World News Korner

Vashti McCollum and her son James.

Courtesy of the Freedom from Religion Foundation:

On this date in 1948, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCollum v. Board of Education, barring religious instruction in public schools, was handed down, with a vote of 8 to 1. The dramatic case was brought by Vashti McCollum, a mother in Champaign, Ill., on behalf of her son, Jim. In her enduring book about the challenge, One Woman's Fight, Vashti described how Jim was punished by teachers and teased by students for not taking part in religious instruction illegally taught in his public school. Although she lost at the first two court levels and was treated as "a very unpopular woman," Vashti did not give up. Her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in a stunning victory for separation of church and state, which is still the prevailing precedent in public school law today. Vashti was an Honorary Officer of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. She died at age 93 in 2006.

“Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the State is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. 'The great American principle of eternal separation' — Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition — is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity.”

—Justice Frankfurter, concurrence, McCollum v. Board of Education

Everybody has the right to beelive whatever they need to in order to help them get through this life.

However they have NO right to teach it as fact to a classroom full of trusting children.


Source

Courtesy of the Times Union:

The pastor of a Lansingburgh Baptist church plans to give away an AR-15 assault rifle to the winner of a free raffle at an upcoming Sunday service.

A provocative flier he distributed rallied supporters of gun rights and stirred controversy among anti-gun advocates and some who considered it un-Christian.


The Rev. John Koletas, pastor of Grace Baptist Church, said the service and gun raffle are aimed at "honoring hunters and gun owners who have been so viciously attacked by the antichristian socialist media and antichristian socialist politicians the last few years," according to a letter he posted on the church website.

Koletas, who works as a Rensselaer County court reporter, said he wanted to show support for Second Amendment rights.

"I'm just trying to be a blessing and a help to the gun owners and the hunters and give away a free AR-15," he said. "It's the right thing to do."

You know when much this same kind of thing happened in Kentucky I was ready to write it of as just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies who may not clearly understand the teachings of Jesus, but this church is in New York.

So apparently this is now a thing.

I could go on an atheist rant about the hypocrisy of something like this, but I am actually too saddened to bother.

Apparently if religion is going to die out in this country, it is not planning to go without a fight.

Source

Courtesy of LA Times:

Members of the huge millennial generation are less religious, less likely to call themselves “patriotic” and significantly more‎ liberal than older generations, new research shows.

Although adults aged 18-33 are much more likely to call themselves political independents than their elders are, they are also far more likely to vote Democratic. Their views favoring activist government, as well as their stands on social issues such as gay rights, reinforce that voting behavior, an extensive study by the Pew Research Center shows.

The youngest generation of adults, born after 1980, has the most optimism about the country. That comes despite the economic difficulties that a large share of them have experienced since entering the workforce. And it stands in contrast with some previous generations: Baby boomers, for example, born between 1946 and 1964, were less optimistic than their elders at this stage of their lives.

The millennials are also the only generation of adults with more people who identify themselves as liberals than as conservatives. Just less than one-third of millennials call themselves liberals while about one-quarter identify as conservative. And nearly half say they have become more liberal as they have aged, with 57% saying their views on social issues have become more liberal over time.

By contrast, among members of the baby boom generation, 41% call themselves conservative and only 21% identify as liberals. And baby boomers are more likely to say that growing older has made them more conservative. On this and most other issues, the views of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) fall between those of the baby boom and millennial generations, and the views of those born before the baby boom are more conservative.

The fact that the Millennials are becoming MORE liberal as they grow older flies in the face of conventional wisdom and indicates a real and fatal danger to the conservative movement in this country.

I am still going to reserve some healthy skepticism as I have seen how even very reasonable and well educated people can be frightened into embracing conservative, and even nationalistic, points of view in reaction to overarching fear. As we all saw demonstrated after 9-11.

Not to mention that I once believed that the so-called Baby Boomers were going to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity in this country.

Imagine my anger and disappointment in how that worked out.

Having said that however I am still at my core an optimist so I do indeed hold out hope that this new generation will shame those of us who came before with their humanity, their imagination, and their dedication to peace.

Source

Let's see I should probably start off by saying something nice.

Something nice, something nice, something nice. There.

Okay seriously I will say that she is on better medications than she was during her LAST appearance on Fox News. At least she does not look half embalmed this time.

But is she any more articulate?

Yeah, right.

Let's see she still hates Obamacare, wants it repealed. (I'm sorry "repilled.")

When Greta asks how the Republican party can attract lower income people to the GOP, which of course is conservative speak for non-whites, this was Palin's response:

"That's exactly what the planks in the platform of the Republican party are supposed to be standing...we stand on that, that's what they are supposed to be representing is equal opportunity for everyone. To apply self initiative so that they can all be lifted up."

Did you get that poor people? The Republican party HAS been trying to help you, but you are too un-self initialized to let them.

When Greta decided to press Palin about the REALLY underprivileged and how the party can reach them, Palin goes further down a racist rabbit hole.

"Well you know a practical way to entice them to understand what the Republican party is all about, at least what we Conservatives are all about, is to show examples of those who have grown up in less than ideal conditions, and succeeded because they've decided they will not be dependent upon a MASTER called government. They will do it themselves. They will adopt a work ethic. And though, you know, they don't have a silver spoon they...they will create that by working very hard and seizing every opportunity. You can only do that in America."

This sounds like a solid plan, if you are an idiot and do not realize that you know nothing about what it is like to be born black and poor in America. It is kind of hard to develop a "work ethic" when there is no work.

And as for that "master" comment concerning government? Well that is just straight up racist.

Greta then gives Palin the opportunity to attack the media for not giving her accolades for predicting that Putin would invade the Ukraine.

“I don’t like an unfair, biased media unless they declare that, of course they are biased, that they’re opinion talkers. Those that are supposed to be journalists getting the who, what, when, where and why for the people to be able to decide themselves an issue? No, I don’t like those who so interject their own opinion that they become very unfair.”

Okay does anybody else realize that she simply described herself, and the cable news channel she is currently appearing on, in that paragraph? Or was that just me?

So it comes time for Greta to ask Palin who she likes in the 2016 presidential race.

Actually Palin refuses to endorse any of the current crop of wannabes, though of course she likes Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, but suggests instead that it should be somebody outside of politics that gets the nomination. A business person, or family man or woman perhaps. (Donald Trump?)

So Greta asked the obligatory "Do you have any plans to run" question. And Palin provides the obligatory non-answer:

"Sounds cliche, but you never say never. Now at this point I don't have a team of people you know getting out there doing these poll tested...whatever to let you know if you should run or not. I don't have any of that organization going. I'll never say never. It depends on what it is that Americans want, really, really want in a candidate. If they want a fighter, if they want someone who can so respect our exceptionalism, everything that makes America great, the promise of America. And if we don't find that? Then I would run."

Okay was that a threat? That sounded like a threat.

So America do we want a self involved, fake Christian, racist, Ronald Reagan fawning, moron who respects something called "exceptionalism" in the White House?

Yeah, I didn't think so.



Source

Courtesy of Raw Story:

According to The Wrap, Paramount Pictures has edited Darren Aronofsky’s Noah — which stars Russell Crowe in the titular role — in order to avoid offending Christian viewers.

Aronofsky allegedly told an associate that he was “not happy” when he learned that Paramount had appended a disclaimer to both the film and promotional materials for it.

At the request of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Paramount added a disclaimer which reads, in part, that “[t]he film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.”

NRB board member Phil Cooke told The Wrap that the disclaimer was necessary because the film is “historically inaccurate.” It is, Cooke said, “more of an inspired movie than an exact retelling.”

Cooke is not the only Christian to have concerns about the film.

Writing on his blog last year, Answers In Genesis president Ken Ham noted that the film’s script “is not at all faithful to the biblical account in Genesis.” Ham believes the trailer for the film is “a Hollywood con” designed to lure unsuspecting Jews and Christians to witness “an unbiblical production.”

He lists the many ways in which the film does not accurately reflect his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He notes that “Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.” Moreover, “[i]t appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.”

Most problematic for Ham, however, is that “Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood,” and that “[t]he Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.”

To be clear this is an impossible story, told by untold authors, about an event that defies all scientific probabilities. In short it is about has "historic" as the story of Athena being given birth from a hole in the skull of Zeus.

There are a lot of movies coming out with an overtly religious theme this year like Mark Burnett "Son of God." featuring the first latino Jesus (Wouldn't that me "Hey-suess?"), Ridley Scott's "Exodus," "Heaven is for Real," and "Mary, Mother of Christ," to name a few.

And of course all of this is by design, after all the sixth mountain of the 7 Mountains of Societal Influence is Arts and Entertainment.

So you would think that the religious community would be thrilled simply to have their mythology spread to a newer secular audience.

However if they are going to insist that every part of the film be completely accurate according to their favorite version of the Bible (King James?), they are going to lose much of their potential audience.

After all these are movie goers used to watching giant robots transform in to cars, humans portrayed as living batteries while their minds remain trapped in a giant MMORPG, and superheroes fighting off an alien invasion in the middle of New York City.

But let's remember there are limits to any movie goers ability to suspend disbelief.

I mean come on, watching hobbits taking a dangerous journey to dispose of jewelry while fighting off orcs and wizards is one thing, but buying into the concept of one family building a giant boat to hold two of every kind of animal on the planet while the entire population of humans, animals, and insects is drowned around them.

I mean come on how did a story that absurd even get past pre-production?

Source

Source

To these people public education is a government sponsored attack on their religion.

In their world of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, they are the persecuted and any who do not share their faith are those who oppress them.

Source

Part One.

Part Two.

I do not often insist that people watch and share a documentary, however I am doing so with this.

Just this morning on Morning Joe I heard Scarborough talking about the fact that Jeb Bush is the best possible candidate for the Republican party.

He said that the morning right after this documentary aired, demonstrating that there was no doubt that his brother lied the country into a war that sent thousands of Americans to their deaths, gravely wounded thousands more, and led to the murder of approximately a million sovereign citizens of Iraq.

If another Bush is elected in this country it will prove that we as a nation are unable to learn the lessons of the past.


And that we deserve to be a country in a continuous, never ending, state of war.

Source