lunadelcorvo: (Episode badly written)
A very funny, witty, and spot on post from Daily Kos.
If there is one thing America is still very, very good at, it is moralizing about sex. Long after the manufacturing jobs have all left America, and after we have drilled out the last drop of oil, and after we've abandoned Arizona to either climate change or some new mutant form of racist old people, we'll still have at least two major industries. The first is the fast food industry, which will never die. The second is the omnipresent industry of deciding who should have sex, when they are allowed to have it, and how much they should be punished for it.

So this was a good week in America. We were able to have lots and lots of conversations about Our Great Defining Issue, the only one that really seems to motivate us anymore. No jobs? Yeah, Congress might get around to that someday. Economy sucks? Meh. Hey, I think we're still at war, right? I think? Hmm, hard to tell. But start talking about penises and vaginas, and everyone in political discourse immediately wants in on that. That's right in our wheelhouse. We're good at moralizing about other people having sex.

Read the rest here at Daily Kos.
lunadelcorvo: (Reason is out to lunch)
::I'm reposting this in light of the recent surge* in Santorum's popularity over the last few states.::

(The list is not mine, it comes to you courtesy of; the original article is HERE.)

1) ANNUL ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. During his 99-country tour of Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people. As Santorum explained back in August, religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.”

2) ‘I’M FOR INCOME INEQUALITY’: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality,” Santorum said during an event in Pella, Iowa in December. “I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.”

3) CONTRACEPTION IS ‘A LICENSE TO DO THINGS’: Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control, insisting that “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

4) GAY SOLDIERS ‘CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN CLOSE QUARTERS’: During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in October, Santorum defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.”

5) OBAMA SHOULD OPPOSE ABORTION BECAUSE HE’S BLACK: During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

6) WE DON’T NEED FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE OBESITY RATES ARE SO HIGH: Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary.

7) ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

8) HEALTH [CARE] REFORM WILL KILL MY CHILD: Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.”

9) UNINSURED AMERICANS SHOULD SPEND LESS ON CELL-PHONE BILLS: During a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register in August, Santorum said that people who can’t afford health care should stop whining about the high costs of medical treatments and medications and spend less on non essentials. Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills.

10) INSURERS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Santorum sounded like a representative from the health insurance industry when he addressed a small group of high school students in Merrimack, New Hampshire in December. The former Pennsylvania senator not only defended insurers for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, he also argued that individuals who are sick should pay higher premiums because they cost more money to insure.
Now, I don't really think Santorum is going to be the nominee. (Then again, taken individually, I'm not sure I can actually see any of them as an actual presidential candidate, but one of them must be. I just think this one is a little more outrageous than most.) However, I think that his near-miss in Iowa is informative on many levels. In 2008, Huckabee won Iowa, and look where that got him. Nevertheless, now, as then, I think that as non-predictive as these early caucuses may be, they bear noting, in that they tell us something about where the discussion ranges, about whether or not there are actual people who will go so far as to say "I think this is the best man to be the President of the United States."

Regardless of whether Santorum is as current in two month's time as Huckabee was in his turn after Iowa, he got this far. So did Ron Paul, come to mention it (whole post on that another time). I have tried to refrain from primary commentary (it's hardly been needed - all this lot needs is microphones, and the satire writes itself!), but I have been watching all of the GOP hopefuls and what they have been saying in the primaries (because we will, of course hear a totally different tune from whoever ends up the actual candidate. It's good to have notes to look back on to see what they've said to their own...)

What are your thoughts on Iowa, the primary at large, and the upcoming Nov 2012 election?

(*Why is it that so many, many words just sound *wrong* when used vis a vis Santorum?)
lunadelcorvo: (Civil liberties)
(The list is not mine, it comes to you courtesy of; the original article is HERE.)

Read the whole list here )Now, I don't really think Santorum is going to be the nominee. (Then again, taken individually, I'm not sure I can actually see any of them as an actual presidential candidate, but one of them must be. I just think this one is a little more outrageous than most.) However, I think that his near-miss in Iowa is informative on many levels. In 2008, Huckabee won Iowa, and look where that got him. Nevertheless, now, as then, I think that as non-predictive as these early caucuses may be, they bear noting, in that they tell us something about where the discussion ranges, about whether or not there are actual people who will go so far as to say "I think this is the best man to be the President of the United States."

Regardless of whether Santorum is as current in two month's time as Huckabee was in his turn after Iowa, he got this far. So did Ron Paul, come to mention it (whole post on that another time). I have tried to refrain from primary commentary (it's hardly been needed - all this lot needs is microphones, and the satire writes itself!), but I have been watching all of the GOP hopefuls and what they have been saying in the primaries (because we will, of course hear a totally different tune from whoever ends up the actual candidate. It's good to have notes to look back on to see what they've said to their own...)

What are your thoughts on Iowa, the primary at large, and the upcoming Nov 2012 election?
lunadelcorvo: (Facepaw Polar bear)
Published on Right Wing Watch (

Religious Right Brings Back the Halal Meat Panic

lunadelcorvo: (Facepaw Polar bear)
Published on Right Wing Watch (

Religious Right Brings Back the Halal Meat Panic

lunadelcorvo: (Fox on Pilgrimage)
Idaho pharmacist denies anti-bleeding med because woman MIGHT have had an abortion
A pharmacist at a Nampa, Idaho, Walgreens refused to dispense medication that stops uterine bleeding because she suspected the woman may have had an abortion. The pharmacist invoked the state's new so-called conscience clause that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, among other things, if they have a personal problem with it.

Last November, a woman took her prescription for Methergine, a drug that stops uterine bleeding regardless of cause, to Walgreens. The pharmacist, suspicious that the woman's uncontrolled bleeding may have been the result of an abortion, called the nurse practitioner who wrote the prescription to inquire why the patient needed it. When the nurse refused to answer because to do so would violate the patient's confidentiality, the pharmacist hung up on her and refused to fill the prescription.
OK, I have serious issues with the so-called 'conscience clause' to begin with. But when we end up with pharmacists (freakin pharmacists!) thinking they have the right to decide whether to dispense medications that have no abortifacent attributes to them at all, because they *think* they *might* be used to treat the *after-effects* of a *possible* abortion? Seriously??? Not to mention, "uncontrolled bleeding" is simply not something ANY kind of medical professional should have the right to choose not to address! What part of "uncontrolled bleeding" = "life threatening" do these kinds of people not get?

I have not been able to find out if the pharmacist in question was disciplined, fired, or (better yet) had their license revoked, and I'll update if I do. Meanwhile, I suggest contacting your local Walgreens, or the Walgreens HQ and letting them know that you don't accept this kind of life endangering B.S. Here's the info:

Idaho State Board of Pharmacy
3380 Americana Terrace, Suite 320
Boise, ID 83706
Phone (208) 334-2356
FAX (208) 334-3536

200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
lunadelcorvo: (Default)
Does This Dirt Field Look Muslim to You?

The Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pa., supposedly honors the brave folks who sacrificed themselves during an in-flight power struggle on 9/11. So why does its design include a huge Muslim crescent pointing at Mecca?.

A group led by the father of a Flight 93 victim will be running full-page ads this Friday and Saturday in a Shanksville-area newspaper, criticizing the perceived Islamic symbol it sees in the memorial's Field of Honor — the dirt circle in the top picture that resembles a topographical map.

At the center of the dispute is the Field of Honor, a circular, tree-lined landmass that will serve as the heart of the memorial, as well as a 93-foot Tower of Voices that will contain 40 wind chimes, one for each victim of the crash. Forty groves of red and sugar maple trees also will commemorate the victims, and ponds will be installed to serve as a natural barrier to the nearby Sacred Ground, the final resting place for the passengers and crew of Flight 93.

This design "controversy" was raised five years ago, has popped up occasionally ever since, and is finding new life during the 2010 War on Mosques. A few seconds of googling takes us to a 2005 Michelle Malkin post with an informative animated .gif, for those of you who cannot see the evil Muslim symbol within this secret terrorist beachhead.

Although the National Park Service changed the title of the ring surrounding the Field of Honor from the Crescent of Embrace to the Circle of Embrace and moved some trees and stuff around, just to be polite, critics aren't satisfied with this obvious 9/11 Victory Crescent:

"A more obvious tribute to the terrorists is hard to imagine," reads the ad, which will be published in the Somerset Daily American and was provided in advance to "It is not surprising, then, that the giant crescent would turn out to point to Mecca*, and be the centerpiece for the world's largest mosque."

(Text from article here:, thanks to a posting in[ profile] atheism.)

*Incidentally, the monument is oriented along the path of the downed flight. So I guess that means the American heroes were trying to go to Mecca!!!! *facepalm*
lunadelcorvo: (Wall of Separation)
"At best, a throwback to primitivism -- at worst, unconstitutional political posturing and manipulation..."

An Atheist public policy group denounced Sunday's "Day of Prayer" by Southern governors as a political stunt which is exploiting an environmental tragedy in order to win votes and promote religion and as, incidentally, a clear violation of Christian biblical principles.

"At best, this is a bronze age response to disaster," declared Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists. "This is just another example of how some political leaders use religion to win votes, garner public sympathy, and lead people to believe that superstition trumps the need for good planning and responsible public policy. These governors are plainly hypocrites as defined, allegedly in words from Jesus, in Matthew 6:5-6."

The Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, along with the lieutenant Governor of Florida, all issued proclamations declaring Sunday, June 27, 2010, a Day of Prayer and urged citizens to engage in religious ritual in hopes of finding a solution to the growing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

"This is about as deep as you can get when it comes to promoting irrationality and faith-based superstition," added Dr. Buckner. "We have another example of public officials telling citizens when and how to pray, whether to pray, and what to pray for."

Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists, said that prayer is never a suitable substitute for sound public policy, environmental safeguards, and sensible planning for catastrophic emergencies.

"I doubt that Jesus or some angel is suddenly going to descend from the sky with millions of feet of boom, or more barges to suck up the leaking oil," said Mr. Silverman. "If prayer really worked, why is it that so far, anyway, God seems to be ignoring the suffering all along the gulf?"

Dr. Buckner added, "Perhaps the politicians need to get up off their knees and spend more time mobilizing the resources to deal with this catastrophe. That should not include offering false hope or ridiculous suggestions for the people being affected by this event.”

Personally, while I certainly am in complete agreement with this denunciation of a backward and utterly unconstitutional thing, I am even more concerned and disgusted that it's even necessary. Honestly, these days, I find myself wondering with increasing trepidation, how the extremism building in the US can possibly be reconciled without massive violence, or at the very least, massive upheaval. It's not a pretty thought, but with the right/religious right so far over the sanity line, and the very real threats to our environment, our food supply, our health, our society- I just can't see it ending well.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists, Freethinkers and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.


American Atheists, Inc. PO BOX 158, Cranford, NJ 07016
Tel.: (908) 276-7300 Fax: (908) 276-7402

For more information, please contact:
Ed Buckner, President 908-499-9200 (cell) or 770-803-5353 (office/fax)
Dave Silverman, Communications Director 732-648-9333
lunadelcorvo: (Oh puh-lease!)
This isn't exactly new, but it's worth noting:
The 2006 law organizing the state Office of Homeland Security lists its initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."

Specifically, Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God's benevolent protection in its reports, and it must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago. As amended, Homeland Security's religious duties now come before all else, including its distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants and its analysis of possible threats.

The time and energy spent crediting God are appropriate, said Riner, D-Louisville, in an interview this week. "This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky," Riner said. "Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government."
There is one (only one!!!!!!) group, American Atheists, that filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The suit faced tremendous criticism because they were seeking monetary redress for 'damages.' However, apparently they had no choice. According to a ruling of the US Supreme Court, citizens cannot sue the government for church/state separation issues without damages. SO the very thing which is drawing the most flack with regard to this lawsuit is necessary in order for it to even have legal standing. (I'd love to know how was behind that ruling, because it certainly seems to hamper legitimate constitutional challenges.)

However, there was a veritable pantheon of the Lunatic Right Fringe's most luminary arrayed on the other side, including defrocked Alabama Chief Supreme Court Justice Judge Roy Moore, president of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala. Moore was kicked out of office as Attorney General for refusing to abide by a court ruling ordering the removal of the 10 commandments monument he installed on the Alabama State Court House rotunda in the dead of night.

Moore is also one of 35 attorneys defending Kentucky's God Defense law. His foundation just happened to be the hosts of the 2010 Alabama Secession Day Commemoration, which featured speakers such those from the "League of the South, a neo-Confederate hate group that considers slavery 'God-ordained' and advocates for 'the cultural dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions.'" (Quote from Ed Hensley, of American Atheists). Hensley also notes that while the Foundation for Moral Law denies sponsoring the event, they did end up raking in all the proceeds.

So. the suit prevailed, and is currently under appeal by the state of Kentucky. Apparently, the state government, far from being relieved of the burden of such an inane law, actually will go to great lengths (to say nothing of great expense, footed by the taxpayers), to restore it! Ironically, those same taxpayers will froth at the mouth because government isn't spending enough on creating jobs for them, and is constantly raging about taxes being too high. I wonder if they know how much is spent on stuff like this?

And, we learn that those who wish to challenge the constitutionality of a blatant violation of separation of church and state are not only forced to appear as money-grubbing ambulance chasers for being required to seek damages, they must then run a gauntlet of barely legitimate Religious Right loonies, funded by secessionists and white supremacists. Yay.
lunadelcorvo: (Oh puh-lease!)
Quote from an article on Religion Dispatches about gun-toting tea-party goers:
The Constitution Party is frequently dismissed as a fringe party of little electoral consequence, even though its significance lies elsewhere. It is in fact a steaming hotbed of far-right factions with theocratic, vigilante, and sometimes revolutionary ideas whose like-minded members get together to make their plans, just like any other organized faction in American public life. The party says it is 100% pro-life and pro-gun. (emphasis is mine)
Now, let's just think about that for a moment. Even in a movement which can accept claims like those of the tea party, the biblical literalists, and the Tim LaHayes of the world, this statement seems to require a level of doublethink even George Orwell could not help but be impressed by. And terrified....

(Here's the story, and it's a damned disturbing one at that, I might add: "[I] Pray For Barack Obama To Die And Go To Hell”: The Story The Media Missed)

And, please, can someone explain to me how "Democracy" means "If we can't have things our way, we'll take over with guns and make everyone live our way?" Plzkthnx....
lunadelcorvo: (Grrrrr!)
Nebraska lawmakers on Monday gave final approval to a first-of-its-kind measure requiring women to be screened for possible mental and physical problems before having abortions.

The measure is unusual, however, in spelling out what factors doctors must consider when doing the screenings. [Greg] Schleppenbach [of the National Catholic Conference] said that’s because doctors otherwise would turn to other abortion providers to set the standards for the medical community.

The bill requires a doctor or other health professional to screen women to determine whether they were pressured into having abortions. The screenings also would assess whether women have risk factors that could lead to mental or physical problems after an abortion.’re_crazy_

Read the article. I can't really comment coherently on this, as I am too stunned. I mean, this passed? This is a law now? What year is this again?
lunadelcorvo: (Wall of Separation)
OK. So a Buddhist Temple here was vandalized, with specifically Christian messages spray painted on the temple and signage, and statues defaced. This is the second time this has happened this year. (Story here and here)

In the comments on both of those stories, one can find statements like "It's not fair to assume the people who did this were Christian." and similar sentiments. Now look, I'm not saying this one act can be laid at the feet of all Christians everywhere. That's a basic fallacy of composition. However, I think it is absolutely fair to assume that it was done by a Christian, with an agenda of intimidation. The messages read "Buddah is in hell" not "Gooks go home." That would certainly seem to indicate that the motive isn't racist, it's not anti-immigrant, it's not an outburst of stress brought on by tough competition for jobs in hard times.

The temple was covered in crosses and sayings like "Christ lives." The motive is religious. Pure and simple. It is one more example of the mindset that this is a Christian country, and 'pagans,' like athiests, are not welcome here in the 'land-of-the-free-to-be-Christian.' However, the more serious problem lies in the immediate leap to defend the obvious religious motivation here.

When we then engage in dialog not about why religiously motivated hate crimes occur and are allowed (even sanctioned, though there has been no sanction, but also no condemnation from area churches in this case), but in attempting to diffuse the issue we ourselves facilitate those very crimes. Regardless of how one chooses to construe the Harris Poll's findings, I think it is quite clear that the rhetoric of violence, rebellion and insurrection in the name of Christianity is on an alarming rise. The 'Tea Party' movement has been proclaimed the 'new face of American democracy,' after all, and Palin is flogging the 'new revolution.'

And that makes this one act of violence significant. it makes every act of violence on religious (or political) grounds significant. We cannot keep excusing this. We cannot keep defending it, or dismissing it as a "few extreme individuals." Let's call a spade a spade, and let's get over our hesitation to call BULLSHIT when apologists try to de-emphasize the role of religion in hate crime.
lunadelcorvo: (Manuscript in hand)
...Literalist Megatronians and other related strangeness
An essay by [ profile] dave_littler, re-posted with permission.

“Listen, I realize that Lord of the Rings is just a story written by one guy, okay? I’m not one of those fundamentalists who believes everything that Tolkien said just because it’s in some book. I don’t believe in Sauron or anything. That’s obviously bullshit. I do believe in Gandalf the Grey, though, don’t get me wrong. I believe that he was some kind of wizard, and that he had some part to play in leading the Fellowship of the Ring in destroying the One Ring, I just don’t believe in all that obviously made-up stuff in Lord of the Rings.”

Imagine if someone said this to you. Imagine how absolutely taken aback you would be by what they were saying. For someone to say that they acknowledge that a work of fiction is a work of fiction and yet that one of the main characters of that work of fiction, who was invented in order to fulfill a role within that narrative, was nevertheless a real entity. Would that be more ridiculous or less ridiculous than a person who believed the story itself to be a true story? At least someone who believed Lord of the Rings was a historical tale could be forgiven, on some level, for believing that the people described within it to have been real people; after all, the events could hardly have been real if the people who enacted these events did not actually exist.

The rest of the essay can be found in this entry at the community [ profile] atheist, and it's an intriguing read!
lunadelcorvo: (W T F? Kitten)

This is a Christian Slavery Apologetic. No, really. This article is a diatribe about how slavery in the south wasn't all bad, only the parts that were not in conformity with 'biblical slavery,' and 'biblical slavery' is OK, and fine and good because the Bible says so.

I quote:
"Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves."
"Today if an abortionist sought membership at either of our churches, he would be refused unless he repented and abandoned his murderous practice. But if our churches had existed in the ante bellum South, and a godly slave owner sought membership, we could not refuse him without seeking to be holier than Christ. Such a desire would be wicked, and this wickedness was at the heart of the abolitionist dogma."
This nutjob claims that Southern slave owners vigorously opposed the slave trade as 'wicked,' but evinced no hypocrisy by owning slaves. After all, they were doing the poor slaves a favor by taking them into Christian homes...
"The slave trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it, and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way. But if we were to look in history for Christians who reflected this biblical balance — i.e. a hatred of the slave trade and an acceptance of slavery in itself under certain conditions — we will find ourselves looking at the ante bellum South."
I mean, wow. Seriously?

Read the article - I can't begin to relate how mind-boggling it is. The level of mental contortion required to actually advance such a position is... well, it's bloody insane.
lunadelcorvo: (Foucault Power)
Christian discipline drawing criticism even from Christians

The two cases discussed are here and here. There is another excellent Salon article on the phenomenon here.
When the hell are we going to deal with this crap? When are we going to realize that parents usually don't dream up this stuff on their own? In no way do I exonerate a parent who can beat their child to death without knowing it's wrong, but the Pearls and others with similar rhetoric are to blame as well. "Doesn't advocate abuse?" Seriously? In whose dictionary is advising a parent to use plumbing line to strike their child (as young as 6-12 months!) NOT abuse?

What really bothers me is that this stuff is not broadly pursued with any real vigor because it hides behind a bogus screen of religious freedom. Individuals who go to far are sometimes (but not always) convicted of what it really is: abuse, murder, torture. But the broad problem gets a minor mention at the bottom of the article, with words like 'suspect,' 'may be influenced.' Why? Why is this not a center stage issue?

I'll tell you why. First, imagine a Muslim family that did this in the US; beat a child to death in the name of religious discipline. What a shitstorm that would be! Or a Wicca parent, using a switch to instill their religious values (supposedly just as well protected)? We look the other way on this stuff because as a society, we are scared to confront the Christian gloss on it, and it perpetrators hide behind that gloss, knowing it protects them. I call bullshit!!!!!!
lunadelcorvo: (Oceania)
...people thought I was a tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy loon for suggesting things like this. *sigh* Good days, good days. Clearly, however, those days are OVER.

From the article on
According to the Washington Post the house is owned by Youth With a Mission D.C. Youth With a Mission is one of the most extensive Christian fundamentalist para-church organizations on Earth, and YWAM founder leader Loren Cunningham has publicly outlined a vision for Christian world-control.

In a 2008 promotional video, "Reclaiming 7 Mountains of Culture", Loren Cunningham describes a vision he shared along with the late Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer, in which Christian fundamentalists could achieve world domination by taking over key sectors of society such as business, government, media, and education.
lunadelcorvo: (Abstinence doesn't work)


I know a few women on campus who wear hijabs, and one who wears a burka, and I think it's tragic, barbaric, and utterly backward. One girl in particular, I would otherwise have tremendous respect for, but I see her in that damned headgear, and I want to shake her until her teeth rattle. WTF is WRONG with women who do this?

And he is SO right - it's NOT about modesty; there are better ways of being 'modest' than sticking out like an 'in your face,' sore thumb. Get real! And it's NOT about removing gender from the social equation, because hello? men don't wear this crap, and you're pretty quick to pretty it up, wear jewelry, high heels, and so on. So don't tell me it's because you are trying to be seen as a person, not as a sexual object - bullshit!

Of course, the burka is the most offensive (yes, I said offensive!) garment of all of them, and I fully agree it should be banned in Europe and in the US, and anywhere damn else it can be banned. Tolerance only goes so far folks!
lunadelcorvo: (Pro-Choice Mom)
([ profile] kickthehobbit posted this, and [ profile] doctoreon re-posted it, and now it's my turn.)

If you're not pro-choice, and you are vocal and proud about not being pro-choice (including such lines as, "I don't understand how anyone could be pro-choice"), or if you allow discussion to happen in your journal that contains such gems as accusing George Tiller of being a "baby killer" that performed late-term abortions for fun, or allowing awful, awful trolling comments regarding what sluts and whores any woman that would ever have an abortion is?


If you want to foster discussion in your journal, fine.

If you are pro-life, and proud of it, but are respectful of those of us that are pro-choice, that's also fine. I won't defriend over either of those.

But if you're going to let people make ignorant-ass comments in your journal about how all abortions are totally wrong and 'oh my God how dare anyone ever get one', and also that George Tiller (who helped people like this and this) was a murderer, not bothering to step in when they start to attack one another or otherwise don't "foster" discussion so much as blindly attack anyone that comments back to them, citing irrelevant court cases in an attempt to prove that late-term abortion happens for reasons other than the mother's life/health being at risk/the fetus having deformities that are incompatible with life . . . that's not OK.

If you're going to let your journal turn into a pro-life circle jerk, then I'm out of here. Because seriously? Don't you fucking even try to play the, "But I am all for women's rights!" card when you're trying to restrict access to abortion.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the only moral abortion is not your abortion. ALL ABORTION IS MORAL.

Brought to you by [ profile] kickthehobbit.

lunadelcorvo: (Unclear on the Concept)
The one the Obama administration caved and withdrew following grumblings from the religious right? I sure hope they kept a copy handy, because clearly, the report was far from inaccurate.

Today, a gunman opened fire in a Kansas church, murdering abortion provider George Tiller. This is exactly the sort of incident the report was written to highlight, and hopefully, prevent by raising awareness of the risk of these kinds of attacks, and admitting that this is essentially a form of domestic terrorism. Today's events could not have made it any clearer how badly a reassessment of religiously motivated violence is needed.

I sent an e-mail to Barack Obama, quoted below. I will be sending similar messages to my local congressmen as well. I urge you to do the same.
I am deeply upset by today's fatal TERRORIST attack at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. I am especially concerned because this is exactly the kind of domestic religious terrorism addressed by the recent Homeland Security report, as well as the recent hate crimes legislation. Both of which YOUR administration backed down on, a defeat deeply disappointing then, and truly disturbing now. I hope that this tragedy–certainly proof positive of the need to reevaluate the ways in which we define and address religious violence on our own soil–will spur real, definitive, and proactive legislation on the issue of religious violence here at home.

This is a chance for you, Mr. Obama, to really deliver on the promise of change and hope for ALL Americans, those of faith, and those of no faith, those who oppose abortion and those who fight and risk their lives to defend the right to and availability of choice. I hope you take the opportunity, and prove to this American and many like me, who are tired of religious oppression, that we too have a leader in our president. And I speak here of real religious oppression, not that which is ludicrously claimed by the overwhelming Christian majority. Real religious oppression, the kind that makes freedom from faith a dangerous choice, and threatens every woman's right to control her body and her health.

Religious violence cannot be tolerated, no matter the faith or the nationality of the perpetrators. Those who murder out of Christian conviction MUST be handled in precisely the same manner as those who kill in the name of Allah. Religion MUST cease to be an excuse for those in this nation who seek power over others at any cost. Step up, Mr. Obama; please don't sell out my faith in you as my leader.
lunadelcorvo: (Unclear on the Concept)
I know, I'm a little behind the times on this; what can I say? I don't get to the theater much. This one is worth a review nevertheless. Trust me on this one, I'm not going where you think I am, keep reading.

Now, I've seen plenty of scathing criticism of this film, and not just from the religious right, or even the mildly religious. Atheists, anti-religionists, and liberals have lambasted Maher for this one as well. Essentially, the gripes revolve around two points. One is Maher's selection of the craziest of the crazy and the most extreme of the extreme in order to give an extreme picture of religion. The other complaint is that Maher is overly harsh, condescending, disrespectful and flat-out insulting to the people he interviews.

I'd have to say both of these are dead on. There were time in the first hour or so that even I, being a pretty outspoken and vehement anti-religionist, found myself wincing, thinking "Woah! That was harsh!" or "Yikes! Did he just say that?" And admittedly, he does not spend time talking to moderates; his interviewees are decidedly the oddest apples in the bunch. Both of these make Religulous a bit uncomfortable to watch, though incredibly funny.

That's the thing, though. Getting laughs out of the religious loons is easy sport; were the humor the real intent of this piece, I would have to call it a cheap shot, or rather, a long series of cheap shots. Love or hate Maher himself, one must admit that's not his brand of humor. That's how you know the humor isn't the point. It's the tool.

The humor is a tool, like his rudeness is a tool, like his selection of the kookiest of the kooks is a tool, like his leaving in the snippets of him being kicked out of the Vatican, or off the Mormon Temple lawn, is a tool. The purpose to which these tools are turned is nothing less than the dismantling of religion's Get Out of Jail Free card.

Bill Maher is not poking fun at religion to get a laugh. He is not being rude to religion to get a laugh. He's forcing us to see religion for what it is - delusional, irrational. Our habit of toleration and respect for religion is so ingrained, that it takes a lot to be shaken out of it. Even (perhaps especially) for liberals, who have so long chamioned the rights of the other to be who they are, who have fought for equality of the sexes, acceptance of race, non-discrimination; we more than anyone need to be forcibly shaken out of our tendency to be tolerant, our desire to get along.

For all the humor, Maher is deadly serious, and he's not wrong. It's crucial that we do let go of our tolerance for religion; our survival as a species may depend on it. It's not easy letting go of our toys, and leaving the childhood of humanity behind us, with its invisible friends and fairy tales and happy endings. It's not easy telling ourselves, or each other, that no, Santa's not real, and neither is God, there's no happily ever after, and only we can make (or break) a better world. But, like a child allowed to keep his toys and his childhood fantasies becomes a dysfunctional monster, humanity must grow up, or we will become a monstrous race, killing and devouring with a child's heedlessness, blindness and greed. As Maher says, our abilities to pollute, to kill, and to destroy have outstripped our ability to reason and to be rational. Religion is the security blanket, the pacifier, that keeps us from moving on.

That is Maher's mission - to rid us of the security blanket. As long as we treat it with reverence, we will never let it go. Religion is a very real threat. It will remain a threat as long as societies like ours continue to allow religion a pass on behavior and thinking which we would (and do) condemn in other contexts. This is a point I have argued for years, and if *I* was taken aback at Maher's blatant disrespect, clearly, we have along way to go.
lunadelcorvo: (Unclear on the Concept)
There have been several brilliant responses to the hate-mongering of Fred Phelps and his gang already. Notably the Bikers lining up and drowning out all the slogans and jeers from Phelp's crew. Next, I believe first appearing at Matt Shepperd's funeral, were the Angels, with huge white wings to block Phelp and Co. from view of their target, or the media.

But this one is new (to me anyway) and it's brilliant! Presenting: The Phelps-a-thon!
"When the Phelps group comes to Hartford to protest the Connecticut Supreme Court, they will actually be raising money for LGBT equality.

Driving Equality is hosting a Phelps-A-Thon to counter Fred Phelps’ hateful message. For every minute the “God Hates Fags” clan is protesting, we will be collecting donations for Love Makes a Family, a local organization working for marriage and LGBT equality in Connecticut.

The Phelps clan will be protesting at the Connecticut Supreme Court from 1:15 PM to 2:00 PM on April 28th. You can pledge any amount you chose, whether it be $0.25, $0.50, $1, or even $2 for every minute they protest. You can even pledge a flat rate for the entire time the group will be demonstrating.

The point of this Phelps-A-Thon is two fold. First, we are using Phelps’ own hateful message to raise funds for a good cause, one that will help counter the lies that are being spread about LGBT people. Second, After the event, we will send Phelps a thank you card, telling him how much money he raised for LGBT equality. This will certainly upset the group and it is possible that they will stop protesting in order to stop our fundraising."
Quoted from

Please consider going and pledging for the upcoming protest. (Next up is Hartford, CN.)

Thanks to [ profile] ynfytyn for pointing this out. I'm just helping spread the word.
lunadelcorvo: (Stupidity brain hurts)
That's why there is no global warming/climate change!

Listen as an elected representative (Rep. Shumkus, R., Illinois) testifies at a recent House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing that since the Bible says "the Earth will not be destroyed by a flood," climate change is not a threat. Well, I'm so happy we got that all cleared up!

Oh, he also testified that carbon emissions are what keeps plants alive, and that the earth is actually a "carbon-starved" planet. See the entire train-wreck HERE.

lunadelcorvo: (Stupidity brain hurts)
Saw this gem courtesy of the Planned Parenthood newsletter, but the article is from Feministing.

The Ex-Masturbator Campaign: Shaming idle hands since 2009

(quoted from the article) "You know...sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. (Not to mention an infinite number of jokes.)

Apparently the Passion for Christ Movement has a bunch of these "ex" shirts, and this is just the latest."

The author of the article quotes from another article on the campaign associated with the shirts, noting that the "shame" which these idiots associate with masturbation comes from just these sorts of tactics, like those in this article referring to "an illegal orgasm," apparently a common term among Passion for Christ members. He quotes that article:

Two things I've come to know about masturbation is this:

1. It brings shame, and...
2. It is addictive

Most people who have engaged in masturbation know that the culmination of this sexual act ends in shame. I don't have to share with you the thousands of emails of the admittance of this shame because you know all too well since you have experienced it yourself. Curled up in a fetal position, crying, because your bed is even more empty and you're lonelier than you did before you violated yourself.

What I find particularly tragic about this is that, let's face it, no one is *really* going to stop fiddling below the belt for life. (Heaven help us if they do, because they're all gonna go postal one day!) What they ARE going to do is take on, willingly, cheerfully, a boatload of guilt, shame, and psychological ass-f*cking over utterly harmless, purely natural and healthy behavior. This is psychological repression on a deeply inherent level, and it is toxic, and fer fucks sake, shouldn't we know better by now?

Once again, I am forced to ask if some of these people have noticed that it isn't 1600 anymore?
lunadelcorvo: (Default)
The fucker did it. He passed the legislation 'protecting' health care workers from OH NOES! having to do their frikkin' jobs, and prescribe or dispense not only abortion services, but IUDs, hormone based contraceptives, and emergency contraception as well. This is couched as a freedom of speech measure for the religious, supposedly forced into providing services they "find repugnant." What it is however, is a way to get legislation on the books which classifies any birth control which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum (like the pill, Norplant, IUDs, etc.) as "abortion."

Like so many pieces of seemingly innocent (not that this is innocent - if you are going to be an OB/GYN and not prescribe birth control you have no damn business with a license) legislation snuck under the radar, the sole purpose of this is a wedge. A little inroad, hidden in the piles of verbiage, that has the potential to be picked up later, and assembled into a weapon. It's the little bit of plastic hidden in the soap sent to the prisoner; almost undetectable, but when later gathered and ordered, can be deadly. Goddammit!

Read the whole story HERE and more about the bill here and here.

Start writing letters to Obama now, and let's hope this crap gets overturned immediately with the new administration.

Also, see this post for more on my thoughts on this...
lunadelcorvo: (Mamabear)
I must say, in a way I have an additional reason to be happy when this thesis is done and over. Some of the crap I have been reading is really starting to get to me. The material I have been researching is distrubing, infuriating, and deeply scary. From Promise Keepers and other groups promoting "godly familes and marriages" to the insidious mix of 'cure and condemn' anti-gay rhetoric - its just sickening.

One of the things that has been especially disturbing is finding out just how horrendous the "abstinence-only" sex-ed programs really are. When I think of the numbers of young people fed this crap, and the damage it can and will do...

These 'abstinence-only' programs incorporate utter nonsense and blatant lies; things like misrepresenting the failure rates of birth control and condoms as protections against HIV/STDs, suggesting that birth control measures (or abortions) cause cancer, miscarriage, infertility, and so on. They also promote sexist stereotypes, by suggesting that since boys 'only want sex' and 'can't control themselves,' it is up to the girl (since girls don't like sex) to ensure that a couple does not have sex. (With the obvious implication that it's her fault if they do - hello, Eve!)

This is a report issued by the US government on such programs. Some specifics cited in the report are:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• No evidence demonstrates condoms’ effectiveness against HPV transmission.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
• Touching another person’s genitals can result in pregnancy.
• Remaining a virgin all but eliminates the possibility of becoming pregnant. (Emphasis mine-WTF?)
• Five to ten percent of women will never again [be able to] be pregnant after having a legal abortion.
• A woman needs to feel a man’s devotion to her, and a man has a primary need to feel a woman’s admiration.
• A Bride price is actually an honor to the bride; it says she is valuable to the groom.
• Abstention from sexual activity eliminates depression, poverty, loneliness, substance abuse, and suicide.

I don't care what your religious beliefs are, or how you see sex in your personal morality. Lying to children and teens in the guise of education is WRONG. It's as wrong as giving them lies about how to cross the street safely, or how to get out of the house in case of a fire, or anything else that involves their personal safety. As a parent, I can't describe the depth of anger I feel when I see that this crap is being taught to young people in schools, with all the borrowed legitimacy that implies. Worse, it is federally funded, meaning my taxes and yours have paid people to write this garbage, and paid people to indoctrinate young people with it. I have no words for the wrongness of this.
lunadelcorvo: (Don't let the shadows take me)
I'd love to introduce this with something witty, but the stupid runs too deep for that. Stupid like this is just sad. And scary. I want to move to Finland, like NOW.

"Block African witchcraft curses against McCain and Palin NOW!
Jim Bramlett
Sep 28 2008 04:12PM

Dear friends:


Minutes ago I spoke with friend Dr. Norman G. Marvin, M.D. and he is so concerned at what he has learned about Barack Obama's family in Kenya that he is calling a special prayer meeting in his home to pray against the witchcraft curses attempted by them against John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Dr. Marvin sent me the below e-mail from Flo Ellers. Flo is credentialed with the International Fellowship of Ministries which is based in Washington State. She is also a member of EndTime Handmaidens and Servants of Jasper, Arkansas.



"Bree Keyton went and visited Obama's tribal people and she found out Obama is 75% Arab and his family are Muslims. Odinga is strill trying to become the President of Kenya. If he does, he will make a law forbidding all public preaching and institute Sharia Law. Bree K. said Odinga has made a pact with satan.

Bree K. also said when Obama visited his tribe in '06 and as late as Jan. '08 he went to every elder's home which has a "shrine" inside to worship the genie and asked for their blessing. She was told Obama and Odinga were both "destined" before they were born to be president/leader of their nation. They say "he is the chosen one". She said Obama's grandmother sacrificed a black and a white chicken to the "goddess of the river" so both whites and blacks will vote for Obama. All Islam loves and worships Obama. The world is mesmerized by him. Oprah's 200 million followers are out to elect Obama. Also, Dick Morris of Fox News was sent to Kenya to help Odinga run his campaign! I find that unbelievable.

The occultists are "weaving lazy 8's around McCain's mind to make him look confused and like an idiot". Bree K. said we need to break these curses off of him that are being sent from Kenya."


OK, yes, these are the fringe, the nutters (obviously) and the minority (hopefully). But they are adults, citizens of this nation, members of our culture, fer fukksake! They use computers, and the internet, and they are spreading warnings about curses and sacrificed chickens and witchcraft!!!!! What's next, blaming Barack when milk goes sour, when the cat gets fleas, when it doesn't rain often enough? WTF? How? Somebody tell me how? How is any adult this colossally stupid? HOW? And why are we not locking these people up and forcing them to get psychological help?
lunadelcorvo: (Mamabear)
Was that a sensationalistic subject? OK, yes it was. But it pales in comparison to McCain's latest crap.

Let me clarify this for you. The program which Obama supports, and McCain is slamming here does NOT offer explicit sex ed for kindergartners. What it DOES do is teach very young children the difference between 'good touches' and 'bad touches.' In other words, it enables children to recognize contact that is inappropriate, and empowers them to report it to a parent or teacher. Yes, McCain is slamming Obama for helping to protect kids from pedophiles.

As the parent of a young child, who has been a recipient of the afore mentioned educational program, I cannot tell you how happy I am that we have this kind of education in schools. For schools to support the message we as parents give our kids about what it and is not appropriate, and that it's OK to tell an adult if someone does something inappropriate, is absolutely invaluable in empowering and protecting kids. I can also tell you that McCain's claims that this is "explicit sex-ed" are both ludicrous and deeply offensive to me as a parent, as they should be to any parent.

So, what kind of sicko would twist a program which protects kids from abuse and make it look like Obama is handing out condoms and The Joy of Sex to five-year-olds? McCain, that's what kind of sicko.

Who would be depraved enough to throw educational measures that protect children from predators and help law enforcement catch and prosecute predators under the bus solely to garner a few more votes from a sensationalism-hungry batch of ultra-religious alarmists? McCain, that's who.

Not good for my family? I'll tell you what's not good for my family - the reintroduction of a sexually repressive era, where victims suffer in silence, and any mention of the possibility that someone may abuse a child is swept under a frakking conservative rug. That's what's not good for MY family, you geriatric, pandering asshat!

And I thought I couldn't be MORE disgusted with McCain... silly me.
lunadelcorvo: (Religion = Freaky)
American Psychiatric Association Definition of "Delusion"

A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue. These irrational beliefs defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to dispute them. Delusions are often accompanied by hallucinations and/or feelings of paranoia, which act to strengthen confidence in the delusion. (*Key phrase deleted here. I'll come back to it in a minute*)

Wow. Am I the only one who sees that as a pretty spot-on definition of the kind of religiosity we see rampant today? I am referring here, to the Creationists (7 days? Talking snake? Really?) the Millenialists (Rapture? Dragons? Really?) and their ilk.
read more on delusions here )



Things I need to remember:
• Asking for help is not, as it turns out, fatal.
• Laughing is easier than pulling your hair out, and doesn't have the unfortunate side effect of making you look like a plague victim.
• Even the biggest tasks can be defeated if taken a bit at a time.
• I can write a paper the night before it's due, but the results are not all they could be.
• Be thorough, but focused.
• Trust yourself.
• Honesty, always.

Historians are the Cassandras of the Humanities



RSS Atom