' Then you will have a firm foundation which, allied with the unity of the National Socialist People's State and with your recognition of the eternal nature of the will of Adolf Hitler, will endow your own sphere of decision with the authority of the Third Reich and this for all time."

Dr. Hans Frank, Commissioner of Justice and Reich Law Leader, to German judges in 1936

When the far right complains about "activist judges" they are actually complaining about an independent judiciary which recognized the unconstitutional nature of the unitary form of government as proposed by their would be Fuhrer, George W. Bush. On a broader level, the term "activist judges" has also been applied to those judges who would expand the rights of their fellow Americans, as opposed to the truly activist judges on the far right who, having taken their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, would use their seats to limit or even abolish the rights of American people. In other words, the only activism which is coming from the American judiciary is not from the left, but from the right, which has seen the constitution as an inconvenience for at least twenty-six years and probably longer.

A case in point was Friday's decision by a federal appeals court which sided with the Bush Administration in an electronics surveillance case, a decision which will inevitably make it easier for the regime in Washington to tap our phone calls and broadband transmissions. I won't bother you with the details of the case; instead I shall merely ask that you click on Appeals Courts Backs Bush on Wiretaps for more information. That said, I will offer the following commentary.

This is not a good sign.

The far right has been packing the federal judiciary with inept totalitarians for twenty-six years. And when they weren't able to further pack the judiciary they were able to block virtually any mainstream nomination that was made during the Clinton Administrations, virtually guaranteeing that the instructions as offered by Doctor Frank to German Judges in 1936 would become a reality for Republican Judges in 2006.

I see no reason to differentiate between the situation that occur ed in Nazi Germany and the situation which currently exists in the United States. Both Frank and Hitler were opposed to the idea of an independent judiciary. Both Bush and his legal eagles are dedicated to the idea of an obedient judiciary that will rubber stamp virtually any attempt by this president to impose right wing Christianity and to limit the rights of those who disagree with their very narrow and very unconstitutional agenda Just as the National Socialists of the 1936 were dedicated to the eradication of the Wiemar Constitution, so too are George W. Bush and his fifth column followers dedicated to the abolition of the form of government that was handed down to us by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. I don't know if they want to create Christian theocracy in which non Christians will serve in the roll of second class citizens, or if they want to create a cult of one in which the president is the supreme commander in a unitary form of government without checks and balances is unclear. For all I know the might embrace the worst of both alternatives--a repressive theocracy in which the President serves as a sort of Puritan Divine.

But I do know this: Right wing activists want to use the federal and state judiciaries to dismantle our Constitution. They even have a process, a "legal" philosophy, by which they intend to accomplish this. It's called the "Doctrine of Original Intent" and it's based upon the truly oppressive idea that Americans in the year 2006 should only be entitled to the freedoms and liberties that were granted in 1787. In other words, they genuinely believe that the Constitution is a lifeless piece of rock, that it should be interpreted in a manner that will grant the fewest possible liberties to the fewest possible people. I would not be surprised if, at some future date, these strict constructionists were to propose bills and amendments, or reactionary judgements that would truly take us back to 1787, to a time when a black man was considered only 3/5 human. I would not be surprised if they were to propose measures that would abolish the 19th Amendment and recreate a system in which voters were defined in terms of white, male property owners. As you can tell, 1787 was a fine time to live--if you were a white, male, Christian property owner with enough slaves to keep the plantation up and running. But it wasn't such a fine place to live if you were black, female, Jewish, or otherwise non-christian. And yet these right wing activists routinely espouse a system of constitutional law that would both, ignore more than 200 years of history, and drag us back to the bad old days when a select ruling class was allowed to vote, to a time when the State legislatures elected our Senators.

Instead of a living, breathing document which adapts to social and historical change and which expands the liberties of the American people, these radical right wing activists (many of whom come with the most dismal of qualifications) propose a lifeless piece of rock which would almost invariably be used as a millstone around the necks of nonwhites, women, and non-Christians. And to make the situation even more bizarre, the idea of original intent wasn't even the intent of the Founding Fathers. The Framers knew that American society would evolve. They foresaw this. To that end they gave us the right to amend the Constitution. They left certain provisions deliberately vague, understanding that the Constitution would be interpreted by future judges. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson, who was not a framer per se, actually suggested that no generation had a right to impose its beliefs on the next generation, going so far as to suggest that each generation should tear up the constitution and rewrite it from scratch. That may sound radical, but it is no less radical than the idea that we should all live in a replay of 1787 and ignore every artistic, religious, technological, or societal development that occurred during the last 219 years. And I have more bad news for you. In 1787, the Framers, having just won a protracted revolution against a mentally deranged monarch and a mother country with an establish national church, were in no mood to create a system of government in which the President was a virtual king, in which a particular religion would have the power to impose its belief system on the entire nation. But that hasn't stopped the radical right wing activists and their radical Christian allies from proposing the idea of a Christian Republic; nor has it dissuaded them from the idea that we need a virtual king or dictator to guide us through a difficult situation.

This may come as a shock and a revelation to the right wing activists (I just can't bring myself to call them judges) but the Republic did very nicely as a Republic for nearly 119 years. The founders did not want us to be a monarchy; the founders did not want us to be a theocracy, and--no matter what the neocons may believe--they did not want us to be an empire. And if the right wing activists don't get that then I see no reason why they should be called Americans when they are so clearly dedicated to overthrowing the Framers' creation.

Ah Yes: We Have Turned Another Corner--NOT

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead and we have given Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted.

Someone really needs to tell the American people (and for that matter the Bush Regime) that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper represent a second generation of Islamic terrorists--and if they thought Bin Laden was a butcher, just wait--there's a third generation of Islamic terrorists and they're even more angry, more violent, and more fanatical than their Koran-thumping elders.

Contrary to popular belief, there have been significant tensions between second and third generation Islamic terrorists, most of which stem from the fact that the second generation disapproves of the third generation's tactics, al-Zarqawi being a case in point. This after all was the blood-thirsty thug who had himself video taped while he was sawing off the heads of innocent civilians. More important, he triggered a sectarian civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias. Indeed, one of his last "accomplishments" was a recorded "sermon" in which he condemned those who had called for an end to the sectarian strife in Iraq, essentially demanding an all out war against Shias, Iranians, and secularists. Killing western "infidels" was one thing, but al-Zarqawi was attacking and killing fellow Muslims, which clearly put him at odds with the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper.

Translated into the every day vernacular, al- Zarqawi had become a threat and an embarrassment to Al Quaida, which (unlike President Bush) clearly understands that this is a battle for the hearts and loyalties of Muslims across the face of the earth. And now, in a single swoop, two 500 pound bombs, have eliminated one of Osama's political embarrassments.

Now the bad news.

Our own military has determined that less than five percent of the Iraqi insurgency comes from outside of Iraq. That means that at least 95 percent of the insurgents are home grown Iraqis, that al-Zarqawi's death is virtually less than useless. Or at the very best a very small and temporary victory in the overall invasion of Iraq.

On the other hand, al-Zarqawi has already been treated as a fallen martyr, and as we all know, a fallen martyr can be a lot more dangerous than a living opponent. How exactly does one fight the dead? Mark my words. At some point in the near future, you, my dear reader, will click on your favorite news outlet, or open your morning paper, or turn on your beloved boob tube, and learn that al-Zarqawi's martyrdom was a theological shot in the arm, an inspiration for young, hot-headed zealots who want to avenge al-Zarqawi's death and martyr themselves in the process.

Ultimately this is an all too familiar rerun of the day we captured Saddam Hussein. At the time we were told that we had turned another corner--and then the insurgency expanded at a seemingly exponential rate while the pridefully aggressive Bush Regime watched on in bewildered confusion.

Bush will get a temporary boost in the polls, the insurgency will rage mercilessly on, more troops will die, more Iraqi civilians will die, and the Regime in Washington will again be left in a state of dishonor and bewilderment.

How do I know this? I know this because al-Zarqawi is dead and twelve Iraqis have already been killed in a market place bombing. Reports of car bombings are already filtering into our corporate, mainstream press. I know this because even as the violence continues, Bush and the Pentagon are again telling us that we have turned another corner. And anyone with an IQ of at least 60 knows that if you keep turning enough of those right hand corners you will eventually end up at the place from which you started.

For more information please read Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy by Fawaz A. Gerges. For a brief review of the book please click on Journey of the Jihadist or, better yet, go to Wisconsin Public Radio. This should take you to the menu for May 8, 2006. Once there, click on the 9:00 a.m. hour with Kathleen Dunn. This should take you to a 55 minute interview with the author.