Frank the Financially Savvy Atheist - The F.S.A.

A Mother's Denial, a Daughter's Death
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050924/ts_latimes/amothersdenialadaughtersdeath

This article depicts an unfortunate and completely preventable tragedy. A mother, who doesn't buy into mainstream medicine, has lost her 3-year-old daughter. The cause of death, AIDS-related pneumonia. The article states: "given advances in HIV care, it's highly unusual for any young children to die of AIDS"

Why does this always happen to the children of these people? Skepticism is fine, it's just fine. You have a constitutional right to be skeptical. You have a constitutional right to believe whatever the hell you want. But why do children always pay for this skepticism/belief? That little girl did not have to die. This happens to Christian Scientist's children as well. These people don't believe in modern medicine and their kids end up dying from a god-damn bug bite or some shit like that. I'm so fucking pissed right now. I have two sons and I would do anything to make sure that they're ok.

For fuck sake man, it's always the fucking innocent kids whose only sin was being born to two fucked-up parents. Fuck it all.

Remember when the country was capitvated by whether or not we should display the 10 commandments on public grounds? I think the question we should have been asking was: "Which ten commandments".

Taken from Exodus 34:

14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
24For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk

Interfaith group unveils public school bible course
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/22/bible.textbook.ap/index.html
After reading the above article, I wasn't quite sure what to think/feel. Should I feel angry that once again the religious right is trying to violate the establishment clause? Or, should I take note and be hopeful since "secular experts" contributed to the process?

They do raise a valid point. You can't do well in an AP class without knowing that certain things are biblical allusions. However, why couldn't that just be pointed out in the class while reading certain works (i.e. Shakespeare)? Heck, even Cliff Notes and Spark Notes will mention the relevant allusions. Why can't that be good enough? Regardless, I went to the website to check it out. They had some sample chapters, so I took a gander to see what it's like. Here is a quote:

Non-devotional teaching about the Bible is important because the Bible is in every aspect of society. In literature, authors such as William Shakespeare, John Milton, and William Faulkner all use biblical references in their writing. Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe is a very influential book in American history. It is so rich with biblical characters and symbols that it cannot be understood or appreciated without some knowledge of Bible narratives. In art, the Bible is not only reflected in masterpieces by Leonardo da Vinci, by Michelangelo, by Raphael, and by Caravaggio, but there are biblical references in such modern films as The Matrix. The fact that the Bible is a best seller a few thousand years after the books were collected shows its value for people’s lives. I don’t think my education would be complete if I didn’t learn about the Bible.(emphasis added)

Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. Abington v. Schempp (emphasis added)

Should atheism be considered a religion? The obvious answer, to me at least, is no, atheism is not a religion; it is the lack of religion, specifically the lack of belief in any deity. However, there is legal precedent that basically states that atheism is a religion for legal purposes.

There was an inmate in Wisconsin who wanted to start an atheist study group for his fellow convicts, but was barred from doing so by the State. He ended up suing the State requesting that he be allowed for the same reason that other inmates are allowed to attend church services and partake in religious ceremonies. The lawyers for the state argued that since atheism isn't a religion, that he should not be allowed the same right as other inmates. The judge ruled that for legal purposes, atheism will be considered a religion, and he should be allowed to hold his sessions.

Why does this matter? Shortly after the pledge was ruled unconstitutional, a coworker and I were discussing the matter (I'm pretty sure he's a Christian and he doesn't know that I'm an atheist), and he said that the establishment clause in the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". He used to be a lawyer and he pretty much recited it verbatim. His point was that by deeming the pledge unconstitutional, the judge was actually furthering a specific religion, atheism! To which I asked, "So, is atheism a religion." He said frankly, yes, it's just another world view. I retorted, that I don't think atheism is a religion, it's the abscence of religion. Neither of us pressed it much after that and seeing as how he's technically my boss, I didn't want to argue any further. Although, we did agree that if the case went to the Supreme Court, it would most likely me over-turned, as I mentioned in my other post.

This raises an interesting question though. One could make a case that because atheism is a legal religion, that the judge ruling in favor of the atheist families was actually promoting that religion, which is a clear violation of the establishment clause. It's a Catch-22, we wouldn't be able to have it declared unconstitutional and in violation of the establishment clause, because doing so would be a violation of the establishment clause. Sounds pretty absurd, but I'm not a lawyer.

If anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I'd love to hear it. Should atheism be considered a religion, legally or otherwise? Will this play a part in the pledge ruling going forward.

The Pledge has been found unconstitutional...again. The judge in the case cited the precedence set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of course, the religious right is planning to appeal...to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is most likely that the precedence will be upheld. After that, it's the U.S. Supreme Court. Before we all start our heathenistic celebration and drunken bacchanalian festivals, we need to step back and ask, what will this accomplish. There are 3 scenarios as far as I see it:
1. The case is taken to the Supreme Court (where Newdow was dismissed last time on a minor technicality in 2002), Judge Roberts and the new Supreme Court rule in favor of Newdow and the words "under God" is stricken from the pledge. Bush still has one spot left on the court to decide and instead of a possible centrist he appoints the most conservative mother fucker he can push through Congress by calling in every favor he and his administration has. Not only that, those crazy evangelicals are now up in arms about how liberal activist judges are destroying the Constitution and are waging a war on religion. The backlash is an increasingly antagonistic environment for anyone who claims to be an atheist or to actually believe that the Court was correct in its decision. End results: atheists, freethinkers, humanist, and etc are fucked up the ass (even more so than before).

2. The case is taken to the Supreme Court and Judge Roberts and the new Supreme Court obviously overrules the decision citing the usual reason that there are inextricable links to religion (or something like that, I don't remember the exact language) in our society. Bush then appoints a centrist female judge to the Court, but it doesn't matter. The evangelicals declare victory and decide to push for more thanks to good 'ol W. Now their mobilized and hankerin' for more, and before you know it, we have a theocracy. End results: atheists, freethinkers, humanist, and etc are fucked up the ass (even more so than before).

3. The case is once again dismissed on some sort of technicality and we wait some more for Newdow to take it back to the Supreme Court. end results: ambiguous

These are just three of a possible thousand scenarios. Other things that might be of concern is, what would certain states do if the case was upheld. Would they honor the ruling, or just pass laws that circumvented the ruling. I think it depends. Plus, any potential backlash could prove to be short-lived (unlikely). Just to be clear, I'm fairly certain that if this makes it to the Supreme Court that it's going to be over-turned. There is no way that with two open spots on the Supreme Court that Bush is gonna fuck this up. It's possible, but it's unlikely. I would bet money on that. So, I'll be waiting, just like everyone else.

p.s. it's nice to be back, I've been busy with work and my house, I hope that I'll be able to contribute to the atheist community more as time goes on

Pledge of allegiance is declared unconstitutional: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-pledge-of-allegiance,1,331572.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

more to come later