That's not "relativism," it's sociopathy

Hell's Handmaiden has dipped into the reality stream and come up with a net full of three-legged tadpoles...

Honestly, it is the first round of freshman, mostly, college papers I’ve seen in years. The subject is relativism. ...

Of the papers I’ve seen so far easily one in ten contains assertions in support of ethical relativism. Some of them contain quite strong assertions in favor of it. What is even more bizarre is that most of these defenders of relativism defend individual relativism, not cultural, and most tow the same basic line– that we can’t decide who is right or wrong so we just act how we feel like and, effectively, settle things by force.

Gee, I wonder where they got that idea. The news, perhaps?

I'd love to quote some of these papers but that would be wrong. I’m not even going to identify the school or the class title or the section number… or even the damned state. But ya know what? If I did quote from these papers, these damned relativists would be telling me that I shouldn’t have done so– telling me that my decision was wrong.!

Arghhh…..

I’d love to walk into that class and tell them that I’d posted every single paper online, complete with sarcasm, ridicule and whatever other snark I can manage. It isn’t that I’d actually like to do it. I’d just like to tell them that I’d done it and then listen to the whines of “that’s just not right” and “that’s wrong, man” and “you violated this or that principle or something”. Then I’d explain that if in fact they are relativists– individual relativists– as they argued in their papers then I am justified in posting their papers online. I am justified for no other reason than simply that I felt like it was the right thing to do.

I think I can put my thumb on the issue here. And while I can blame them for being purblind idiots for falling into this particular ethical trap, it's not like there wasn't a path beaten for them by many people, presumably older and wiser, who clearly chose not to know better.

The issue is not so much the idea that "right and wrong" are relative to the individual, the culture and the situation. All of these things are quite correct, and if you don't pay attention to whether or not the situation alters cases, you can easily end up doing the worst possible thing for all the "right" reasons. So the importance of the concept itself cannot be sufficiently stressed. The problem is that there still is a right and a wrong, a good and a bad, a useful and useless that in all but a few (and pretty darned obvious) cases that is external to any individual metric of good and bad.

You must always consider the consequences of your actions in regard to others, because if those consequences affect others in a negative or harmful way, they will surely hold you to account, if they can. Nor does obscuring the connection between you and the consequence of your action serve to make unethical actions ethical. It merely means you are putting an ethical debt onto your line of Karmic Credit, so to speak.

Or if you prefer, you are tempting Murphy.

There are few better expressions of individualistic moral relativism than the Wiccan Rede; "An it harm none, do as ye will."

That's the trick, of course, and that's the nub of this fallacy; it's not a question of "relativism," it's the manifestly and clinically stupid idea that one has the inherent right to do anything one desires... and get away with it!

I've blogged about this many times from many different angles, so I can happilly choose between good and best. My comments policy contains my most succinct statement of my understanding of this issue.

One problem in our nation is that Democrats and other Liberals are still acting as if the current situation in the United States were a political issue, one that arose due to politics and one that can be addressed in that manner. I'm afraid Glenn believes that as well. It's not. It's about cheats, liars and outright traitors in office and in positions of influence who are willing to do and say anything to achieve their ends.

This attitude - supposedly expressed by Newt Gingrich, as told to Bill Clinton as "But if we didn't cheat, we couldn't win" is cancerous. If you have to cheat to win, you don't deserve it and you aren't qualified to have it. All around us we see the results of what happens when cheaters lie and steal their way into power. Aside from the ethics, aside from the illegalities, aside from whatever possibly treasonous and certainly contemptible alliances with offshore oil interests there may be - they have no qualifications other than a lifetime spent lying, cheating and stealing.

These qualities are fit only for ruling a fantasy-land of self-delusion. they not apply well to real situations with real concerns. For instance, while you can lie yourself into a war, you cannot cheat your way to a victorious resolution. You can say "we are winning' every day, but the truth will speak louder than you. You can assert that "things are getting better in New Orleans", but a quick email to anyone there will put the lie to it.

Republicans - and by this I specifically include most of all their basement dwelling, Pajamas Media funded cheerleaders - are like the barking dog chasing the car. We now see what happens when the fool dog catches it.

The whole point to relativistic moral visions is to minimize blowback more than legalistic approaches can, not to pretend that it does not exist and cannot occur to you!

Of course, if one discounts the importance of consequence that do not happen personally, dramatically and immediately, it's possible to evolve an ethic - such as realpolitik - which will lead to short term advantage at the price of long term, indirect consequences.

Situational ethics (a distinctly Christian expression of Consequentialism, which is in itself an evolution of Utilitarianism) is used by many persons who's basic ethos comes from Sunday School to determine whether or not a particular moral truism actually does apply in this particular case; I and other ethical thinkers observe that it's not a replacement for those truisms.

Truisms are truisms because they are mostly true, most of the time.

All of these various ethical philosophies state that it is the outcome of an action that matters, rather than the choice of a particular action, or the inherent virtue or lack in the person. I would argue further that consequences - the observable outcome of a particular choice - is all that we have to objectively determine how "good" or "bad" a particular set of assumptions and choices were.*

If you wish a Christian summation of that - there is the parable of the fig tree, which is as succinct a summation of this principle as can be imagined. According to the parable, it matters not at all whether the fig tree is beautiful or ugly - if it's fruit is bitter and useless, it should be cut down, because it's wasting both space, cultivation efforts and nutrients to produce nothing of value.

Christ Himself was arguably a Utilitarian ethicist.

However - and this is a rather LARGE "however" - Situational ethics, moral relativism, however you wish to refer the idea, and whatever particular flavor you prefer - work only when you apply them to the truism like the fine-tuning knob on an old TV.

The idea is to ensure that the basic principle is applied with accuracy to the situation - not to arbitrarily decide that a small difference amounts to a total distinction.

The basis for a legalistic approach to morality and ethics is as follows, that a rigid application of The Law will tend to produce more beautiful trees with sweeter fruit, on the whole, if the assumptions made by those who set the law in place were accurate.

Therefore, it's important to regularly examine and critique the assumptions made by those who set The Law in place, and to compare their predictions of outcome to actual, provable outcome.

EG: No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, etc. Clearly, the stated intents of a law do not always play out in practice, even given the assumption that the authority imposing the law was truthful in stating their intent.

Now, having said that, it should also be said that if you don't understand the intent of a moral or legal diktat, you probably should not try to futz about with it. But I've never had much patience with folks who blindly follow rules simply because they are posted on a wall. ANYone could have put them there, for whatever reason, not excluding the possibility of a practical joke.

So I've always felt it important to examine rules, laws, morals and ethical standards to see what the intended outcome is. This will reveal many cases where the intent is good, but the rule is stupid, or that the rule or law was created for malicious, bigoted or dishonest reasons, and such rules should only be followed as written if Massa is watching. :P

Any general guide to proper behavior has an obvious problem; first, that it's a general guide, and there will be some exceptional cases where applying the guide as if it were an inarguable rule will result in more harm than taking a different, possibly "immoral" course of action. That reality is often used as a reason to toss out all moral truisms as invalid - but that simply leaves one without anywhere to even start an ethical analysis or behave in a way that predictably results in "golden rule" standards of behavior.

Morals - valid, well tested, culturally appropriate morals - are ideally the best first approximation and hopefully the best reflexive choice, and the obvious the starting point to evaluating the best course of action whenever you have time to think about a choice in depth.

Simply stated, a "moral code" is a set of ethical equations that have been generalized within a cultural matrix over a wide assortment of individual cases over a span of time, so that in general one does not have to deeply consider every single choice of action.

But such a moral code must provably result in better outcomes than some other set of morals or competitive ethos. And when such a code even arguably, much less provably results in worse outcomes than none, from any reasonable standpoint, that "moral code" is unethical, and practicing it for oneself is immoral, much less attempting to impose it upon others as a cultural and legal standard.
-------
*I reject any moral or ethical equasion that has a scope greater than that of a particular person that depends on supposed, faith-based consequences, such as "you'll go to hell" or "Eris hates personal organizers."

Choose that for yourself, if you must, if you think an arbitrary and unprovable consequence is more important than provable and direct consequences - but do not expect others to forgive or forget actions you take based on such unprovable assumptions.

tag: ethics, morality, christian, moral relativism, situational ethics, consequentialism, utilitarianism, blowback

Is your idea of "childhood" in the best interest of your child?

Lucia Reed was only seven when she started her period

Girls entering puberty by the age of six - but are drugs the answer? | the Daily Mail Annotated

Doctors are increasingly worried about the number of girls - and boys - being referred to specialists because of this phenomenon of 'precocious' puberty.

The normal age at which puberty starts in both boys and girls has dropped by about two years since the 19th century, to 14 for boys and 12 for girls. This is largely due to improved nutrition - onset of puberty is believed to be triggered by physical size. Another theory is that the epidemic of obesity is to blame.

But modern social conditions may also be a contributory factor. Research suggests that children from broken homes experience earlier puberty. The stress of family breakdown apparently alters the balance of growth hormones and other chemicals in the body, speeding up a child's physical development.

Absent fathers may be another cause. American researchers have found that biological fathers send out chemical signals that inhibit their daughters' sexual maturity. Girls whose fathers had left home started their periods earlier.

Early puberty has even been linked to watching too much television. A few years ago, Italian scientists found that children who watched three hours a day produced less of the sleep hormone melatonin - low levels of the hormone play an important role in the timing of puberty.

But perhaps more worrying is the theory that it's exposure to environmental chemicals which is causing the drop in the age of puberty. These chemicals mimic the effect of hormones, disrupting the normal timing of sexual maturing.

Whatever the cause, this is another example of reality colliding with our treasured ideas of The Way Things Should Be, and as usual, before admitting defeat - indeed, before even admitting a real conflict exists - every alternative is tried. But when people are actually suggesting that children should be given powerful chemotherapy drugs to suppress puberty and "prolong childhood's innocence," I have to be blunt; that is totally depraved.

This wave of early puberty is troubling and very challenging to parents who are unready to think of their daughters and sons as unavoidably sexual beings. Heck, far too many parents are unable to confront this reality at sixteen, seventeen or even 25. But from an ethical and common sense point of view, such willful stupidity is both irrational and abusive. At some point we have to stop being squeamish and ashamed of perfectly ordinary body functions that, if properly explained, are no more problematic than any others.

I've blogged extensively about sexual ethics, sexual morality, sexuality and of course, one of the most contentious patches of ground in the Culture Wars, Sex Ed.

The reason I do this is simple. Morals are supposed to keep people from doing harm to one another, and to keep them from making obvious and predictable mistakes. Well, I've been aware from before my own puberty that current western shame and guilt-based sexual morality achieved neither goal with any predictablity. Indeed, it seemed to me that the actual function of both Prodestant Shame and Catholic Guilt was, paradoxicly, to encourage sexual sins in order for people to feel ashamed enough or guilty enough to attend otherwise spiritually pointless churches.

Yeah, I was an opinionated little kid. And at 49, that particular opinion has gone from a suspicion to a well-polished working premise. More importantly, as a person on the autistic spectrum, I simply do not perceive the very many unspoken emotional and social cues that allow most people to stay out of trouble most of the time without any actual, solid moral or ethical code.

Not true for me. I need things spelled out for me, and I need to understand why I should do this and avoid that. Well, when you require those explanations - or go looking for them after having very bad experiences with parents who have no better idea than you, and resent having it pointed out, you will find that the actual reasons are often obsolete, based on offensive premises, such as the inability of men to control their "urges" or the ownership of females as chattel property. Being raised as an Episcopalian, I assumed that sexual morality would be clearly explained in the Bible.

Oh, so not true! The more you study about Biblical sexual ethics, the less there is that is relevant to our culture. Most of it turns out to be discussing something else entirely. The "Sin of Sodom" is, quite provably, the sin of refusing proper hospitality to strangers. That was clear to me from the King James at 14. It took a while to find scholars that agreed with my reading, but now it's considered entirely orthodox, at least within moderate and Liberal churches.

However, the problem with finding that your morals and ethics are based on nothing but the prejudices and taboos of your forebears, of no more moral force other than what bigots and fools will do if they catch you is not all that useful. Because amoral behavior WILL lead you into situations you will very much regret, whether or not there IS any moral code that covers the situation. Because of my own mental differences, I need a robust and sensible system of ethics that can be applied to any situation I'm likely to find myself in, no matter how challenging, exceptional or bizarre.

And boy howdy, THIS is exactly such a situation!

Here we have girls and boys becoming sexual FAR before our cultural customs allow for, and no amount of finger-wagging will keep all of them from playing with such urgently swollen toys. It's important to remember that most of our cultural norms about first sexual activity and the age of marriage came when puberty and fertility could be expected to happen a year or so AFTER marriage!

That worked rather well. Unfortunately, this has not been true for centuries, due to all sorts of changes that are at best poorly understood. But the fact that we do not understand why this is happening does not excuse us from dealing sensitively, ethically and humanely with the ever-changing ethical challenges faced by our children in the absence of any useful or relevant guidance.

Our schools are filling up with 9 - to - 11 year olds who are physically capable of making babies but with no informational or social context that views that as anything other than A Fate Worse Than Death That You Must Not Ever Speak About.

This sort of "moral inhibition" does not prevent "sin" - on the contrary, it tends to make the worst possible outcomes more likely, and to artificially inflate those consequences beyond the natural, consequential harm. In other words, western sexual morality is the direct cause of significant, sometimes fatal harm to real people.

I can find no excuse for that and am quite willing to state authoritatively that, all of Paul and Augustine to the contrary, there can be no such excuse. Direct, predicable harm as a result of circumstances that may or may not be truly avoidable is obviously far more of an immediate concern than any theoretical, faith-based consequence imposed by some petulant Sky God.

Any system of morality that requires you to choose between obeying your faith and keeping yourself, your child or indeed, anyone else out of harm's way is, in my studied Autistic and Anglican opinion, a faith you are ethically obligated to reject. And of course, when it requires you sacrifice the children of other people on the altar of ideology and political ambition - well, my ethics tell me that you have willfully become too dangerously insane to tolerate within the boundaries of civilization. As for your faith - well, as a thinking person with deep roots in Christan thought and scripture - my thought would be that, willingly or ignorantly, your faith is placed on that OTHER guy.

tag: morality, ethics, sexuality, childhood, early puberty, relgious morality,

ana voog, lilli voog and a Mission from God(ess)

Ana Voog, writing about herself, and her new baby Lili.

it is interesting to me how what i share with the world tends to either bring out the incredible darkness in others, or the side of light.

here are two completely opposite responses i received today in regards to lili, her condition, and me being the mother of her.it is interesting to me how what i share with the world tends to either bring out the incredible darkness in others, or the side of light.

I won't quote either - suffice it to say that those who approve seem to me to be better people than those who view Lili as a punishment for her "sins" of "displaying her private parts." The facinating thing about ana, of course, is that she doesn't have any parts she considers private - or really, any moment in her life, any point of process in her art (which is both varied, significant and collectable) or the slightest hint of shame about being either naked or poor.

Ana's appeal is not based on the violation of taboos or convention - you can find tons of people on yahoo who get all wet and messy violating socal taboos in many ways, It's not that she's libertine, or transgressive, or even particularly focused on the niche of "Alt Porn."

Hell, anacam.com would probably be a lot more popular if she focused on doing porn. But as far as this non-subscriber can tell, she does not. As a fellow starving artist, I've never shelled out for a membership, and while I subscribe to her newsletter, I've been far too busy with politics to open the images. I can't quite bear to delete them, though. It could be anything - from deconstructions of pornographic images into laugh out loud parody to her latest knitting project to her covering herself in paint and body-printing a wall, not to paint the wall so much as to capture the act of painting it.

She is a performance artist, and is dedicated to it full time, even when asleep. Anyone involved with her is live on cam too, and she hides nothing from anyone - not even family.

Some obviously consider it depraved. I call it art - and it's ballsier art than I can even contemplate. There is no place in my realm for the inclusion of failure in my art. But failure is part of the whole artistic process and is of course included. She simply does not CARE if what she tries works.

I cannot imagine a better person to raise a child. Why? Well, I AM going to quote one viciously negative remark, after all.

"So, this narcissistic exhibitionist, by the power vested in her, brought bad Karma on you for expressing an opinion??? Such self-import!!

I think the G*dess was very wise. A "normal" child would have a miserable life of humiliation and embarrassment that her mother made a living by constantly photographing her private parts for the world. My guess is that when the attention and novelty wears off, the grandparents will be raising the wee one. Sickness; it's what's for breakfast."

It's just stunning how correct this person is while missing the point of her own words entirely. I rather doubt that the grandparents will be raising the child, but it's nice that lilli has them. Lilli and Goddess chose well, I think, for ana will never be ashamed of lilli, nor will she be expected to be anything other than who she is. And naked or not, ana is a wonderful example of being exactly who you are, with neither shame, bitterness nor concern for the opinions of those who do not know any better.

And of course, the best thing is that ana has time to be a mom, because she IS in front of the camera all the time, and that camera is at home.

I imagine that ana is an exhibitionist, in a sexual sense. To a degree, at least. But she, unlike most people who have sexual kinks and fetishes, has taken it as a fact about herself, stared into the abyss of her own nature and then asked herself, "well, NOW what?"

Having accepted who she is - she proceeds to explore it with both vision clear ethical boundries, and both respect and concern for others. It has not taken over her life - like such "sins" did for the infamous Ted Haggard - but rather allowed them to be part of her whole.

Another thing about ana that distinguishes her from other "camgirls." She does not pander to sexual fantasies, she involves her viewers in her life - and to an amazing extent, they have become a vast, amorphous extended family. Hm. I suppose I count that way too, a distant cousin at several removes who doesn't drop by often enough. But then, ana by her nature demands a reciprocal sharing that is a challenge and an inspiration to me. I try to be as open and free as her, but it's somewhat against the current of my nature.

This is quite aside from my shrewd assessment of the commercial interest in my hairy pot belly.

No, her peculiar combination of artistic presentation and the astonishing innocence that makes using her breasts as canvas as interesting to her - and her audience - as knitting a hat can be terrifying. She explodes the bounds of context, in which there is a place for performance artists, and fabric artists and webcam girls showing us their pink bits at 9.95 a minute.

She may or may not arouse you on any given day. She may inspire the hell out of you, perhaps even literally. And we could all use less hell and a great deal more inspiration.

"Take a bite - it'll make a pagan of you."






Technorati Tags: ana voog, 24/7 artcam, camgirl, lilli voog, ethics, morality, humility, art

Welcome to the Turd Reich.

Let's start with a really graphic truth.



As I commented on Clipmarks, where I found it, I'm not an athiest by any means, but I do make a point of not believing in the "god" followed by the folks this adorable young lady is referring to.

All of this started with a revealing look into what "abstinance only" Sex Ed is really supposed to accomplish, via quite an extended chain of associations...

Hell's Handmaiden > Nicest Girl and Destroyer of Planets > Winter's Haven > Classically Liberal > TPM Cafe: an excerpt from an Excerpt from "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism"

For all who believe. Reclaiming America for Christ is a place where the Christian nationalist movement drops its democratic pretenses and indulges its theocratic dreams. So at the 2003 conference, when the abstinence educator Pam Stenzel spoke, she knew she didn’t have to justify her objection to sex education with prosaic arguments about health and public policy. She could be frank about the real reason society must not condone premarital sex—because it is, as she shouted during one particularly impassioned moment, 'stinking, filthy, dirty, rotten sin!"

A pretty, zaftig brunette from Minnesota with a degree in psychology from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Stenzel makes a living telling kids not to have sex. Rather, she makes a living trying to scare kids out of having sex—as she says in her video No Screwin' Around, if you have sex outside of marriage “to a partner who has only been with you . . . then you will pay.”A big part of her mission is puncturing students’ beliefs that condoms can protect them. She says she addresses half a million kids each year, and millions more have received her message via video.

Thanks to George W. Bush, abstinence education has become a thriving industry, and Stenzel has been at its forefront. Bush appointed her to a twelve-person task force at the Department of Health and Human Services to help implement abstinence education guidelines. She’s been a guest at the White House and a speaker at the United Nations. Her nonprofit company, Enlightenment Communications, which puts on abstinence talks and seminars in public schools, typically grossed several hundred thousand dollars a year during the first Bush term.

At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she’d had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education’s success rate—a question she regarded as risible. “What he’s asking," she said, “is does it work. You know what? Doesn’t matter. Cause guess what. My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public schools’ job should not be to keep teens from having sex.” Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, “Our job should be to tell kids the truth!”

“People of God,” she cried, “can I beg you, to commit yourself to truth, not what works! To truth! I don’t care if it works, because at the end of the day I’m not answering to you, I'm answering to God!”

Later in the same talk, she explained further why what “works” isn’t what’s important—and gave some insight into what she means by “truth.” “Let me tell you something, people of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here,” she said. “AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy. I will not teach my child that they can sin safely.”

The crowd applauded.

Of course, Stenzel isn’t just teaching her child.

There's more...
Now, this sort of candor about the frankly theocratic, Dominionist agenda of the Evangelical Right Wing is difficult to find outside of the provinces of converts and those who prey upon them, and it's rare for it to pop up in such a mainstream source, so this may all be quite new to you.

I've been watching these people for decades now - or more to the point, watching over the shoulders of the watchers, so if you actually require more convincing, you should start with Theocracy Watch. I mean, it's not that you can't find the truth of it, they are quite frank about their intentions when they think the other side isn't paying attention.

However, this is a particularly juicy bit of revelation, because the interlinked issues of sex ed and abortion are visceral illustrations of a worldview that, frankly, demonizes human nature.

Consider the contrast between the emphasis on making pregnancy as inevitable as possible with militant opposition to consider any social fail-safes for mistakes, accidents, poor decisions or the unpredictable circumstances of life, isseus that are of concern to any person of genuine Evangelical Christian faith, or indeed, anyone who takes the words of Jesus to be important and morally instructive.

I'm sorry if that seems arrogant, but those who discount the positive importance of the words of Christ while treating 19th century Dispensationalist twaddle as if it were Scripture are, aside from being grouchy, mean-spirited, spiteful, intolerant, fearful and judgmental prudes with an unhealthy interest in the bodily functions and private affairs of others, have also stretched the definition of "Christian" to the point where Christ Himself would not recognize it.

In my own opinion of course. But then, it's always been a feature of established Christan churches to ignore almost all of what Christ had to say, or to re-interpret it in favor of the interests of wealthy and powerful patrons - and this is why I belong to no church at all. I have found none that do not insult my faith.

Nor have I ever felt that anyone has the right to question me - or even inquire into - what precisely my faith is, or whether I'm "right with God." I refuse to even be pinned down as to whether I believe in a literal God, much less a literal Christ.

Hell, HE refused to make a clear statement as to his own divinity; I take that as a clear statement of intentional ambiguity. But I digress, other than to observe that anyone who takes the Bible as a clear set of instructions on what you - not them, but YOU - should do or not do, regardless of your faith or the lack of it may be - is both a busybody and damnably lacking in the most essential ethic of all.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to others." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "An it harm none, do as you will." Three religions, three different ways of putting the same idea - mind your own relationship with the divine and let others mind theirs. And further, let your actions speak in accordance with your words.

One of the more famous Christian parables is the Parable of the Fig Tree, which states, essentially, that you know the worth of the tree by the fruit that it bears; that the tree that bears sweet fruit is tended and cared for while the tree that bears bitter fruit is cut down and cast in the fire. Like most, if not all parables attributed to Christ, it's a self-evident observation of everyday reality in first-century Palestine; only the very rich could afford the non-productive luxury of a purely ornamental fruit tree - when productive trees were every bit as beautiful.

Now, here at Graphictruth, I'm not particularly respectful of nor interested in religious morality, but I am passionately concerned with issues of ethics, which I pithily refer to as the science and discipline of "not fucking up."

The single MOST predictable source of "fucking up," of "mistake generation," or of "sin" if you will, is an inordinate concern with the affairs of and actions of other beings, coupled with a willful blindess as to the consequences of one's own intrusive actions. A "sin" is a mistake, a transgression against another, a harm or disharmony, willful or mistaken. A sin is a trespass - as anyone who has attended both Lutheran and Catholic services will know.

Well, there can be no greater trespass than to presume for another what actions are, for them, sins, WITHOUT REFERENCE to any harm that may be done to others.

To state that sex IS a sin, without any linkage to causation of harm is in fact "the bearing of false witness." Sexual activity - and the urge to do it - often puts us in absurd and dangerous positions, and quite often leads to "unfortunate blessings, absence the prudent usage of birth control. But to define pregnancy as an inherent consequence of sin and to enforce that attitude as a social truth by draconian legislation and social shame is to do harm against the innocent product of what would otherwise be not so much a sin as a surprise.

The harm that is done is the deliberate result of prudes and pecksniffs ensuring that there ARE harmful consequences, when it is their plain duty as human beings first and Christians second is to ensure that no harm, or as little harm as possible comes to any member of their community, and most absolutely to spare no trouble or expense in meeting the needs of the innocent and needy.

But when we study their words and their actions, we find that the only members of the human community that they consider worth consideration are those who are "saved." That stance alone - well, it's fairly orthodox, if somewhat despicable, and condemned by implication in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, but with most Christians, that's expressed as inaction, rather than as actions against the interests of other.

Dispensationalists and dominionist theocrats have taken this a step further, if not in doctrine then in explicit teachings by their most respected writers and leaders. The "saved" are those who share their dominionist theology and who therefore actively suppport the effort to impose - by whatever means - a theocratic rule on earth.

Those who are NOT saved deserve no help, no shelter, no succor, no consideration; they do not deserve even life itself, save for the length of time needed to bring a life into the world that can be potentially saved in order to oppress the unsaved.

Later in the same talk, she explained further why what “works” isn’t what’s important—and gave some insight into what she means by “truth.” “Let me tell you something, people of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here,” she said. “AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy. I will not teach my child that they can sin safely.”

If it's something that cannot be said aloud in the marketplace, if it is something that can only be spoken of in private, to the self-appointed "elect," the likelihood is that it is a "truth" that depends on a shared, unquestioned, untestable, unprovable assumption. That, or it's an outright lie of Xenuvian magnitude.

Here's the lie. "I will not teach my child that they can sin safely.” She is not making millions of dollars teaching her own children, or even the children of fellow believers. She's making those millions uttering calculatedly dangerous falsehoods to children in public schools, based on the assumption that a little premarital fornication is "shaking their fists in the face of holy God."

Schools exist to teach data and facts, ideally as free from ideological and religious bias as possible. Why? Because we, also, wish our children to avoid "sin," not from fear, but from good information that leads to making rational, informed choices. If they must take risks - and for some, it does seem they must, let them at least become the best risk calculators possible.

And this woman wishes to subvert this whole process, knowing, for we have her own words to tell us the truth of her knowledge, that due to her lies, there will be pregnancies, there will be abortions, there will be STD infections and there will be deaths that could have been avoided with a condom, because it's better that a few sheep who stray should perish, lest the flock as a whole be led astray!

Waaait a minute! That's not what the parable of the Lost Sheep says! But if your concern is to herd the maximum number into the slaughterhouse against every natural urge and instinct, yes, you have to convince them that the only thing more terrifying than the scent of blood and fear is an unreasoning fear of everything else.

These verses from the King James could not be more clear:

15	¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16	Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17	Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18	A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19	Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3.10 · Lk. 3.9
20	Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mt. 12.33

Boy, it takes a lot of thumping and theology to obscure the meaning of this. False prophets (prophets being those entrusted with explaining scripture) will be known by their fruits; by the consequences of their actions, the harm they do to others and to the faith of innocents.

By their fruits, you will know them. By their actions, they stand condemned before you. But fortunately, you do not need to "cut them down and throw them in the fire" in any but the social sense. "Shake the dust from your feet."

Read their works, discern their intents - and then vote for the OTHER fellow. Mock them. Question them loudly in public, and snicker at the prevarications and evasions that they substitute for answers. Do as I have done here, and shine lights into their dark places to show what scuttles and chitters within.

If your school board continues to embrace such nonsense as abstinance-only sex-ed or, god forbid, requires equal time for some creationist folly, you need a new school board. That means that some of "you" need to run for that office.

Meanwhile, make a point of doing what you would normally do in life or in business in any case. If you know someone is a liar, a cheat, a fraud or a thief, you avoid them. You don't take them into the bosom of your families and you certainly do not knowingly employ them. We are speaking of a mental disease that is as socially dangerous as methamphetimine, crack, heroin and alcohol together, if for no other reason that it brings about the ruin of families and entire towns, while remaining undetectable in urine. When thier choices affect you, you bring them before your neighbors for justice - just as you would with any other criminal.

Am I advocating "religious discrimination?" Only in the sense that we all must learn to discriminate between good apples and bad. You give 'em a thump, have a good sniff, and then, and only then do you take a bite. If it's late in the season, you might go as far as to cut it open just to be sure.

You see, we are told not to discriminate against people of faith for what they believe - that's wrong. But nothing in the Constitution or the Bible says that you should suspend judgment about what people actually do when their actions affect you and put you at risk. It really does not matter whether their actions are due to some faith-based delusion or a more honest greed for power - their mental state is not your concern unless they ask you for insight or access to appropriate medication. We can only righteously and reasonably act on what people actually have done and will probably do based on what they have done before.

Judging people on the good or evil of the outcomes of their actions and the worth of their stated, real-world goals is not "religous discrimination." It's critical review, and it IS judgment - but then, they claim the right to judge you based on your actions and choices without any reference to outcome. Having so judged, let them be judged also.

These are people who's essential theology depends on dominating public policy by stealth or force. In some far reaches, some will go so far as to say that there must be atomic war in the middle east so that their vision of pie in the sky will come sooner rather than later. These are people that pray faithfully for Armageddon and work toward that end, every day.

Now, take a look at the Middle East and the meddling there. Does it seem to you that averting the risk of wholesale atomic warfare there is a current domestic policy priority? Does it seem there is any respect for, much less consideration of the rights and value of the millions who must inevitably perish as a result of this hateful delusion?

If you believe in the Bible, or any other time tested and reputable ethical system, somewhere in it you will find reference to a universal truth, one that is so predictable that there may well one day be literal equasions describing it.

It amounts to this: when you harm others, that harm will rebound, and likewise, when you do good to others, that good will rebound. Most actions tend to be mixed somewhat, so life is a mixture of both good and evil consequences - and indeed, many times which it is depends entirely on how you choose to look at it.

Those who choose to see only evil in the choices of other and to actively reject any good that comes from the actions of "such people" as my good friend, ana voog, as being "satanic deceptions" are willfully lying to themselves and others. Having blinded themselves to much good, and devoting the whole of their attention to seeing particular sorts of actions, for good or ill, as being evil by definition, they have renderd themselves blind themselves to the evil they do in the name of good and the overwhelming, insupportable, reeking pile of karmic crap they have accumulated.

Those great and insightful Prophets, Cheech and Chong, had something to say about that.

"You can't polish a turd."

And that is exactly what the their vision for our future is; A Turd Reich.

Put on your clenched acceptance face, we're going to Sorrytown!"

Ah, John Stewart, the master of the throwaway one-liner:

"I'm not a fan of personal vendetta gotcha-style politics," said Jon Stewart on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But there can be exceptions. Take Louisiana Senator David Vitter ... who came to prominence in the 90's demanding President Clinton's impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Well, it seems the condom is on the other foot."

"Last week, Vitter became the highest profile john implicated in the DC Madam scandal-gate," Stewart explained. "Kind of reminds you of the old saying, 'The only thing I trust less than a Louisiana senator sleeping with a hooker is one that isn't.'"

The video can also be found here.

Now, I of course would never stoop to mere "gotcha" blog entries either. (What, Never? Well, Hardly Ever..).

In this particular case, I think this is a remarkably apt insight into what Republican values actually are. That is to say, you can pretty much assume that whatever public stance they take will be taken purely for personal political advantage and will have little or nothing to do with personal values or conviction. It's kinda like the Catholic Church in that way. How many folks out there still think it's a good idea to leave their child alone with the parish Priest?

Well, folks, that goes for anyone who seeks a position of unquestionable moral authority and access to either your children, your vote or your wallet.

While that observation may well be true of political figures in general, Republicans in particular have been particularly active in trying to demonize, regulate and restrict YOUR libido, YOUR sexual practices, Your definition of family, and indeed, your reproductive choices, while undermining your right to privacy and your right to access information without trace or record. I don't see very many examples of Republicans living by the values they espouse - so to speak. On the contrary.

So perhaps all these protestation of high moral standing are mere pretexts and postures, not just in exceptional cases, but in general.

Any large group of people will have a few bad apples, a few "isolated incidents." But these are NOT "just a few" and they all share something similar; the overwhelming majority of these sexual crimes involve practicing the opposite of what they preached. That is to say, they violated the law purposefully and deliberately, and in the way that was most vile on the basis of their own public standards to demonstrate to themselves and to one another that they were above that law and could get away with violating it. Indeed, there seems to be the perverse drive to enact laws for the purpose of violating them!

Another disturbing theme of near equal weight is a consistent pattern of abuse - sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and the abuse of power in general - toward those who cannot fight back.

Here's a particularly odious example of such an authoritarian circle-jerk.

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California's rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son "acted accordingly" because the child was a "slut". The full gruesome story, with many newspaper articles.

And here's one that just reeks of depraved irony:

Earl Kimmerling, from Indiana, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Anderson, IN, Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican State Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson, IN, and Woody Burton of Greenwood, IN, supported him. Source

Then there's the largest and highest reaching sex abuse scandal ever, probably in any nation, since roman times - and you have probably never heard of it. Read it and be amazed by The Franklin Credit Union Child-Sex Ring Scandal.

This sort of thing isn't anything new, in other words; it's actually part of long established Republican political culture. The blackmail operations detailed in the link above may well partially explain the spineless behavior of our current Congress's Democratic majority, and I'm SURE it explains the "dead-ender" behavior of a great many Republicans who can't be so politically tone-deaf as to think the President's lame-duck agendas in any way serve the cause of their own re-election to orifice office. Blackmail is about the only thing that could explain such a sudden and inexplicable altruism on the part of those who's focus has been squarely upon th main chance up to now.

What we need to do is to purge all levels of government of corruption, and we also need to send - as a nation of outraged and unforgiving Citizen-activists - a resounding message. Remember that the Republican majority came out of the so called "Republican Revolution" pledged to END corruption and cronyism - and has turned out to be more than willing to wallow in a system as corrupt and lawless as any Byzantine court and indulging in graft on a level that would embarrass Tammany Hall.

So, if you are a Republican - repent! Register as an Independent, or a Constitution party member. Get your name off their sucker list. This is especially true if you have ever been a "values voter." These are the values your votes supported. So either repudiate the party for it's lack of interest in values when it might affect a Republican in power, or consider yourself complicit in all the crimes that have been committed in the name of pure, unchecked and unaccountable power. Because that's the way ethics works - you are accountable for the choices you make and the messes you contribute to.

As for myself, I'm a registered Libertarian. I have no illusions that it's a party composed of inherently better people - but it is a party of strong essential principles that may work against the accumulation of personal power for a time. It's not a party that attracts as many authoritarians and opportunists, and it will take those folks some time to figure out how to subvert it to their own ends.

Likewise, I'm going to make a choice about where my money goes. My money is going, in terms of consumer goods, toward companies that do not support the Republican cause. Likewise, I will not enter any place of business that has a fish by the door - a device almost exclusively used by Religious Conservatives, unless I see something in the window that indicates they are opposed to the moral choices this government and this party have made.

What can you do?

You can spread this around. You can digg it up, stumble it, email it to your fundy family members. You can blog about it, create fliers to stick in your church's brochure box, you can wear a t-shirt or put a poster in your store window. You can talk to strangers at bus-stops. You can call in to talk radio. Hell, you can slip Air America a few bucks. Grab your video camera and vlog it onto YouTube and Google Video.

I'll tart this post up later with links to the most vicious and apt t-shirts, bumper stickers and any particularly useful and usable photos and graphics I can find.

Together, we can change the world. As long as enough good people refuse to stand by as evil is done, we cannot help but do so.

"Why Do You Hate America, Mr. King?"

We are all used to idiotic remarks such as this public appeal to panic from Bush right now. But it's the sort of post that draws Bushista apologists like flies. The trouble is not in finding them, it's in finding one articulate enough to serve as a deserving target for a proper response to their rhetorical question, "why do you hate America?"

clipped from www.abc.net.au

Bush likens 'war on terror' to WWIII

He said he agreed with the description by David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month the act was "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war - World War III".

Mr Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

Needless to say, much less cite, the general consensus was that Bush was a few bricks shy of a hod, a couple crayons short of a box, or in other words, as delusional as is possible to be without actually being in six-point restraints.

But there's always a shill - it's become so predictable that I imagine a Haliburtan subsidiary operating a boiler room in Nigeria filled with failed scammers and talking-point flipcharts.

clipped from clipmarks.com

5-22-2006 6:46 PM

willhelm60

Some of us have been saying this is WW3 for years. This is not new. As much as some of you hate this country.. We are not the bad guys here. You can have your consipicy theories, hatred for the president, digust for American values, and at the same time stand up for all that is disgusting and sinister in society. I thank God for those in America that still know our place and make this country work and defend it, while this clipmarks forum occupies those of you who can do and will do nothing great in your lives.

So I said (without spell checking, which is why I'm not using clipmarks...)

We don't "hate America," Willhelm. There are certain people who claim to be patriotic Americans, while disparaging the values expressed by our Constitution and the Inalienable Rights recognized by it, that we could frankly do without.

Yourself, for example. [There's more...] You are not representative of core American values, as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the letters of Franklin, the writings of Adams, or worthy of citizenship when you can speak about "knowing our place."

Sir, "our place" is in the Militia, defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. You - and your self-deluded, authoritarian ilk - are precisely such a threat.

THIS - right here - IS such a "well regulated militia," using the power of the press under the aegis of the First Amendment. But if need be, we citizens are charged to do the same under the Second, should it come to pass that our government is suborned and becomes indistinguishable from any other Tyranny.

A Militia is any group of citizens coming together with their skills , talents and ability in common cause and without need to be told by some self-styled "Commander in Chief" what to do or how to do it.

However, I do not actually hate you. Strong emotion can spoil your aim. Besides, anyone stupid enough to state that Libertarianism is "Socialism without Morality" knows absolutely nothing about any of the three concepts involved.

That's where I ran into a comment limit. But there's no such limit here, so I will observe that comments far less insulting to the honor of patriotic Citizens have resulted in "affairs of honor," both formally and informally.

The Internet makes it possible to say such things in the public realm without the prudent restraint that might exist in person. Since the gloves ARE off, I shall respond in kind, not merely to this particular waste of skin, but to all such miserable little cowards, sellouts and chickenhawks who have courage enough to snipe with words - but not enough guts to walk into a recruiter's office and do the honorable thing.

Collectively and individually, you are all completely dispensable - and not just to me. Your politicial inspirations and paymasters (for I'm sure at least half of you ARE paid trolls, using scripts and search engines to drop your little rhetorical turds in the punchbowl of public discourse) consider you completely dispensable. I mean, do you get health insurance with that?

Nope, you are condemned in their minds as 'true believers' or corrupt cowards like them. And believe me, those smart enough to take over this nation from within at the head of willing tools, shills and sycophants such as yourselves are far to intelligent to delude themselves entirely.

But my contempt for you does not derive from shame and self-hatred. Unlike your leaders, I hold you to scorn as a matter of principle.

"American Values" are those of the Founders of America; Those who had the guts to sign the Declaration of Independence, pledging "their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor."

Well, a lot of them had to give up two of those three. For myself, when I think of what "American Values are," I think not of George Bush, but of Nathan Hale.

I will not dishonor them by failing to stand up on behalf of my forebears with safe words what they faced bullets and bayonets to establish. And those who would undermine their achievements, betray their ideals, corrupt the rule of law and dismiss the Constitution as a mere "scrap of paper" are my enemies.

And if I must choose between the values of founders who from principle opposed one of the most competently administered, successful and benevolent Empires in the history of the world, and the values of George Bush, Dick Cheney and the authors of The Project for a New American Century¹, the choice is not difficult. Indeed, if one attaches one's honor to patriotically upholding the Constitution, not merely when convenient, but when it might actually require some personal risk or inconvenience, there is little choice in the matter.

"Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

1 I love the irony of linking to a BBC article on this matter.

An interesting insight.

clipped from en.wikipedia.org

The ICP argument builds a bias for the inherent dignity of the human being over the evidence of religion or science.

ICP argument applies to the disparity between theism and atheism as follows;

1, theism is in harmony with atheism; if in the concept of God; the human being is the representative of God, who has no form but exists in the thoughts, beliefs, and actions of human beings,

2, atheism is in harmony with theism, if in the concept of no gods, gods do not have any evidence of form, except that they exist in thoughts, belief], and actions of human beings.

Of course, "theism" should really be "deism" when we are speaking of religion in the US, because for the most influential (that is to say, the loudest and least tolerant) denominations, God is quite a separate entity indeed, and certainly not existing by means of indwelling within all persons of all religions and beliefs, much LESS Gays, Lesbians and Atheists.

The idea that God picks and chooses and refuses to associate with Those People, while considering People Like Us to be Very Special Chosen Ones makes it very easy to blow Those People up. No harm, no foul, right?

Wrong! If there is conflict between your ethics and the morals some preacher would say carves out an exception to, say "You Shall Not Do Murder" or "You Shall Not Bear False Witness" based on the faith, beliefs or behavior of Those Other People, you are being led down a dangerous path.

But you won't hear that little truth from The 700 Club. Oddly, strangely, bizarrely and redoublingly, The 700 Club airs on the ABC Family Channel.

Ah, those Disney Family Values; trying to win the Culture War by any means necessary.

The Abandonment of Moral Agency in America.

Hugh Hefner with Girlfriend and "Girl Next Door" Kendra

I happen to think that Hugh Hefner demonstrates better morals and is a better example of a socially-concious, patriotic Citizen than any any randomly selected politician or pulpet-pounder you are likely to come up with as a counterexample. Why? Actions speak louder than words.

Lets's start this out with a quote from Tibor R. Machan, Co-Founder of Reason Magazine.

..when someone advocates a disagreeable idea, no one's rights are being violated; when someone engages in self-destructive conduct, once again the culprit isn't violating any rights; when someone sells dope to a willing adult buyer, once again no rights are being violated. Consensual interaction can not be rights violating.

But what, you might ask, about vulnerable folks, with weak wills? Here is where the complications arise, which is why the matter isn't amenable to being treated briefly. If ordinary citizens, human beings, do have free will, as morality and the criminal law assume, they are able, even if with some difficulty, to resist temptations and inducements from others to do what can hurt them. If they refuse to resist, if they decide to take up a bad habit-smoking dope, gambling excessively, hiring hookers-and even get addicted, this is their responsibility to handle. Others may be morally blameworthy for attempting to induce them, tempting them, promoting the bad behavior, but no one has violated their rights in doing this. I can influence others, perhaps, with fancy words, with charisma, and the like but none of this forcibly imposes anything on them, none of it amounts to violating their rights. Even if they are unusually vulnerable, they have the freedom to take measures to protect themselves from my bad influence-they can avoid me, form a support group to keep away from tempting literature I might send their way, and so forth.

Indeed, it is both insulting and presumptuous to assume that others ARE "acting irresponsibly" or subject to "bad influences," and to interfere with their rights, associations and chosen supports, friends and even chemical crutches on that basis is both unethical and immoral. If they wish your advice, they may ask. And of course, to complain of their choices imposes the moral obligation upon you to provide choices that are objectively better than theirs.

..within the framework of the American political and legal tradition, animated by the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, victimless crimes simply are no proper crimes at all. The people "committing" them may be vicious, evil, acting immorally, and so forth but their doing so does not suffice, in a free society, to make them criminals.

My thoughts, below the fold.
There's more...
As I've said many times and in many ways, morality is not the proper concern of government, it is the proper province of religion and religious leaders, for the very reasons related above.

For religion to become government, or government to become religious is to degrade the legitimate authority of each, with the price of a bastard entity that has less social utility than either separate entity, much less the combined force of each. Don't take my word for this, read some history. It's utterly lousy with examples, from Phillip of Spain to Constantine to the Holy Inquisition.

Government, ideally speaking, places few, and only necessary limitations upon the liberty of individuals in order to protect the interests of all. For instance, driver's licenses and speed regulations.

Aside from having the force of law, speed limits are based on the far more immutable laws of physics - stopping distance, limits of visibility and the like. In other words, aside from the law and it's role in determining accountability should you screw up, it is also doing it's higher duty of providing you with information so that you do NOT screw up in a way potentially harmful to others.

But, ultimately, how fast you drive is your choice, and speed limits (as well as most other traffic laws) are obviously considered advisory by many people. We all put up with the consequences of that with every single commute, yet while it's technically feasible and probably cost effective, you aren't seeing "smart roads" springing up, so that all high-speed traffic is computer controlled. Individual liberty is worth some calculated risks and many inconveniences.

I think it obvious that a single person in their own vehicle under conditions that do not exceed their ability, with no other person's life at risk without consent should have the right to make such calculated risks. I have no problem with that. Nor will you see the highway patrol in any state wasting much time patrolling lonely roads to protect people from miscalculations.

The question as to whether you have the moral right to put yourself at risk is quite another matter - and the answer varies greatly due to the religion. Some would bypass that by saying that you have the moral obligation to obey all laws, so as not to be a bad example to others.

I personally reject that arguement, for it precludes responsible civil disobedience. Worse yet it makes "respect for authority" a moral imperative, irrespective of it's competence or consequences. There is a place for social disobedience as a statement of personal, moral and ethical integrity, with consequences that are no more avoidable for being largely un-addressed in law.

Separation of church and state is not for the benefit of the unchurched, nor is it for the benefit of an "amoral" government. Our government has a Constitution, which is it's particular "morality;" it's legal and ethical boundaries set in stone. It quite properly leaves the moral dimension of individual actions to those with the moral responsibility to handle those choices. For those that have difficulty with making good moral and ethical choices, we have separate institutions, as Machan notes above; churches, AA, Masonic orders and the Rotary Club that each deal with various aspects and dimensions of personal and professional ethics, moral choice and individual responsibility.

Should their advice become law, whatever spiritual benefit that may accrue from making the "right" choices comes rightfully into question, as does the necessity for the institution itself.

Worse yet, these ultimate questions of ethics become identified with particular political viewpoints, economic interests and doctrinal associations. And to the extent that one or another congregation of interest "wins" a point, individual liberty is always diminished, at the expense of both the individual and the consequent life-lesson.

If I avoid "occasions of sin" because consequences for such "sins" have been inflated to the point of absurdity, what need have I for a church? The government will suffice, and then all that is not forbidden is permitted. Conversely, if all "sins" recognized by government are known by their draconian punishments, it becomes far more possible to shrug off the ordinary consequences of mistakes ("sin" means just that, "mistake") that are not deemed illegal.

I humbly suggest that we already see the consequences of this sort of thinking - and most dramatically within the folds of the very strictest denominations themselves. The crusade against "moral relativism" is in fact just this - an attempt to extinguish the idea that a particular action may have particular consequences under particular circumstances that make it specifically a sin for that person in that case - but not in another. This, of course, requires individual judgment informed by specific understandings of ethics and moral choice, a realization that would put a large number of professional moralists out of work.

But if "moral relativism" is so dangerous, we should look at the success rate for "Moral Absolutism, " the choice of dominionists and fundamentalists of most religions.

The metrics for divorce are higher in states dominated by the "big box churches", for example, by significant margins. This is one of many indicators that suggest to me that the conservative churches of America, in focusing on the sins of those outside their congregation and insisting on the general at the expense of the specific have failed their duties to the flock within. That duty is not to the group as a whole, much less to the nation as a whole - it is to each and every separate individual faced with their own individual challenges.

When Jesus said "feed my sheep," it was within a culture quite used to tripping over the damn things. Sheep are harmless unless they fall on you, inoffensive and have an amazing capacity for innocently wandering into death traps, stepping on feet and crapping indiscriminately. Furthermore, if not taken to where they are literally up to their ankles in food, they will helplessly starve while bleating pathetically. Jesus was a realist, and he was not complementing the flock, nor conveying power with out duty.

"Feeding the sheep" is a chore. A duty. An obligation of those capable of recognizing that for one reason or another, praise Goddess, they are NOT sheep.

I use the word Goddess to underline the fact that the duty is inescapable by simply choosing to become something other than Christian. Indeed, from my perspective, the ethics of the matter are clear enough that I'd be saying the same thing as an atheist.

Government is wholesale. Religion - and it's secular equivalents - are retail. By seeking to become major secular powers, influencing governments the various churches have both currently and historically become whores TO government, or become governments themselves.

But the shepherd does not get to choose which sheep they have a duty toward - they run after any sheep in trouble . The dogs may attend to the flock as a whole. And yes, we may indeed use that as a metaphor for Law.

The law is implacable, and for that reason alone it must be as minimal a restriction on individual liberty as possible, so that it does not interfere with our individual rights and responsibilities.

For instance, while it's Unconstitutional (a fact, though it's an often inconvenient fact in the face of the utter failure of our churches to do their rightful tasks) to forcibly take money from Peter to feed Paul, I see no constitutional impediment to it establishing mechanisms whereby Paul can choose to feed Peter.

It would certainly be Constitutional for it to invest in a universal insurance scheme that did not depend on borrowing from the future. Better yet, it could simply serve as a conduit for such schemes, to amortize risk, minimize overhead and serve to ensure that such services did not become schemes for profit or power.

No government - nor for that matter, religion - is truly wise and all-seeing enough to truly know what any of us need to meet our responsibilities, or even directly determine what our needs are and meet them. Were it possible to know, such knowledge would be so totally invasive as to completely strip us of all human dignity.

Therefore, state and church exist in separate, immiscable capacities to advise, and with our consent, provide information, resources and human contacts to help with those most personal and non-transferable duties. Nor may any entity, person, religion, corporation or government claim to be wise enough to know for certain that in the face of a poor outcome, their choices would have been better on behalf of any particular individual.

First attempt define what "better" would be for every single affected person with inarguable accuracy first, with absolute reliability from the viewpoint of those in need and you will see my point. Even the most obvious-seeming judgments rely on assumptions based on your informed guess as to what would be best for most people, with "most" being ultimately defined as "people you know."

Therefore, "judge not, lest you be judged also." It's not a prediction of future consequence, it's an observation of very immediate human reaction. The moment you make assumptions about individuals based on your assumptions about what people "should" do or be able to do, you reveal your own personal inability to accept realities and people outside of your understanding.

To you Christians out there who nonetheless refuse to feed Paul for various transparently false rationalizations - the Bible says that if someone comes to your town and is hungry, and he is not fed, clothed and given refuge, then they may take what he needs from the altar of the Temple. As I recall, it would ordinarily be a lesser offense under the Levitical Code you are all so fond of for them to steal from you.

The Constitution will not force you to act morally, ethically or even responsibly. It does not demand that you "hold up your end," nor will it force others to compensate for your lack. It will not protect you from the consequences of pretending you are when you are not. Nor is there any legitimate religion, system of ethics or morality that will pretend otherwise. Not even Satanism. What the Constitution does is to attempt to limit Government from interfering with your rights - and empowering it to protect your individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the encroachment of others.

If you are genuinely unable by temperament, mental state, or circumstances to act responsibly in all things, then it is your responsibility to seek out help, just as it is your duty to help when called on by those in genuine need. There is a reciprocal responsibility to be helpful, and where government can legitimately make help from over here available over there it must - as our designated agent and adviser.

It's just that simple, and no, you really don't get to pick and choose between the "deserving and undeserving;" not as a Christian, and certainly not as a Deist, a Humanist or indeed, an irreligious, self-centered couch-potato. Refusing to recognize an ethical necessity does not make it go away.

As I study the Constitution, I realize more and more that it deliberately denies the People the comfortable apathy of a state that exists to "take care" of them. Even the sheep have the the minimum responsibility of finding a trustworthy shepherd. Those of you claiming to be shepherds, but who are but shills for the slaughterhouse - well, sooner or later the smell of blood will betray you.

Aint' that right, Messers. Bush and Haggard?

With such examples of "Christianity" in positions of power, it is deeply and damnably ironic to hear comparable asshats intone that "This Is A Christian Nation." With Pharisees in charge, it's time to consult a Samaritan.

Here's an example of a really excellent Samaritan. (NSFW)

Yes, that links to Playboy's "The Girls Next Door." And yes, Hefner has all three of them underfoot. And yes, I'm sure the relationship is mutually satisfactory, sexually and financially.

But the point is, it's not a relationship Hefner has any obvious financial need to have and watching the show is evidence enough that there are some significant downsides. Hef chose to care for three girls who are... erm... well, they are prettier than sheep but not a whole lot smarter.

My wife - the special educator - became fascinated by the show. Kendra is her favorite. She says it gives her hope for some of her students.

You see, responsibility need not be fulfilled out of pure altruism, nor are you expected to be of help where you cannot. Such bizarre ideas lead inevitably to abuse, exploitation and burnout.

Those particular three women would drive me completely, stark raving mad, even were I financially capable of padding life's corners for them as Hefner has. Furthermore, by giving each of them responsibilities commensurate to their talents, such as this show, he is also giving them an individual dignity that few others could.

The show itself makes one smile. That was something I simply did not expect. I thought it would be primarily about cleavage and jiggle, but oddly, it's mostly not. Or rather, cleavage and jiggle is so pervasive it becomes invisible, even when they are wandering around as blissfully naked as happy toddlers. (I actually find the FCC-required blur trou