We pledge allegiance to the Bible. The Old Testament shall be our sole and only Constitution.

Since this has been religion week here we might as well cap it off with a comparison of the speeches by one great man 47 years ago and one not-so-great man just yesterday.

On Sept. 12, 1960 John F. Kennedy gave speech on religion to a group of Protestant clergy outlining his philosophy on that subject and what he saw as the role of the church and the state

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Yesterday Gov. Mitt Romney outlined his own philosophy on religion in our society and though it was meant to echo Kennedy's words, at least in form, in truth it stands in stark contrast to Kennedy's views.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Kennedy-

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

Romney-

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

To sum up and paraphrase both speeches:

Kennedy- "I am a religious man but my greater loyalty is to our constitution. The separation of church and state is absolute. The government protects our liberties including our freedom to worship as we see fit."

Romney- "I am a religious man and acknowledge that there is a separation of church and state but it shouldn't be enforced in any meaningful way. Liberty is derived from religion and not the other way around.

Forgive me but I'll take Kennedy's America over Romney's any day of the week.

Doesn't it do anything but snow up here? We've had a blizzard every day for the past two months.

Amongst the myriad of proof signifying the increase in global warming I'd like to point you towards a couple of stories. The first was in today's Big O entitled Big, wet storms may become new 'normal.'

The steamy tropical belt around Earth's midsection, birthplace of the powerful storm that pounded the Northwest this week, is expanding much faster than scientists studying global warming expected.

It's now as wide as climate models suggested it would be at the end of this century, new research shows. The rapid growth is another sign that bigger storms carrying more rain may become the new "normal" in the Northwest, especially in fall and early winter.

Snabby's been blogging about the recent Storm of the Century(tm)
this week. Apparently those of us in the Northwest are going to see more of this. So we got that going for us.

Perhaps more troubling are the findings of NFL Meteorologists- NFL Meteorologists Warn Steaming Black-Guy Heads Occurring Later Every Year.

NEW YORK—Steaming black-guy heads, the traditional sign of approaching winter for generations of football fans, have been occurring later in the season with every passing year, a fact that may be evidence of a climatic change with long-term effects on football itself, top scientists in the meteorological department of the National Football League said in a study released Monday.

"The phenomenon of weather-related African-American supracranial vaporous emission, or 'Steaming Black-Guy Heads,' as it is colloquially known, occurs when cold dry winter air comes into contact with hot, humid, shaven heads of football players, causing their personal water vapor to condense and rise on a column of heated air," the statement read in part. "It is then observed by network cameramen, who overwhelmingly choose to film African-American players due to the dramatic contrasts that result—especially when the player in question is backlit—and beamed to millions of households during time-outs, replay reviews, and other stoppages of play. The viewers then realize that winter has come to America."

Will it be possible for even George W. Bush to ignore this latest scientific evidence? Only time will tell.

Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!

"Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" - President George W. Bush - yesterday.

I know. I also know that anyone who disputes the verdict of an Inquisitor is guilty of heresy.

The great thing about despising the League of Morality Poobas & Religious Whiners that seem to be everywhere these days is there are so many different ways that we lesser angels can stick it to the man. Whether you're driving them bonkers by insisting on using the phrase "Happy Holidays," or spending a few hours refreshing your children's understanding of the science of evolution you're really spending very little effort or energy in the pursuit of driving the Ratzingers, Dobsons, O'Reillys and Donohues of the world absolutely bonkers.

Personally I plan on doing my part this holiday season by taking my kids to see the film "The Golden Compass" which opens this weekend. The protests/ calls for boycott by the "Catholic League" make it THE film to catch for those of us who A) recognize Bill Donohue is a crazy son-of-a-bitch and B) recognize that our children's moral upbringing doesn't hinge on the vigorous application of dogmatic religion. Apparently we aren't alone in that last observation. There are even some Catholics who recognize this as relected in this review of "The Golden Compass."

I want my children to understand that human beings and institutions are fallible. That sometimes those who claim moral authority can traffic in corruption and abuse. I want them to be angry at every wrong perpetuated in the name of God. To question authority. To be feisty troublemakers for positive change. I've told my daughters that no one knows for certain that there's a God or a heaven. I always thought that was the beauty of faith -- that it rests on our willingness to believe in the things we can't prove, to consider, when we look up at the stars or contemplate the elegance of a DNA sequence, the possibility of a higher architecture. I hope that my daughters will find contentment and community in their religion. But I would rather they grow up to be kind, generous unbelievers than sanctimonious, blindly dogmatic Christians.

Amen to that last sentence and pass the popcorn. I'm going to the movies.

These dances and this kind of music can be destructive.

While I'm on the subject of religion-gone-wacky I'd point you towards Ratzinger's latest example of stupidity.

Pope Benedict XVI strongly criticized modern-day atheism in a major document released today, saying it had led to some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known to mankind.

Uh-huh. Because it was atheists who flew those buildings into the Twin Towers. It was an atheist President who saw it as his moral duty, ordained by God, to invade Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's atheists who deny the importance of stem-cell research or the human contributions of global warming or the dignity of women or who refuse to acknowledge that the advancement of science can indeed ease human suffering.

Jackass.

Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, although he acknowledges that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time.

This is going to sound trite but it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that a former Hitler Youth has a problem with Marxism. I write this only to point out that maybe, just maybe, his moral objections to Marxism have a longer, more personal history than Ratzinger's ordination so many years ago.

As for lumping Nazism in with Marxism I have no doubt that Hitler was an atheist but I would like to point once again how much he co-opted Christianity into the Nazi state. (See here.)

Update- More religious craziness. Whether it's a blasphemous book, movie or name for a teddy-bear the faithful certainly do a good job of getting in every one's face when they don't fall into line.

Um... Evolution?

If you've been following the drama of Teddy Bear Trial of a British national in Sudan then you may be wondering as I am why any sane person would consider religion, any religion, a reasonable framework to hang one's moral framework. Whether it's naming a stuffed animal after a prophet or insisting that the ten commandments belong in civil courtrooms the commonality of insensitivity to the broader society they inhabit shared by many people of faith is undeniable. Is there really that much difference between the office clerk in Sudan that ratted out this poor British teacher or the fundamentalist nutjob in Kansas that insists evolution is controversial?

A pox on all their houses.

Hey laddyyyy!

Issue #423 as to why we should tell Senator Clinton to take a flying leap: She suggests she'd nominate Colin Powell as an Ambassador to "restore the reputation of the United States."

Oy.

There was a time when I found the idea of such bipartisanship appealing. We're all Americans, after all. That was view was completely naive obviously.

Powell was the king of playing the coy, non-partisan soldier before the 2000 election. Then he joined the Bush team after Bush "won" office and the rest is history. He can pretend now that he was misled. He can say the intelligence was wrong even though we know the intelligence team at State had it exactly right. He can pretend he was just being a good soldier in serving the Commander in Chief. None of that matters. None of it.

When it became clear publicly that there were no WMD and that, under the best of circumstances, the administration took us to war for the wrong reasons, the honorable thing for Powell to do in that situation would've been to draw an "X" on his chest and pull a General Tojo.

Powell has the blood of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis on his hands and he's never apologized. Never.

I know that in the fantasy world of Washington Powell is still considered to be some sort of hero because he resigned long after the point he could have actually done anything and where it would cause the least political damage to our Boy King, but Powell is nothing but a dishonorable toady to an incompetent administration. His legacy is lying dramatically to the United Nations. Period.

It says a hell of lot about Clinton that she would even float this nonsense. I'm all for bipartisanship but anyone that had anything to do with this administration should be automatically disqualified. Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. are just too stupid or too incompetent or both to be involved on any level with our government in the future. The stakes are just too important.

Look at me - underestimated from Day One. You'd never think I was a master of the universe, now, would you?

With regards to Cheney's irregular heartbeat just a couple of thoughts-

+ If, God forbid, something happens to Cheney does Bush become President?

+ I would recommend to any parents of small children in the D.C. area that they keep a close eye on their kids in the next couple of days. If Cheney's condition is serious he'll have to sacrifice something more important than a goat to the Dark Lord in order to keep his ticker going.

+ Could this just be Presidential politics? Cheney steps down and Bush puts Giuliani in office so he's got the inside track in the election?

And he, he himself, the Grinch, carved the roast beast.

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Me - I had a ton of fun playing RPGs with Swinebread and Overdroid. One character mostly insane and the other sacrificed to save the world. Woohoo!

I saw a couple of flicks and thoroughly enjoyed both despite the fact they were worlds apart. "The Mist" was a brave horror film on a lot of levels as it had a LOT of talking and character development but what really sets it apart from current big stream horror was a cynical, kick you squarely in the nuts ending that echoed "The Illustrated Man" from years ago.

But the film I absolutely LOVED was "Enchanted." I'm serious. The thing has a strong "Princess Bride" vibe to it with lots of plays on Disney storytelling and faerie tales. Very funny, happy movie that's a lot better than the trailers make it look.

I don't know about you but I'm turkey'ed out. Bring on the Christmas Roast Beast!

Wormer.

He's right. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

When I add this to Barack Obama's inability to take a strong stand, silly "moderate" positioning on issues like homosexuality (Centrism means taking a position somewhere in the middle between the view that gays are functioning members of society and those that think that gays are evil and must die now) and lack of progressive street cred I have to say there is no way in hell I'd support the guy.

Space exploration, which accounts for about half of 1% of the general budget, should not even be on the table when it comes to cutting spending or changing priorities. Finding and facing a challenge is in our fundamental make-up as a species, not to mention our identity as a nation. The problem is that those without imagination (i.e. conservatives) continue to try and create challenges in pushing for war and creating enemies whether it's the USSR* or Islamofascists.

We need leaders with the foresight to recognize this and the courage to inspire us to face the challenges of saving our environment, fighting hunger and poverty, curing fucking cancer and, yes; exploring the unknown in space and the world's oceans. We need leaders that recognize we're wasting resources in fighting false challenges (Space Shield, anyone?) and that the defense budget should be the first place we look when when we need to tighten our belt. Obama is not such a leader.

This guy was---




(*I am not arguing that the USSR was not a real threat to the security of the United States and western Europe but only that the response in terms of dollars spent on defense was disproportionate to the extent of that threat.)