'Tis the Season, for Reason, and Peace. Atheists AND Religious groups

It's Chrismas time.  And God is more prevalent than any other time of the year.  Many homes put up nativity scenes, showing Mary and Joseph around a crib with a baby Jesus, and some have Wise Men and maybe animals to complete the scene.

A local church has an event, open to everyone, of a Bethlehem, including Roman soldiers, a census taker, two inns, a stable (or manger) and animals such as sheep, a donkey, and camels.  They tell the story of Jesus birth and finish with beautiful Christmas music.

Christmas music is heard most everywhere, in stores and on the radio.

Is this a problem?  Should any or all of these be eliminated or 'outlawed'.  Of course not.  These are all done by people and businesses and not mandated by government.

Now look out at the street and look at the ad on the bus going by.  It says "Millions of Americans are Good without God."  Are you offended?  Perhaps.  Does the ad stay on the bus?  Of course.

The Metroplex Atheists of Dallas-Fort Worth placed the ads because "we want to tell people they are not alone."  During Christmas time, many people feel alone or alienated because they don't have someone to share the 'holiday spirit' with.  The Metroplex Atheists are reaching out to people.  "It can be pretty lonely for a nonbeliever at Christmas time around here," says Mr McDonald, chairman of a local Atheist group.

Some religious groups have tried to boycott the buses or get the bus line to stop advertising any religious ads.  But all ads are welcome (excluding tobacco and alcohol).  As they should be.

Mr Edwords, national directory of the United Coalition of Reason says of the money spent on the ads, "That's more brouhaha for the buck than we have seen anywhere."  Which only incites more anger from religious groups.

Both sides need to relax, take a deep breath, and go about their business.  Both sides can advertise to their hearts content, and talk to people, and keep everything on a positive level.

Peace.  What a concept.

----------
Atheist Ads on Buses Rattle Fort Worth (New York Times)

While I agree with the sentiment, the New York billboard, featuring a nativity scene, is over the line.  For the Holidays, an Atheism Billboard (New York Times)  This one is part of a 'war on Christmas'.  Nothing good will come of it.

Free Speech rights at funerals comes to U.S. Supreme Court

Fred Phelps, who has a church with about 75 members, mostly his family, protest at funerals.  Really?  Are they protesting the way the funeral is held?  Or the funeral company?  Or an individual?

No, they protest because the federal government (and America in general) embraces gays.  And gays are bad.  And God is killing American soldiers because he's upset about the gay embracing.

They also protest at music concerts, sporting events and even a Holocaust Museum.  Reprehensible as their proclamations and signs are ("Fags Doom Nations") they have a right to Free Speech under the First Amendment.

As disgusting and anti-Christian as they are (God DOES love everyone), someone has died.  Whether you like or dislike the person, their attitudes, or actions, they have died.  Their family should be allowed respect to bury them; without anyone disturbing them.

Phelps and his religious family are smart about it, though.  They don't protest right next to the funeral.  They are some distance away.  They don't target any individual person (dead or alive).  They protest generically, holding up signs and chanting things such as "God Hates Fags"; and "God Bless IEDs".

This case isn't about simply protesting at a funeral, it is specifically about speech directed at an individual, in this case, the soldier's father. 

Having said all of this, I know the U.S. Supreme Court will fall on the side of Free Speech, as they should.  Fred Phelps and his followers will probably be allowed to continue their homophobic hate speech.  And gay soldiers will continue to die for our freedoms.  And America will embrace gays more and more over the years, just as they did with Civil Rights and Women's Rights. 

Maybe Fred Phelps will pass soon, and his followers will disperse, with no one taking the reigns.  Then there will be no more media coverage of this loony-toon.  One can only hope.

US weighs rights for anti-gay church (The Age)

Here is a good article on Fred Phelps and his beliefs:  Fred Phelps and Goodness (InSearchOfGoodness)

Even the hatefulness of Fred Phelps is protected by this country’s free speech (KansasCity.com)

Government has no part in who counselors can and cannot counsel.

I agree with this opinion piece that the government does not have a say in what a person can and can't study because the student won't apply the degree the way the schools wants them to.

Julea Ward was studying for her Masters in Counseling.   When the school found out she refused to counsel homosexuals, because of her religous beliefs, they expelled her.

As the article states, it would be impossible to expect all counselors to counsel everyone in all situations.  Sometimes their biases are so strong that they would be unable to give proper counseling for the patient.

An Attack on Religion and Counseling (NewsBlaze)

Home Schooled or Public Schooled?

Current opinion: none

I have two cousins who home school their children. One cousin has home schooled, I believe, five children and the other is in the process of home schooling two children. They both swear by it. I spoke briefly with them some years ago about home schooling and why they did it. In general, it was to give them a better learning enviornment than they could have in public or even private schools. They said their children could focus on learning while in school and not be distracted by many of the issues that affect public school children such as negative peer pressure, others' disinterest in school, and being taught 'objectionable' material, among others.

Home schooling is not just a free-for-all of teaching your child whatever you want. The state still has minimum requirements such as math skills, english skills, and science. And many of the home schooled children leave home schooling for public High School because they are more mature and can handle peer pressure better. They also usually score better on tests once they enter High School because they are ahead of other students.

Which brings up a point... Most home schooling is done by religious people who don't want certain subjects (such as evolution and sex education) to be taught to their child. And many Christians believe they are required to give their children a 'Christian education'.

When most people, myself included, hear about home schooling we ask "but what about getting interaction with other children? Aren't they missing out?" Home schooled children are usually part of an outside organization (4H club, Girl/Boy Scouts) or they volunteer or go on field trips and are on sports teams. They also get together with other families who home school and build lasting relationships with other children their own age.

Social Skills and Homeschooling: Myths and Facts (FamilyEducation.com)

So what about public schools? Are they really that bad?

The dropout rate for public schools, in the 2007-2008 year, was 4.1% across all states. While that percentage may sound low, that's over 600,000 students. Public School Graduates and Dropouts (U.S. Dept of Education) Dropout rates for home schooling? I couldn't find any statistics on it and I have never heard of children dropping out of home schooling.

Public schools have a lot of students. It is difficult (impossible?) to teach to the level that every student needs. Some students will be bored by the curriculum. Some are way over their heads.

Peer pressure is an issue, no matter where students go. But public schools have such a diverse population there are all kinds of personal influences. Apathy, drugs, violence contribute to a less-than-ideal learning envionment.

Not every family can afford the time and money (or lack of it since one parent will stay home) necessary to teach their children at home. Many are not capable of home-schooling their children in various subjects. But for those who can and want to do it, I can't find any reasons why it shouldn't be done. The children excel in most subjects and are socially involved.

New opinion: If families can afford the time and money to home-school their children, it is a win-win.

Lying to a woman to have sex is rape?

A court in Israel has declared that a man who lied to a woman to have sex, in fact raped her because of that lie. The implication is that it doesn't matter what he lied about but simply the fact that he lied.

Israeli Court Calls Lying for Sex Rape (New York Times Blog)

Seems to me that the issue is really Jewish/Arab based. If the man had said he was wealthy and was not, I don't think the woman would have taken him to court. Pure speculation, of course, but racial tensions are high in the region and it seems like this was the real reason.

If a woman will have sex with someone who tells her things about himself and doesn't check on them, then who is to blame? The man is at fault for lying, but the woman gave herself willingly. Should either of them be held 'legally responsible'? Should either of them be taken to court?

One area where this could go to court is if one partner asked the other if they were 'disease free', for HIV, for example, and they were not. Then the aggrieved party could take the person to court for endangering their life.

But going to prison for 'lying for sex'? Not even.

Does God approve of vandalism?

In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance (Wikipedia).  In 1954, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill which inserted 'Under God' into the Pledge.

In recent years, some peoples and organizations have objected to the inclusion of 'Under God' and have tried to have it removed to no success.

Recently, a group called the North Carolina Secular Association paid for advertising on billboards around the state simply saying "One Nation, Indivisible" showing how the original Pledge of Allegiance was written.  A minister at the Trinity Baptist Church is having his own ads placed on billboards saying "One Nation, Under God".

A vandal spray-painted "Under God" on the Secular billboard.  The vandal(s) should be caught and prosecuted for their crime.   And if someone spraypaints a big X across "Under God" on the Religious billboard, they should also be prosecuted for their crime.

Both groups have the right to their Free Speech.  If someone disagrees, they can put out their own ads.  Or distribute flyers.  Or go on their local radio station to disagree.

Billboard Battle in Bible-Belt (ABC News)

Ban the burqa?

Belgium is well on it's way to banning the burqa and niqab that many Muslim women wear. And other European countries may follow suit. Short Burqa Article(NPR)

Some issues I have heard in recent years are in France, in 2009, the French President said 'burqas are not welcome in France' because 'we cannot accept that women are prisoners behind a screen'. In 2005, in Florida, a woman's claim that she wants her drivers license photo taken while wearing her burqa was denied by a Florida court.

Women of Muslim faith are required to wear a burqa for religious reasons. Does this mean that her faith trumps law? We DO have a separation of church and state, but we also have laws that prevent people from doing harm, even if religion is involved. Terrorism is cited as the main reason for preventing women from having their faces covered in their photos. Should this be considered on a case by case basis?

What do you think? Should a woman be allowed to wear her burqa for her driver's license? Should she be denied her license if she refuses? Driving IS a privilege, after all, not a right.

An excellent article can be found here: Europe's Burqa Wars

Nun demoted for approving life-saving abortion

A nun in Phoenix, AZ was demoted and excommunicated for her role in a decision to perform an abortion. The abortion was necessary, according to the hospital ethics committed, of which the nun was a member, because the patient would have died. The patient had pulmonary hypertension which would have been fatal because of the pregnancy.

According to this article, 'the pregnancy carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother'. Hospital nun rebuked for allowing abortion in Phoenix (USA Today)

More on the story: Phoenix nun and her abortion decision (Arizona Daily Star)

But it is clear the Bishop didn't care about the woman's life. Seems it could have been a 'certain risk' instead of a 'nearly certain risk' and it would still have been sin to perform the abortion.

So the Bishop is saying, in effect, 'it is better to have two people dead, than to have one living because an abortion was performed'. What a crock! The obvious solution is NOT go to go a Catholic hospital for any medical conditions that could be terminal. Or maybe not to go to one at all, just in case things become 'complicated'.

The decision was made with the full cooperation and understanding of the mother. And as long as she is in her 'right mind', that's all that is needed. The Catholic Church be damned!

An opinion via NPR: Sister Margaret McBride: Don't Confess (NPR)