An Invitation To Start Over In The New Year

In yesterday's San Antonio Express-News, the Reverend Karen Vannoy encouraged believers to "Speak Out: Don't be afraid to start over - God invites you to." The Reverend Vannoy concluded by saying:

The truth is the world will remember what you have done; in fact, your misdeeds can follow you forever. But the deeper truth is found in the words of the prophet Isaiah — I will remember your sins no more — because he spoke not of the world, but of God.

It is only God who keeps a covenantal promise perfectly and keeps it forever. We have proven ourselves incapable of this again and again. Out of the desperate love God has for us, the covenant is written inside our very hearts, not so we can always keep it, but so we can always come back to it.

Because even when the world won't let you begin again, God will. In fact, God asks for it; God invites it. So no matter how many times you've started over, do it again. Because when you have started over with God, the new you can face both the past and the future.

Actually, Reverend Vannoy, the truth is human beings should depend on one another to keep promises, rather than some ill-defined God whose existence you have merely assumed. As a species, we have occasionally proven ourselves capable of following our reason where ever it may lead and not sacrificing our integrity. And continuing to do so with even greater frequency than before will be what gets us through the New Year alive.

The only thing standing in your way in this matter is yourself. So no matter how many times you have failed in your resolve to simply be more reasonable by abandoning your incoherent concept of God, it's never too late. Because when you start over with a mind free from such obstacles, you will finally be able to take control of your own life, and be responsible for your own actions.

So don't be afraid to start over - an atheist invites you to.

Argumentum ad Banana

Speaking of these two guys, the latest addition to my blogroll, the Friendly Atheist, found a video reply to their argumentum ad banana on YouTube. Enjoy!

An Unintelligently Designed Board Game

Remember these two guys with the banana? Yesterday, by way of a friendly neighborhood atheist, everyone's favorite godless biologist, and the good Reverend, I learned of their latest creation, a brainless board game called Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, and just had to join in all the fun:

Word on the street is the fix is in!

Breaking News:

Lo and behold, in today's Houston Chronicle the Associated Press reports that there are "No trivial pursuits in these games."

Fans of Candyland who happen to be Jewish might enjoy Kosherland, the object of which is to "Spin your way to the Kosher Home," making sure "not to get stuck mixing milk and meat together!"


For Catholics who like to play Monopoly, there's Catholic-opoly, the goal of which "is to build as many churches and cathedrals as possible in order to 'help spread the word of the Lord.'"


Evangelicals who enjoy a good game of Risk may want to try Missionary Conquest, in which they can "Travel around the world as a missionary and learn to finance [their] trips with wise investments." And just in case the kids have been neglecting their studies, parents will be glad to learn that "No Bible knowledge is required to play, win or to enjoy this game."


And finally, we have Race to the Kabah, an entertaining way to "Learn the 99 names of Allah while making your way to the Kabah (one of Islam's holiest places) before the other players."


Further commentary forthcoming, just as soon as I make my way through the rest of today's religion columns.

Link Love:

Thanks goes to Kristine of Amused Muse for posting a link to my additional findings in the comments over at PZ's, Rev. Dan of Outchurched for including a link in his recent post on these silly games, and Pickle05 for her recommendation over at StumbleUpon.

Rising to the Blasphemy Challenge

Take the Rational Responders' Blasphemy Challenge today, before it's too late! What have you got to lose?

The New Testament For Teens

By way of PZ at Pharyngula and Jason at EvolutionBlog, I came by this disturbing article in the New Yorker about the latest in pop-Christian marketing ploys. Feast your eyes on the front cover of Revolve, the first ever BibleZine:

And now, let your sense of humor run wild in the comments. Meanwhile, I'm going to figure out how to low-ball Focus on the Family's suggested donation of $17.

Additional Bible Literature:

Tom Foss, of Dubito Ergo Sum, has brought to my attention two other BibleZines in the comments. Behold, Refuel, the New Testament for teenage boys:


And for a bit of urban flavor, stop by Wal-Mart and take a gander at Real, the New Testament for adolescent gangsters:


Thanks, Tom!

Standing On The Intellectual High Ground

The other day I came across an editorial in the Star Telegram written by a man named Don Erler, who would like to think that he and other religious thinkers are "Sailing toward the intellectual horizon." Erler is the president of General Building Maintenance, and publishes regularly in the Telegram. His opinions have been praised and republished by the Discovery Institute, as well as singled out for criticism by the illustrious Austin Cline.

I admit, at first I was struck dumb by Erler's commentary, and not because I found it convincing. So I sent it along to my brother, Bronze Dog, who kindly took it upon himself to conduct an informal analysis and has posted his findings over at Rockstar's Ramblings. But in addition to the background information on Erler provided above, I'd like to draw further attention to his curious qualifications and conspicuous quotations.

In his most recent misguided attempt at social commentary, Erler concludes by reiterating a point he made at the outset:

And the fortunate faithful believe that they know what ambivalent philosophers and agnostic scientists seek to learn.

Aside from using the word "ambivalent" in what I presume is the pejorative sense, and slapping the label "agnostic" on all scientists, notice that Erler does not say, "And the fortunate faithful [] know what ambivalent philosophers and agnostic scientists seek to learn." Before that, Erler stated:

"...they believe that they know the answer to Strauss' question (my translation is "What must God be?") and, through the Bible, already believe they know the mind of God that has eluded Hawking thus far."

Of course, Erler has in mind this quote from Strauss:

The all-important question which is coeval with philosophy although the philosophers do not frequently pronounce it [is] the question quid sit deus.

And this passage from Hawking (note the ellipses):

If we do discover a complete theory, ... we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, ... we would know the mind of God.

So it seems the proponents of creationism and intelligent design are not only quote mining evolutionary biologists, but have also taken to quoting philosophers and physicists to suit their intellectually dishonest purposes. What they fail to realize is that, unlike those who insist upon dogmatically appealing to the their sacred text of choice, a free thinking individual is not bound by the words of some long dead philosopher, and can forgive what is perhaps in retrospect a poor choice of words on the part of an otherwise brilliant physicist.

As far as I'm concerned, the faithful can keep on believing so long as they take care not to disturb those philosophers and scientists who seek not only to learn, but ultimately to know.

Christmas Eve History Lesson

Rise and shine non-believers! Today is a very special day to be an atheist. That's right! It's Christmas Eve, and on a Sunday! Now, before y'all go celebrating the birth of Jesus, our good friend Huey would like every one of you to know the true meaning of Christmas, provided each of you have a long enough attention span.

No Peace On Earth With Atheists Under Fire

An op-ed piece bemoaning this year's illusory "War on Christmas" recently appeared in the Austin American Statesman under the headline "No peace on Earth with Christmas under fire." The author is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, namely William A. Rusher. As is to be expected of someone suffering from delusions of persecution, Rusher began with the usual laundry list of exaggerations:

Unless you are just in from Mars, you can hardly have escaped noticing the nationwide campaign to eliminate all references to Christmas from the public square. Not only is government allegedly forbidden, under the First Amendment, to countenance the erection of Christmas trees, let alone creches, on public property. Even purely private institutions dealing with the public, such as department stores, are under heavy pressure to avoid participating in activities involving Christmas symbols (Christmas trees, again). Even ordinary public chatter is being cleansed of allusions to Christmas, supposedly to avoid hurting the feelings of non-Christians. Hence "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." (link added for much needed comic relief)

Rusher might be surprised to learn that even the most fervent atheists are not so easily offended, and will go so far as to actually celebrate Christmas. Maybe he missed what Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris recently had to say to the New York Times. I suspect that, as Richard Dawkins recently pointed out, Rusher and the like still cling to Christmas as a religious holiday:

But of course it has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too.

So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

Likewise, Sam Harris is quoted as saying:

It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas — giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it — all of that has been entirely appropriated by the secular world in the same way that Thanksgiving and Halloween have been.

But I digress. To be fair, Rusher hasn't specifically mentioned atheists, yet. So far he's merely concerned with those godless liberals running the American Civil Liberties Union:

Who is behind this campaign, and why is it happening just now? By far the biggest institutional promoter of the purge of Christmas from the public square is the American Civil Liberties Union, which endorses the interpretation of the First Amendment as forbidding the slightest taint of religion in our public life.

Here, Rusher is assuming that "forbidding the slightest taint of religion in our public life" is necessarily a bad thing, thus begging the question. Apparently, Rusher can't be bothered to actually confront the ACLU's official position in these matters, according to which "religion [thrives] best when the government [does] not promote some religious beliefs to the exclusion of others." He would much rather proceed directly to impugning those whom he thinks ultimately benefit from such a high wall of separation:

This position has the effect of making atheists the default beneficiaries of the First Amendment. Atheists represent only a small portion of the population (numbers are difficult to come by, but 10 percent would be a generous estimate), but they are extremely influential, heavily represented in various intellectual elites. Hitherto they have chosen to stay below the radar screen of public consciousness, but in recent years a significant number of them have begun speaking out more frankly.

Of course, this is all patent nonsense. As noted above, in baldly asserting that atheists are somehow the "default beneficiaries," Rusher again fails to acknowledge any possible stake religious institutions have in maintaining a separation between church and state. And not only that, but as we shall see, all Rusher can think to do about the noisy non-believers is simply ignore us in the blind hope that we'll just shut up - that is, once we finally come to realize that, in the eyes of the pious, our activites are unworthy of any serious attention:

In a nation as overwhelmingly religious as the United States, one impulse is simply to disregard such efforts as beneath notice. And it is certainly true that, as a people, we oppose the official establishment of any religion, and seek only comity among the many religions represented here (and for that matter with the atheists, too). But it surely cannot be terribly offensive to wish even non-Christians a "Merry Christmas," when all that means is that the wisher believes that something happened in a Palestinian manger 2,000 [years] ago that, properly understood, would give everyone reason to be merry. (my correction)

And here, Rusher seems to think that only Christians wish everyone a "Merry Christmas." More specifically, Christians who do so precisely because they believe Jesus really was born 2,000 years ago in a Palestinian manger. Perhaps Rusher would be even more shocked to learn that atheists, who take no particular joy in the thought of Jesus' birth, are also capable of wishing their friends and family a "Merry Christmas." In a recent post about our little war on Christmas, the esteemed PZ Myers over at Pharyngula had this to add to the remarks of Dawkins and Harris:

I blithely wish people a Merry Christmas without so much as a germ of religious reverence anywhere in my body. I take this holiday and turn it into a purely secular event, with family and friends and food and presents. I celebrate the season without thought of Jesus or any of the other myths so precious to the pious idiots who get upset when a Walmart gives them a cheery "Happy Holidays!".

So, I hope Rusher won't be offended if we cheerfully wish him a very "Merry Christmas!"

Don't Pray For Me When I'm Gone

By way of the Texas Freedom Network, today's Austin American Stateman reports that two employee's of the University of Texas in Arlington, Evelyne Shatkin and Linda Shifflett, were fired after they were caught in the act of praying over a co-workers cubicle, and annointing it with olive oil. Predictably, they have filed suit through the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, claiming their dismissals constituted religious discrimination. In this press release, Shifflett had this to say about getting canned:

"I prayed with co-workers after work for peace and harmony in the department and got fired."

And legal representation for the two plaintiffs is quoted in the Stateman as saying:

"UTA should be ashamed for punishing these two women for simply praying after work on their own time."

Of course, things are not always so simple once all the facts are in. It should be obvious that they weren't simply praying. They were (1) praying, (2) over the cubicle of a co-worker, (3) while that co-worker was not present, (4) without that co-worker's knowledge or permission (5) annointing it with olive oil, and (6) they were trying to be sneaky about it. UTA released a statement to this effect:

"UT Arlington respects our employees' rights to their religious beliefs and does not discriminate on the basis of religion," the statement said. "We cannot comment on personnel matters or cases in litigation. However, the accusations presented in this lawsuit are a gross distortion of the truth."

So why were they fired? According to Amy Schutlz, assistant vice president for development, because the behavior of the two was unbecoming of UTA staff members:

"More specifically, praying, shouting and/or chanting over a co-worker's personal and professional belongings without her knowledge and consent constitutes harassment of a fellow co-worker," she wrote. "In addition, rubbing this co-worker's cubicle with oil is blatant disregard for university property, both of which are identified as behavior that is grounds for dismissal."

The Stateman also reports that both the Texas Workforce Commission and the Texas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supports the UTA administration's decision.

This case certainly has "dismissal" written all over it.

Old Blogger?

Now this is just too much. First Beta took advantage of Rock Star Ryan, thus subverting Bronze Dog's coup de blog, and then Akusi gave in to Beta's sexy new looks. Everyone is switching to Beta, and now I have to sign in as an "Old Blogger." Am I to be shamed into conversion? And who's next? Infophile? He's already gone and changed his template.

What have you ladies and gentlemen? Shall I follow suit?

An Intelligently Designed Immigration Officer

I just can't resist reposting what an evolutionary geneticist by the name of gregonomic had to say about his recent encounter with an IDiotic immigration officer on this thread over at PZ's, celebrating the Discovery Institute's shooting of itself in both feet as of late, while wearing clown shoes, and on the wrong feet no less!

The sooner the embarrassing begins, the better. I re-enter your fine country yesterday, PZ, following a brief trip to the UK.

The immigration officer checked my employment visa, and asked me what I do, to which I replied "Evolutionary genetics". A troubled look came across his face, "Do you believe in evolution?".

"Ummm, yes" I replied, "Do you?".

"Of course not. For someone who studies 'evolutionary' genetics, you should know better. It's all a hoax".

Trying not to incite him into requesting a full cavity search, I said "Well, when you spend all day looking at DNA sequences, it's basically impossible to ignore evolution".

"You've been brainwashed by the scientific ... [pauses, trying to come up with the right word] ... heirarchy ... into thinking that".

[Biting tongue] "Um, OK".

What followed was a barrage of creationist platitudes: "A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution"; "Darwin didn't believe in evolution"; "There's no proof for evolution"; and (my favourite) "It's all part of this whole liberalism culture".

Not the best guy to have protecting you from all these would-be terrorists, I wouldn't have thought.

Indeed, a gem of an anecdote.

A Monstrosity Is Born

The San Antonio Express-News took it upon themselves to remind everyone that for four years now Tinity Church has been staging a nativity scene that can only be described as monstrous. Tonight was the last night to see "The Birthplace of a King: A Drive-Thru Christmas Story," which consists of 50,000 Christmas lights, approximately 140 cast members, and a total of "seven scenes telling the story of Christmas."

"Set on natural outdoor stages with hundreds of sparkling trees and stirring music, scores of elaborately costumed live actors tell the story of that first Christmas so many years ago. Scenes include Mary's Visitation, An Uncertain Journey, Herod's Palace, The Shepherds Wonder, The Marketplace, Kings In Search of the King and The Birthplace of a King. The scenes feature live animals, beautifully designed sets, music and theatrical lighting."

"It is the hope of event coordinators that The Birthplace of A King will be a meaningful experience for your family this Christmas and become an annual holiday tradition."

Bahram Mark Sobhani of the Express-News quite curiously reported that "Birthplace of a King" was merely "one of [San Antonio's] largest live Nativity scenes."

Sunday Morning on Mars

Rise and shine non-believers! It's another wonderful morning to be an atheist! Surely you all know about the Young Earth Creationists, but I'll bet very few of you have heard of the Young Mars Creationists. According to Dimitri Jomamavich, founder of the Institute for Young Mars Creation Science, the Victoria Crator is only 6,000 years old, and the Mars rover Opportunity hates Jesus.

The Opiate of the People

The South Texas Glory Ranch, a rehab facility that "helps cowboys beat drugs through faith," got some ink in today's Austin American Statesman. And it all started when David Jones, founder of the ranch and former meth addict, took that one last hit.

A week later, on the day Jones was leaving for the ranch from his home in Llano, 70 miles west of Austin, he found his last batch of meth and took it, he said. As soon as he did, he said he could already feel a ripple of change.

"I knew when I took it, I was done," he says. "Thank you Jesus."

And he was.

For more than a year now, Jones has been sober and helping guys like himself trade in crank for Christ and the bottle for the Bible.

Of course, Jones doesn't take any of the credit for his good deeds.

They say they are each living and working on faith and that everything that has happened is not because of them, but because of God.

"I just pray that we don't think we've learned so much that we factor Him out and narrow it down to something that's just a program," said Jacky Stephenson, who also runs the rehab. "Hopefully this is a place where their eyes can be opened."

So remember cowboys and cowgirls, just say "no" to drugs, otherwise you might end up at the South Texas Glory Ranch looking for a somewhat different fix.

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

And again, via the Texas Freedom Network, we learn that Forcing religion on consumers is anti-Christmas," by Wayne Madsen. Here are some choice excerpts:

Only America's Religious Right is able to find controversy where it does not exist. There is nothing more anti-Christmas than forcing American businesses and employees to say Merry Christmas. And only in consumerism-run-amok America is it important to force retail workers who make minimum wage to wish every shopper, ``Merry Christmas.''

Humbug to those phony Christians who think Christmas is all about minimum-wage employees uttering vapid niceties to gluttonous shoppers in mega-store foyers and checkout lanes!

...Grinch-like conservatives take the meaning and spirit of "merry" and "Christmas" out of "Merry Christmas" by making its use mandatory and branding those who refuse to conform as "anti-American" and "anti-Christian."

...Confused? Of course you are, that is part of the right-wing's program of dividing and conquering our nation. The Religious Right is combining its own jaded brand of Christianity with a perverted notion of American patriotism to create a dangerous religious-political mutation that transforms the U.S. flag, a unitary presidency, Jesus and Christmas into right-wing political symbols.

...Meanwhile, for those who celebrate Christmas, they should have a very, merry Yuletide without the pressure to have one from a nasty group of political opportunists and rabble rousers who know nothing about the true meaning of Christmas. Allowing a movement that does not believe in free speech to censor the rest of us in the name of their own religion is not what America is all about.

Aside from implicitly denouncing them for not being "true" Christians, whatever that means, Madsen pretty much nails it, particularly his mockery of the religious right as being "anti-Chistmas."

Seeing Isn't Believing

Thanks to the Texas Freedom Network, my attention was momentarily diverted by John F. Fink's "Scientist-believer sees God's hand in evolution," which appeared in the Indianapolis Star last Saturday. I hesitate to call it an op-ed piece because Fink conspicuously neglects to explicitly state his opinion, though the implication is that he does not object to anything he found in The Language of God by Francis Collins. And his bungling introduction certainly doesn't help:

Evolution remains one of today's more controversial issues. Some people deny the scientific accuracy of evolution and espouse creationism, while others insist on intelligent design of the universe. Still others insist that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. The debate over whether evolution should be taught in schools is seen as a conflict between science and religion.

So Fink begins with the oversimplication that creationism and atheism are the two extremes (bad), which leaves intelligent design and eventually the "BioLogos" of Collins looking like the moderate (good) positions. And by the way, if there are any atheists out there claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist, I would sure like to meet them. That way I could explain that proof is a matter of logic and mathematics, and that modern evolutionary theory simply has no need of either hypothesis. Then we could move on to the more compelling reasons for disbelief.

And after touting Collins' credentials for all their worth, which is not much considering their irrelevance, Fink republishes his conclusion:

"God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law."

I'm guessing God also knew that not everyone would agree with Collins:

Collins recognizes that not everyone will agree with this, but he believes that it is "compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world." He says that it's the view espoused by many Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians, including the late Pope John Paul II. He knows, though, that atheistic scientists will reject it because, in their view, it imposes the divine where it's not needed. Nor will biblical fundamentalists, advocates of creationism, accept it.

Thus yet another Christian journalist turned dilettante takes to placating his readers with the idea that the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle.

Further Reading:

Lo and behold, via PZ, Larry Moran has just posted a review of Collins' book.

Sunday Afternoon with Dr. Gene Scott

Rise and shine non-believers! It's another wonderful day to be an atheist! If you've never heard of Dr. Gene Scott, then consider yourself blessed. If you have, you know not to give him any of your money. You may also know that he doesn't respond well to criticism. So please, spare him your letters.

Brad Stine Is Not Funny

Was Jesus Man Enough?

By way of the Texas Freedom Network, I was alerted to a Los Angeles Times article with an intriguing headline, "Manliness is next to godliness," which reports on the latest activities of the GodMen, featuring the "dangerous" personalities of evangelical comedian Brad Stine and the likes of Christian radio host Paul Coughlin. So what exactly do these GodMen believe?

GodMen believes that being a guy is a reason to be proud - not a problem to be fixed. We connect men to their spiritual masculinity - making them dangerous in a righteous way.

You see, they fancy themselves a reactionary movement toward a "return to biblical patterns of masculinity." And if you join them at one of their revivals, no matter what, you will not be "required to cry or hold another man's hand." They promise.

GodMen recently put on such a show in Nashville, and Stine opened up with his routine:

Brad Stine runs onstage in ripped blue jeans, his shirt untucked, his long hair shaggy. He's a stand-up comic by trade, but he's here today as an evangelist, on a mission to build up a new Christian man— one profanity at a time. "It's the wuss-ification of America that's getting us!" screeches Stine, 46.

A moment later he adds a fervent: "Thank you, Lord, for our testosterone!"

That about sums up Stine, as well as the rest of the gang. And it doesn't surprise me that Rick Warren finds him funny. But don't take my word for it.

Like many great gifts from God, you can't really understand GodMen by reading about it. You have to experience it for yourself. If you've read this far, then GodMen is for you. Seats are limited, so sign up today!

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

Sounds like a worthy enough cause to me, so I'll be following this case. I can't make this stuff up, so here's the whole of what the associated press had to say:

The Supreme Court stepped into a dispute over free speech Friday involving a suspended high school student and his banner that proclaimed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The justices agreed to hear the appeal by the Juneau, Alaska, school board and principal Deborah Morse of a lower court ruling that allowed the student's civil rights lawsuit to proceed. The school board hired former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr to argue its case to the high court.

Morse suspended Frederick after he displayed the banner, with its reference to marijuana use, when the Olympic torch passed through Juneau in 2002 on its way to the Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

The school board upheld the suspension, and a federal judge initially dismissed Frederick's lawsuit. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the banner was vague and nonsensical and Frederick's civil rights had been violated.

At that point, the school board retained Starr, who investigated President Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He took the case free of charge.

The appeals court said that even if the banner could be construed as a positive message about marijuana use, the school could not punish or censor a student's speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one the school favors.

Frederick said his motivation for unfurling the banner, at least 14 feet long, was simple: He wanted it seen on television since the torch relay event was being covered by local stations. When Morse saw it, she crossed the street from the school, grabbed the banner and crumpled it. She later suspended Frederick for 10 days.

Morse still works for the Juneau school system but is no longer the high school principal. Frederick is a student at the University of Idaho.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the case in late February. In addition to the First Amendment issue, the court also will consider whether Morse can be held personally liable for monetary damages.

The appeals panel said she could be held liable because she admitted to being aware of the pertinent case law regarding student rights. The court said the law was clear and Morse was aware of it when she punished Frederick.

The case is Juneau School Board v. Frederick, 06-278.

So far I like how things are shaping up.

Christ - mas [kris-muhs]

Last Saturday Bishop Michael Pfeifer of the Catholic Dioces of San Angelo spoke out, and repeatedly "demanded that businesses keep Christ in Christmas," in no uncertain terms:

Christmas, as the very word implies, is all about Christ— or should be. If it weren't for the birth of Christ, there would be no Christmas. Sadly, in recent years, business groups that want our dollars— but not our belief —want to remove Christ from Christmas by doing away with religious displays and the wish of "Merry Christmas," and instead want to use the words, "Happy Holidays."

...I invite all the people of our diocese to take a stand for Christ in preparation for Christmas and during the Christmas season and demand that stores and businesses keep Christ in the Christmas season.

...It is time for Christians to stand up and demand that our stores and places of business use the proper words to describe what this season is all about— it is all about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is the reason for the season and who makes Christmas merry in the best sense of the word.

...If we spend our money at these stores and there are no signs of what the season actually represents, then we Christians need to demand that Christ be put back into Christmas using the word "Christmas" and that we also recognize Hanukkah, which is a part of this religious season.

Gee, don't go out of your way or anything. But while you're at it Bishop Pfeifer, why not recognize Kwanzaa? After all, you did complain that:

Last year, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, began the Christmas season with discriminatory policies —treating Hanukkah and Kwanzaa with respect while showing nothing but disrespect for Christmas. (my emphasis)

But I guess that wasn't really where you were going with that, was it?

Our goal, as Christians, is to let all the merchants know that they must acknowledge Christmas and Hanukkah as religious holidays. While it is within good reason to purchase and share material gifts, we need to remember the one whose birthday we are celebrating, because without Christ, the Christmas season loses all of its meaning. Our primary gift must be for Christ.

Of course, you still recognize Hanukkah, right? Or maybe not?

Remember, Christ is the reason for the season. Most of all, make sure that your Advent and Christmas are focused on the real, true spiritual meaning of what the Incarnation is all about, otherwise all the gifts we buy and share with others will lose their meaning.

For the record Bishop Pfeifer, I don't give a flying shit in hell. 'Tis the season!

More on Bishop Michael Pfeifer:

Church documents now emerging in civil litigation show that the diocese let seminary candidate Agusti Huerres come to Texas from Spain in 1999 without getting what the bishop once called "the most important document" - a recommendation from the religious order he had left there or an explanation for his departure. Mr. Huerres began living and working at a San Angelo parish, where he was accused in 2000 of pulling down a teenage boy's pants, touching his buttocks and taking his underwear. The boy's family promptly went to the diocese and police, then agreed not to press charges after being summoned to a meeting with a prosecutor and Bishop Pfeifer's representatives. The representatives sent Mr. Huerres back to Spain immediately. Church officials' notes say that Mr. Huerres admitted the misconduct to them - "He said he had 'lost control,' that his 'wires were crossed.' " The bishop has denied the family's allegation of negligence. In early June, another of his priests was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a girl in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Rev. Miguel Esquivel was removed from ministry this spring after the accuser went to Bishop Pfeifer. Her attorney said that the diocese, which Bishop Pfeifer has headed since 1985, got other complaints about Father Esquivel about a decade ago but allowed him to keep working. Bishop Pfeifer acknowledged that several women had complained of sexual harassment and that he sent the priest into treatment, on to another parish and ultimately to his most recent assignment as a prison chaplain in New Mexico. (my emphasis)

And be sure to have a Happy Festivus for the Rest of Us!

Benny Hinn Is Hell On Sunday Morning

Rise and shine non-believers! It's another wonderful morning to be an atheist! I suggest you all steer clear of Benny Hinn today. Word has it God gave him a Holy Ghost machine gun and he's going to blow your skeptical little heads off!

"In the Name of God"

An ecumenical artist named Jens Galschioet has erected a statue of a crucified pregnant teenager outside a church in Denmark (looks like someone will have to update that wiki entry). That should raise a few eyebrows.