I'm late to the party again; only because Hilzoy mentioned it did I see this hilariously inane article by Michael Medved. I don't know what Medved's qualifications are; he seems to be the Clever Hans of the Right Wing chattering classes, the guy who doesn't actually have a functioning mind but is good at stringing random words together. So now he has written an article claiming that it is perfectly reasonable for Americans to discriminate against atheists in politics, specifically that they should resist the possibility of an atheist as president.
This is not a choice I thought we had. I had no idea there was an atheist anywhere on the slate of candidates, and that we had to therefore reassure people that they weren't actually required by law to vote for them. In the interests of being totally fair, I'd like all my American readers to know that it is right to resist the election of a wandering Geatish epic hero to the presidency, too: they tend to be violent, any time they're not at war they're morosely guzzling mead, they don't speak the language of Congress, there is actually a constitutional restriction against foreign-born nationals, and, well, they're all dead. See? It's a little harsh to tell someone famous in the sagas of skalds that they don't get to be president, but at least I can give a list of decent reasons.
Medved can't even argue against this nonexistent non-choice of a non-candidate with anything approaching sense. He gives three reasons we shouldn't have an atheist president, and I'm sorry, this is the best he can come up with? If those are the weaknesses of an atheist president, I say we've been wasting our time with Christians.
His first excuse is that an atheist president couldn't exercise ceremonial functions, like saying the pledge of allegiance, without being hypocritical. You heard that right: a right-wing water carrier for the Republicans considers hypocrisy to be a disqualifying offense. Further, a president who doesn't say "under god" in the pledge is "a formula for a disastrously unpopular presidency". Isn't it nice to know that a tanking economy and a catastrophic failure of a war aren't quite as damaging to a presidency as refusal to say a loyalty oath to an invisible man?
His second excuse is a little more convincing. Americans are god-lovin' people who will dislike a president who doesn't accept their delusions. Of course, this is also begging the question: Americans are right to resist an atheist president because Americans despise atheists. He doesn't say why it's all right for Americans to despise atheists, though; they just do.
His third argument is that we need to win the war on "Islamo-Nazism". Isn't it funny how on the one hand, Nazism is a godless evil driven by Darwinism, and on the other it's a character of a fanatical fundamentalist Abrahamic sect with dreams of establishing a world-wide theocracy? I get so confused, but then I don't have the advantage of having my higher reasoning centers pithed out, as have the Medveds and Coulters and O'Reilly's of the world. In this case, Medved makes a quadruple right reverse argument that leaves me totally twisted around. We hate "Islamo-Nazism," therefore we must elect a religious president because that's what the Islamo-Nazis want. It's the only way to win! I'm convinced. I'm so well persuaded now that if an Islamic mullah should run for the presidency, I think we should all vote for him. It's the logical conclusion of this chain of thinking, after all.
There is some more of this kind of unreasoning dribbling off at the end of his column — for instance, one barrier to an atheist president is that he couldn't honor Billy Graham, and Lord knows, not honoring one religious person in 300 million is a good enough reason to dishonor 30 million non-religious Americans — but I should hope that that is enough.
My fellow Americans, I think it is also right to resist a right-wing religious panderer for president, because if they're anything like Michael Medved, they are incompetent idiots.
- Log in to post comments
Considering his "slavery was a laugh riot" positions in the past, this one's not too bad. It's mostly wrong. But, really, for Medved, C- work is an accomplishment.
YES, actually, it would be about time. God didn't save those people from starvation and taught them how to grow crops in that gravel pit called New England.
What an asshole.
Isn't his first excuse simply an admission that the "Under God" pledge is unconstitutional?
"...the guy who doesn't actually have a functioning mind but is good at stringing random words together."
He was named a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in November 2007 (although, interestingly, his name is no longer on the roster), what do you expect?
The entirety of his first "reason" is just an admission that the United States has an inappropriate and unconstitutional establishment of religion. I mean, seriously.
And where are the overwhelming majorities of American who consider the pledge an important daily ritual? People are saying this thing daily after graduating high school? ?!?
No atheists in offices--each one of them is barred!
(We need a common enemy... cos thinking is too hard.)
I take a little encouragement from the fact that most of the comments following the Medved post are critical of it, and show some pretty clear-headedness. There are exceptions, of course.
I had a similar reaction to this article. The Republicans must feel the sting of defeat right around the corner, because the rhetoric over there is getting shriller and more deranged with every passing day.
For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation --the Indians in Massachusetts?
What kind of a dumb question is that! Good grief.
His first point is essentially supporting the contention that "Under God" is unconstitutional. That's fine by me, but doesn't he read what he writes before publishing it here in the land of the series of tubes?
It's a shame, his book The Golden Turkey awards was quite good I thought.
I thought this was the case, from Wikipedia:
"In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The inclusion of "So help me God" is a convention.
HEY! I resemble that remark!
And now he's vying to supplant Ed Wood for the honor!
Thith guy really pitheth me off.
And what's all this I hear about not being able to honor Bill Graham? Bill may well have been an atheist himself! I mean, clearly his pantheon consisted of 1) money, 2) the Grateful Dead, 3) music in general, and 3) customers with money. His mother died in Auschwitz! I don't see how being an atheist would prevent a President from...
what?
oh.
never mind.
[/Emily Litella]
No atheists for President, the idea's just absurd!
(they wouldn't get a vote, of course, according to this turd)
Sorry, Cuttlefish
Medved's qualifications?
He's an expert on bad movies - like the one we're in right now.
The "Under God" part wasn't even originally in the Pledge of Allegiance, it was added later. That's why there's those big pauses before and after the phrases: "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible..." instead of "One nation under God, Indivisible..."
No atheists for President, the idea's just a farce!
(or so says my friend Medved, who's talking through his arse)
I care.
Did anyone else notice there's a sidebar photo accompanying that article of Obama? The article is basically accusing him indirectly of being an atheist.
Does it creep anyone else out that they always take the high ground with the "voices inside my head that I believe come from my invisible friend tell me not to kill, so I don't" argument? It kind of makes me wonder if there is a connection between that and the way that religion seems to have been used to justify torture, murder, misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc for just about forever. The voices sometimes condone hateful aggressive behavior apparently.
According to Medved
"Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the "Church of America""
The difference is she's a constitutional, hereditary monarch - no power. She can believe in whatever she wants to, even invent her own religion - oh wait, that's what her ancestor Henry viii did, she's already got her own religion!
Is Medved suggesting the founding of a dynastic presidency? What a novel way to keep out the atheists.
His second excuse is a classical is-ought confusion. It may be true that many US-Americans *won't* vote for an atheist due to their religious convictions (that's the is), but you can't use that to say that these convictions are a reason why they *shouldn't* vote for an atheist (the's the ought), like he's doing.
I wonder whether he's stupid or dishonest, though. Does Hanlon's razor apply to wingnuts?
Yes, much later, during the Red Scare, as a reaction to "godless communism." (Hey, if the Soviets can undermine freedom of religion, so can we! Interesting tactic.)
There's an interesting correlation between the forced insertion of the phrase, and the rise of rock'n'roll, recreational drug use, sexual liberation, and juvenile delinquency.
[*innocent look*]
Medved long ago realized he could make the gravy train by sucking up to the religious right.
First off, the first HOW many of our presidents never said the Pledge. They all ust have been SO unpatriotic. And after it was written, how many said it before the "Under God" part was added? Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman...what unpatiotic presidents. My parents, both products of the pre-WWII generation, learned it without the Under God and don't say it now. I am trying to "unlearn" it (child of the 60's that I am).
The Republican Party has been extraoprdinarily effective at inducing vast numbers of citizens to vote against their interests. They do this by playing a slick conscious game of Three-Card Monte. I have discussed this before:
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/three-card-monte/
First off, the first HOW many of our presidents never said the Pledge. They all just have been SO unpatriotic. And after it was written, how many said it before the "Under God" part was added? Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman...what unpatiotic presidents. My parents, both products of the pre-WWII generation, learned it without the Under God and don't say it now. I am trying to "unlearn" it (child of the 60's that I am).
I don't look at a candidate's religion...I don't CARE about his/her religion. I look at the platform, past record in public affairs, and hope he/she's not an idiot like the Shrub.
For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?
For that matter, how could a Jewish or Muslim president? Or a Catholic president? Or even a non-Baptist president?
It's probably best we just let Billy Graham pick the president. Otherwise, how will we be certain that he will receive his proper fealty?
Not only that, Kseniya, but the original pledge was written by a SOCIALIST! Amazing they didn't discard it then and there.
That'd be hilarious if it wasn't so disturbing. Yeah, the Founders so loved the English system of governance, they created a system just like it right here in the New World! The Founders so loved the "divine right of kings" paradigm, the time-honored alliance between church and state, and the glorious benefits to mankind such alliances never failed to yield, they based our entire system of government upon it.
What an ignoramus. What a freakin' moron. A dangerously moronic freak. Errr... whatever. Who listens to idiots like this guy? Wait, wait - don't tell me: Millions of would-be Dominionists all across this great land. Sigh.
Medved's not 'an expert on bad movies', he's a smug asshat who confuses big budgets and big box office takings with quality. His list of 'worst movies of all time' included Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, Ivan The Terrible, Last Year At Marienbad, the 1960 animé of Journey To The West, and Hitchcock's Jamaica Inn. I could point you to a dozen big oscar-winning movies of the last 20 years that can't hold a candle to Plan 9, Robot Monster or Rat Pfink A Boo Boo.
Medved made a name for himself criticizing movies for not being "family-friendly" enough. He is a big proponent of the nanny state, which completely fits with organized religion's many incarnations in public life. I wish there was some way to actually know how many atheists attend church every Sunday. I'm convinced that there are closeted atheists who show up just to keep from taking heat from their families and neighbors. This election has some historic firsts. Maybe it will pave the way for an atheist candidate. He or she would have my full attention.
Don't do this thing you don't want to do, as it makes people like you angry when people like you do this thing you don't want to do.
When I read the phrase 'Judeo-Christian faith', I get the impression that it actually means 'only Christian faith (but I don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism)'.
Robot Monster wins a "K" award for "Most Astonishing Use of Soap Bubbles."
Yes, that really put the "K" in "WEIRD"!
Medved babbles on
an empty brook in the woods
the stupid it burns
(Hat tip to Cuttlefish!)
One thing we don't need: an atheist shooting us in the foot by trying to claim reverse racism. That dust-up last week over Rep. Davis of Illinois has flared up again, and this time the atheist, Sherman is the one eating shoe.
The idiots are winning...Nathan Barley
Wait a tick! If the God-Fearin' US of A would have a huge issue with the president being an atheist, wouldn't that have been an issue BEFORE the whole freaking country elected him?
Or am I just applying logic to fallacy?
And where are the overwhelming majorities of American who consider the pledge an important daily ritual? People are saying this thing daily after graduating high school? ?!?
==
Am I the only one who finds the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools creepy?
I mean, granted, I'm not an American, but I would really like to hear people's opinions on this. It's bad enough that students have to stand for the national anthem in schools where I'm from, but reciting the PoA just seems like brainwashing. Like the Apostle's Creed or something.
I would really like to get opinions (American and otherwise) on this.
Oh, yeah
and the flag-waving, too
Symbols have become more important than the ideas they represent, or so it seems
same with presidential speeches. I read transcripts of Obama's speeches, it's like a checklist of required phrases.
Medved, as a Jew, does not believe that Jesus is a deity. He believes that every Christian in America is historically and factually incorrect in their beliefs, if not deluded.
However, he prefers the scenario whereas a person's entire world view is dictated by circumstances he does not believe in to someone who agrees with him that the claims of Jesus' divinity are false.
Does this make sense to anyone? Medved, we AGREE with you that the claims of the Christians are wrong. We AGREE with you in your rejection of their false claims!
Medved refers to "quoting Scripture", but as a non-Christian he agrees it is just mythology (one would presume that quoting only the Old Testament would not garner as much sympathy from the voters), and rejects those very writings as being inspired by god.
How are Christians not seeing this?!? Medved agrees with us atheists that they are ALL WRONG!
Also awesome.
From NC Constitution
XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
Just FYI, for those who might live in NC.
Forgot to ad the link, which is to the Avalon Project, NC Const. of 1776
This link is to today -
http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/CONST4.HTM#VI
It's essentially the same
We really need some way to tell people that what they're pointing out has already been pointed out
perhaps a little bit of code preventing more than one copy of a link, or even borrow Randall Munroe's thread moderation software (which prevents the same comment ever being made twice, and presumably can be extended to anyone posting the same link twice)
What a revolting piece of crap that report from the insane cretin Medved! You wonder if we are living in the 21st century with all the results of science around us and Cassini sending back those fabulous pictures of Saturn and its moons, and with the thought that this insane crap should be lessening by now and will eventually fading out. And now this insane screed from the halfwit shit brain. It's bad enough to rant religious crap, but to mix it with politics and somehown influence the majority of Americans that to elect an atheist for president will portend doom and destruction is going beyond the pale. There is just no time and inclination to hash out the whole insane report, but suffice it to say I am livid as many of you know my ill temperment for all religions. And the freaking nerve of that slimeball to excoriate one of our rational members of Congress, Peter Stark, as "the shameless radical rabblerouser", just begs for the most vitriolic poison we can throw at the retarded slime bag. I think that we should coax Peter Stark to run for president in the next election and go all-out to sponsor his cause, and for reason, and let it be known that perhaps there is a enough serious group of sane people to elect a rational person in spite of the prevailing insane majority. Man, what a scary state of affairs!
Joe @ #32:
Actually I can see Medved as the Great One from 'Robot Monster.'
Great One: Earth Ro-Man, you violate the laws of plans. To think for yourself is to be like the hu-man.
Ro-Man: Yes! To be like the hu-man! To laugh! Feel! Want! Why are these things not in the plan?
This is the same sentiment that lead that guy on the Supreme Court ( Scalia, I refuse to call him 'Justice' ), to say on CSPAN that because this country has always been a religious country it's ok to disregard Atheists and non-monotheists.
It's a total bullshit argument too because the large majority of Presidents have been theists ( there were some questions about Lincoln for example ) but that doesn't make them good leaders. Hell, Bush is a prime example. He couldn't even keep his oath to protect the US constitution ( not that Christians are supposed to take oathes anyway ) or keep his promise of a gay marriage constitutional amendment. He's highly religious and he's a shitty leader. If anything i'd say it was high time to elect an Atheist just for something new.
The first 4.5 paragraphs actually seem thoughtful and well-reasoned. His attempted justification of this state of things is where it falls apart into borderline incoherence.
U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will...
As I understand it, at the time the CotUS was written, "I swear" was a religious act and implied one's belief in a God. To "affirm" was to make as serious a pledge but without reference to a religion or deity. So the oath is written so that an atheist can indeed be president (or any other office).
As I understand it, but not a linguist or etymologist so I could be wrong.
I sort of agree with the conclusion in that Americans would be justified in discriminating based on beliefs. Religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) are correlated to political beliefs. Therefore, personal beliefs are a somewhat reliable indicator of political beliefs.
But that's not why Americans are discriminating against hypothetical atheist candidates, is it? Apparently, their reasoning is that the Islamo-Nazis don't want an atheist president. Thank you, Medved, for reminding us of your bigotry.
"Many such skeptics still recognize the value of churches and synagogues in...offering educational alternatives, and encouraging functional values in our young."
Educational alternatives: Thoughts and begging to a non-existent caretaker entity will get rid of your cancer and the earth is only thousands of years old. And lets not forget that whole ID thing. Great alternatives to things like evidence and facts.
Encouraging functional values in our young: Like producing many, many, many more young to dramatically threaten the further prosperity of humans in future generations by straining the food and resuorce supplies.
Oh, well, that's Medved for you. If you can root for a favorite batshit crazy idée fixe among such a large field as he presents (Mother's Day? ballet? /twilight-zone-theme), I'd have to go for his warning against time-lapse photography:
As Keith Simanton, the author of the interview, notes,
#42 Am I the only one who finds the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools creepy?
You are not alone, and 'creepy' doesn't begin to express what I feel when I hear it. I moved here in the early 90s and my immediate thought when I first heard these recitals was of Orwell's 1984. It felt like brainwashing to me, and still does.
Am I the only one who finds the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools creepy?
Big-time. It's a weird nationalistic ritual, and belongs on the ashheap of history along with the notion of swearing fealty to a lord. Mandatory jingoistic displays of patriotism, idolatry of state symbolism... don't we make fun of other (supposedly less-free) countries for stuff like that?
(Speaking of Commandments that wingnuts have difficulty honoring... in addition to the whole "not lying" thing, they seem to have a lot of the trouble with the "no idolatry" thing, at least where the American flag is concerned.)
I'm really tired of reading this kind of bullshit from retards like these (sorry Carlie and others, I twinge too when I have to use that word, but what works better? I'd love to be able to come up with some unique, witty riposte for each of these, but they don't deserve their own epithets. They're clones. Not one of them has a single innovative thought, and I'll be FSM-damned if I'm going to waste the brain cells I've carefully cultivated just to tailor an individual insult for each of a group of people who display less originality than an Ikea showroom.)
Ahem. As I was saying, I'm tired of oafs like these. Can't you Yanks do anything about them? I mean fuck, you took on one of the most powerful nations on Earth because they charged you up the ass for tea, and this what it led to? For all the good it did you, you might as well have stuck with British rule--at least you would've ended up with a decent postal code system.
How in the history of all human thought and endeavour did achieving ovine obtuseness become a laudable goal?
Mr Medved received our group's most coveted award for his column.
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showpost.php?p=483224&postcount=1825
The Libertarian Party had an agnostic skeptic--Harry Browne--running for President in 1996 and 2000. For all the reasons the right-wingers in the media gave about how horrible he was, I can't ever recall his (lack of) religion being mentioned among them.
Granted, he didn't get a LOT of airplay, but he got enough. So it makes me wonder how much of an issue it really is when you actually get an atheist or agnostic candidate in front of you.
This year, we don't seem to have any atheist or agnostic nominees (although George Phillies, who refuses to talk about his religion, has said he will swear the oath on the Constitution and not the Bible), but a candidate favored by me and others is Dr. Mary Ruwart, who is a Christian but is very atheist-friendly.
Of course, I think the LP has been ahead of the curve on a lot of issues like that. The first ever electoral vote for a woman in this country went to a Libertarian candidate (Tonie Nathan in 1972), and two of our last four VP candidates have been women.
"In the interests of being totally fair, I'd like all my American readers to know that it is right to resist the election of a wandering Geatish epic hero to the presidency, too: they tend to be violent, any time they're not at war they're morosely guzzling mead, they don't speak the language of Congress, . . .
PZ, I hope you realize that, except for the part about being Geatish, your description could apply to the current office-holder! He sees himself as an epic hero, tends to be violent, is prone to being morose, has a history of alcohol abuse, and is incapable of communicating with Congress!
. . . there is actually a constitutional restriction against foreign-born nationals, . . .
That much is extremely accurate. No native-born Geat gets to be President, but if one happens to wander across the big pond, his/her descendants may. I can't be sure, but I think some even have.
. . . and, well, they're all dead.
Now wait, we are most assuredly not all dead. Assimilated, maybe, but being descended from Geats on my mother's side, I can tell you we are still very much alive and kicking.
Gee, PZ, and you're in Min-nie-sow-ta. For shame, for shame. Consider yourself to have earned a sternly-raised Swedish eyebrow, and at least five impatient taps of the foot. And if you're not suitably chastised, you might even be sent to bed without your lutfisk!
(You see, Ben Stein has nothing that even remotely compares to the cosmic power of Scandinavian guilt. That raised eyebrow and impatient foot tap trick has always stricken blind, unreasoning terror into all Nordic types!)
Medved's reasoning illustrates the fact that the pledge is discriminatory and that part of the point is to make it clear that atheists shouldn't receive equal rights and full-fledged citizenship in the U.S.
I assume you've seen Atheist Ethicist's story about the pledge, which has earned itself such a following that it's been made into a book.
Just to split hairs for a moment, Henry VIII was not a direct ancestor or Elizabeth II.
Despite being married to a whole succession of women over many decades he managed only three legitimate children. All three died childless.
Natural selection got the lot of them!
Here, according to Medved, are the words of a candidate who will never be President:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
and
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
- Abraham Lincoln
Holbach:
I've come to fear that, while some of us are living in the 21st century, many are not, and that our high-tech culture is really only a thin veneer over a world that in some ways is still almost medieval. It's a very unpleasant thought.
SteveM:
Yes, although that wording isn't there just to accomodate atheists. Even some Christian sects are averse to "swearing".
(sorry Carlie and others, I twinge too when I have to use that word, but what works better?
you must not be up on your anti-nuttery history...
the proper term to use was decided on long ago:
Demented Fuckwit
seriously, look it up.
Instead of just saying "Im a believer and I'm scared of
non-believers" (which is all his article conveys), he has
to hide behind the "majority" and say "everyone else is a
believer so how can a non-believer possibly succeed?"
Basically the same argument to be used against witches in
Salem and Galileo and "round earth" theorists.
Medved has always been the stunted child of the right.
He's perhaps even more self-righteous than a Falwell or
a Robertson.
Sorry Maureen
"Just to split hairs for a moment, Henry VIII was not a direct ancestor or Elizabeth II."
Just being facetious!
I got it, PZ.
Vote Beowulf!
LOL! Indeed.
I must admit that the daily recital of the pledge of allegiance is, to me, as an alien, a cultural artefact on a par with, say, eating lutefisk. More estranging still for me was the realisation that a high proportion of Americans display their national flag on or outside their homes, as if it could ever be doubted that they lived in the USA.
Me, I come from a nation that, in its own weird way, is as deeply steeped in patriotism as any on earth. We really do believe, against all the evidence, that anybody could care less what we think, or do, or are, and that we are acknowledged as the best soldiers/scientists/pioneers/rugged individualists/you name it on Earth, and everybody knows it. (Actually our most renowned national traits are the artistic regurgitation of lager beer and knowing what to do with a prawn. Often both at once.)
But despite our regrettable illusions, we are not prone to routine reiteration of our nationhood. We're quite fond of our flag, mind. (One of the truly insane reasons trotted out to justify our fairly recent decision not to become a republic was the thought that it would involve removing the Union Flag from the corner of our own, and that would be Just Terrible.) But though we're fond of it, we don't generally fly it in our front yards. The idea that we should swear allegiance to it would cause a certain amount of dry mirth across this dry continent. Put politely, it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
I'd like to think that this is because there's a national consensus that the act would be meaningless and possibly counterproductive. One's allegiance is to the community of all the nation, not simply to the flag. Flags are easily misused, after all. I suspect, however, that the real reason is that putting your hand on your heart and swearing allegiance to a flag would make you sound like a complete dork, and nobody would do it.
Ah, culture.
I'll have you know I'm at least 1/16th Geatish epic hero, and a natural-born citizen!
I think the pledge of allegiance recital in US schools is just a tad scary but mostly an illustration of some kind of cognitive dissonance. As I understand it, many Americans view it as some kind of patriotic thing. To me, having students praise the state every morning reminds me of totalitarian regimes. What purpose could it serve other then teaching obedience to the state? How silly is it to find this out-of-place behavior in the US?
China and N-Korea are the only other examples I know where the state needs praising by school kids every weekday. There might be more of course. I like to think that i've given all the praise and allegiance the state needs and deserves by voting and paying taxes.
Man from the future:
You fools!
You plastered references to a fictitious god on your money.
You forced your children to pray to a fantasy being.
You made it impossible for the sanest people to get elected without lying about their beliefs.
You revered dried up 2000 year old myths and enriched preacher scam artists whose only talent was an endless capacity for bullshit.
Your leaders willingly spewed the fantasy bullshit, for fear of losing popularity.
Millions remained ignorant of their ignorance, because so few stepped up to challenge the insane fantasy that pervaded your culture.
Your press was too chicken shit to question any of it.
You cowards!
@38:
Yes, he worded it poorly, but his point is valid:
"How can you, Rep. Davis, you whose ancestors fought so hard to win their rightful seat at the table of equality, now turn around and fight to deny others a seat?"
To be fair, I must point out taht the US pledge does include the all-important phrase, "...and to the Republic for which it [the flag] stands." I still don't like it much, though - particularly the "under God" part. It puzzles me that self-styled patriots fight to keep that late and ill-advised addition.
Bueller@#42:
No, I find it jingoistic, creepy, and Orwellian. I try to imagine what it would be like if something analagous was done in Ireland (home), and it seems utterly bizarre.
Re: Salt @46
The section of the NC constitution is invalidated by the 1961 supreme court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (from Wikipedia)
If a religious guy wearing a wetsuit debated a logical, rational atheist, Michael Medved would declare the guy in the diving mask the winner.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html if you don't understand the reference.
I went to go read his article but by the time I was in the middle of the first reason, I realized that it wasn't even worth reading, not even for entertainment's sake. \
ON THE OTHER HAND....
Michael Medved gives me hope. I've been worrying that I'm not bright enough to get voice my ideas in the public realm, but I see that "brightness" (not to be confused with Bright), is definitely not a prerequisite to getting heard.
I won't even have to refer to that class I took in formal logic. I should switch to English and learn the art of Rhetoric.
This doesn't seem at all creepy
"the proper term to use was decided on long ago:
Demented Fuckwit"
But fucking is a good thing!
"One of the truly insane reasons trotted out to justify our fairly recent decision not to become a republic was the thought that it would involve removing the Union Flag from the corner of our own, and that would be Just Terrible."
Yeah, why is that? I think Australia and New Zealand are long overdue for new flags. Hell, you guys wear completely different colors on your athletic uniforms.*
With regards to the Pledge, yes it is creepy and Orwellian. I have years of history in screwing with the flag pledge by inserting the words of one of Matt Groening's rewrites, and in one of my bolder moments, raising my hand in the Nazi salute for the flag (see: video for Pearl Jam's "Jeremy"). As far as I can remember, we stopped with those daily recitations after junior high school, but this was before 9-11, so it's entirely possible that they all recite the flag pledge five times daily while facing Washington now.
It would be awfully nice to live in a country that didn't have a stick up its collective ass with regards to the national ceremonies and symbols. Then I might just develop respect for them on my own. I went to the Sasquatch music festival in 2006 and I remember seeing quite a few people with Canadian flags on their backpacks (The Tragically Hip was playing). Young people at a rock 'n' roll festival who were actually proud of their country. It actually made me feel sort of left out.
* Although Italy does too. Why is that?
But fucking is a good thing!
watch where you stick that thing.
Ah... the Bellamy Salute.
#83
* Although Italy does too. Why is that?
The Azzurri wear blue because it is the color of the House of Savoy, the dynasty that united Italy in 1860.
Interesting to see so many still trying to teach a pig to sing (i.e. try to use logic and reason to argue with the incoherent rants of the Medveds of the world). "Logic", "coherence", "history", "fact", etc. - these don't apply in the Medvedian world beyond the standard 4-year-old's application of "what I want to be true". Why jump on the guy because he spouts random gibberish? Just say he's a foolish and ignorant twat and let it go at that.
Why jump on the guy because he spouts random gibberish?
-for the onlookers who might not otherwise be aware of how idiotic he is.
-because it's fun.
-because it allows one to vent some steam.
good enough?
I found him contradict himself: The pledge is a reason why an atheist shouldn't be president, but any attempt to change it is a "militant and narrow-minded" that demonstrates "intolerance of American society". His only consistent position seems to be "majority rules", with no rights for anyone else. Anyone surprised?
vs.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2006/11/15/the_toleran…
There's an interesting correlation between the forced insertion of the phrase, and the rise of rock'n'roll, recreational drug use, sexual liberation, and juvenile delinquency.
Damn right there is! I had to RELEARN the Pledge in second grade with that addition stuck in the middle! I'm certain that's why I smoked all that green stuff back in '68!
Why jump on the guy because he spouts random gibberish?
almost forgot:
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson
Farb @#62:
He was, of course, talking about ancient Geatish heroes, which begs the question in terms of them all being dead but lets you out nonetheless. :P
As for the guilt thing... Interesting. So now I know where to find a man to marry to the Italian-Jew-Converted-To-Catholicism mother to get the most guilt-inducing grandparents of all time.
So now I know where to find a man to marry to the Italian-Jew-Converted-To-Catholicism mother to get the most guilt-inducing grandparents of all time.
what are you trying to do? destroy the solar system?
that's going to spawn a veritable guilt black-hole right there!
In the spirit of ursine solidarity, Kseniya, I'm just sorry that such a dedicated anti-environmentalist has to sully the good name of медведь*.
("honey [cf. mead] eater", i.e. "bear" in Russian)
Ben Franklin said it best 286 years ago...
"'Tis not inconsistent with charity to distrust a religious man in power, thought he may be a good man; he has many temptations to propagate public destruction for personal advantages and security...But the most dangerous hypocrite in a commonwealth, is one who leaves the gospel for the sake of the law: a man compounded of law and gospel, is able to cheat a whole country with his religion, and then destroy them under color of law...until the monster arrives to such power and wealth, that he is out of the reach of [the clergy and the people], and can oppress the people without their own blind assistance."
Although Franklin was a spiritual man, a closeted Deist perhaps, it is safe to assume that he and the other Founding Fathers would have certainly come to quicker terms with their religiosity had they the knowledge that we own today. A spiritual nation, yes, a Christian nation, certainly not, and so they did the best they could in those darker times.
a man compounded of law and gospel
like...
Phillip Johnson?
Rey, there's a little more to it than that. Without getting into the great Canadian Schizo Complex (otherwise known as the Canadian Identity Issue or the Opinion Columnist's Slow News Day Standby), the primary reason Canadians wear flags on their backpacks is so that we aren't mistaken for Americans, largely because of the perception that Americans are rude and boorish travellers.*
In fact, on a young person's backpack is almost the only place you'll see a Canadian flag (oh, and over young people's apartment windows, at least until their landlords make them go buy actual window treatments, usually from Ikea). I guarantee you saw more Canadian flags that day than are currently flying from flagpoles in Edmonton. We're weird that way.
*Note: I doubt that we Canucks are any better, but we like to think we are.
until their landlords make them go buy actual window treatments
what's that about?
If the American citizens elect an atheist president wouldn't that already mean they're OK with his atheism?? (regarding the oath and the "despise" excuse?)
There was a recent suggestion of a pledge in the UK, to be recited by school leavers to the monarch. This came from Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general and Nulab... thing. The suggestion was not popular. My reaction is: fuck the monarchy. And fuck allegiance to the state. The state should be pledging allegiance to us!
There are two pledges of allegiance I consider compatible with a representative democracy: firstly, allegiance to the constitution. The UK has nothing worthy of the name. Secondly, allegiance to the people. I doubt the rich and powerful would go for that.
Nicole the Wonder Nerd:
Actually, the Westboro Baptist Church gets that right (shock!).
Shane Killian:
Swearing allegiance to the constitution on the constitution? Isn't that a bit circular?
Oh, I was just referring to the tendency of students and young people to use whatever materials are available as curtains when renting apartments, usually due to limited finances and the relatively transient nature of student life. And I've read rental agreements that stipulate that 'Flags and blankets are not appropriate curtains'.
PZ: "dribbling"
I believe you mean "driveling". There's a popular (and I fear unstoppable) confusion betwen\en "drivel" and "dribble". Please don't contribute.
Grammar, my guess is that PZ is using "dribbling" in a metaphorical sense here, as in, the demonstrated unreasoning is "fall[ing] or flow[ing] in drops or in a thin intermittent stream." "Driveling" wouldn't make as much sense, in my opinion, because the subject here is not Medved (who can justly be accused of driveling) or any other person capable of "talk[ing] stupidly or carelessly."
Brownian: All good points, but this was in America. Were they trying to score some American indie geek sex?
Ah, interesting... I didn't think of that. Maybe even more literally, "one in charge of honey"...? LOL
I suppose the surname shares an origin with the Ukrainian Медвенко and Медведенко. Hmmm. Son of a Bear? SoB?!
PZ at your age I thought you would have figured it out by now. THE'RE ALL IDIOTS. Unless you write in you will be voting for one.
It seems like the US has got to the stage where if people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln were presidential candidates, they would fail to get nominated because they would be considered to be 'not religious enough'. Oh, America; how far you gave fallen.
Still, they do say that the darkest hours are before the dawn...
He's a dumb jerk, but in a mass movement of thousands of dumb jerks just as dumb and just as must jerks as MM, how does his stuff see the light of day?
They've been gifted a human life, and use it for this. Is that due to nature or nurture? (I've always been heavily on the nuture side, but wonder more and more as I get older.)
I wrote up a little blog entry on this. I itended to tear the man a new one, but then decided, why bother? For the curious, here's a link to what I wrote: http://wilybadger.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/michael-medved-is-a-stupid-d…
Yes, the daily recitation of the pledge in schools is extremely creepy. In Texas, there's also a mandatory recitation of the pledge to the Texas flag!
I was always like: The heck? Just because my parents dragged me to this state because of the job market, I have to pledge allegiance to it? I don't think so!
Ironically, whenever I am exposed to the stupidity of fundies, I think of monkeys. I guess we haven't evolved that much in five million years.
Probably (Hey baby, wanna hear me say 'aboot', as in "How's aboot we ditched this hoserfest and I show you how we keep warm in Inuvik"?), but the Canadian flag on the backpack is a fixture, regardless of where one goes.
Bueller wrote:
It's bad enough that students have to stand for the national anthem in schools where I'm from, but reciting the PoA just seems like brainwashing. Like the Apostle's Creed or something. I would really like to get opinions (American and otherwise) ...
My earliest childhood memories include those of my own skepticism about being told to love anyone or anything. Clearly, I loved my parents, lots of other family and friends, plus my cat, my collection of Mary Poppins books, my favorite red dress, and birthday cake. Nobody had to tell me to love those people or things -- I just did. If you had to be TOLD to love someone or something, didn't that imply that you WOULDN'T love them if the decision was left completely up to you?
I was aware of that weird and disturbing cognitive dissonance by around age seven. And, yup, I'm American.
"the guy who doesn't actually have a functioning mind but is good at stringing random words together."
I don't know the guy nor am I trying to defend him, but for a blog that is based on facts the posted information from where this came from lacks a lot of facts.
Do we have to insult people now because we have no other way to get across to people. Is this what great minds do? Because, honestly I have to say I am disapointed.
Sometimes people who are intelligent have a problem with putting intelligence and wisdom together.
"My fellow Americans, I think it is also right to resist a right-wing religious panderer for president, because if they're anything like Michael Medved, they are incompetent idiots."
They are, and they are. This is one of the main reasons I feel like a foreigner in my own country. I'm convinced that if the founding fathers could foresee the general stupidity and deliberate non-education that is taking place today, they would shoot themselves instead of having a revolution.
After considerable reflection I would be willing to share the Pledge of Allegiance as a public confession if it simply went like this:
"I pledge Allegiance to the republic of the United States of America. One nation, with liberty and justice for all."
Period.
For the life of me I cannot agree that the symbol (Flag), or the assertion of universal correctness (under God) provide any useful guidance or purpose to the average citizen. In the first place, a symbol is most meaningful when nearly extinguished and in the second place, well, insert your own rhetorical question of religion's general reliability here.
I am a patriot because I live in a nation that not only encouraged me to be one, but whose citizens set an example that the rest of the world is emulating more and more each day. To that kind of politics, that kind of philosophy, I have no qualms about confessing allegiance.
And I don't like the idea of having my pledge construed as being offered to something greater than the republic or merely standing in its stead. I reserve my right to withdraw my pledge at any time simply by exercising the liberties inherent in my heritage and in the law of the land. If my pledge is tied to some proposed ultimate creator, then how am I to withdraw it?
Nay, ye knaves! Thar'll be no havin' of mine allegiance lest I first be free to hold it from ye!
Baaaahhhhrrrr.
E Pluribus Unum
A demented old nit-wit called Mike
Was irrationally full of dislike
For the party of reason
(Which struck him as treason).
So, let's tell Mike to go take a hike.
I should probably point out that you guys are welcome to emigrate...
How can people convince themselves to vote for idiots for president?
Easy... we don't have any non-idiots to choose from.
...where to start?...
It is a shame that an atheist wouldn't be able to honor the great works of Billy Graham, though.
#92, #93:
Well, I married the Italian Catholic. Mediterranean women are hott. And, better yet, none of them look anything like my Mom.
But to the point . . .
D'ya think if I got my daughter hooked up with a NJB (Nice Jewish Boy), putting any grand-daughter of mine in line to concentrate all that accumulated guilt onto subsequent generations, I could still spark that catastrophic quantum singularity by around, say, 2075?
That would be kewwl. I'll amend my will to insist they name my great-great-grandchild "Wormwood" tomorrow!
Beware puny humans! Global warming's got nothing on this!
Hmm, one of the girls I flirt with is descended from italian catholics, too...
and another one's jewish...
Decisions, decision...
Why not? That's like saying an atheist wouldn't be able to enjoy Bach.
"In the spirit of ursine solidarity, Kseniya, I'm just sorry that such a dedicated anti-environmentalist has to sully the good name of медведь*.
("honey [cf. mead] eater", i.e. "bear" in Russian)"
And amusingly, one reading of the name of that most famous wandering Geatish hero, Beowulf, has it as 'beo' (bee) + 'wulf' (wolf) - that is, bee-wolf, i.e. bear, in Old English.
How cool is that?!?! I had no idea--thanks for the info, Dan!
It seems that Geatish and Khmer, as far removed from each other as they are, were thinking along similar lines--"bear" = some better-known carnivore + honey aspect. In Khmer (Cambodian), bears are klaa kmum: "honey tigers".
That IS cool.
yes reciting the pledge daily is creepy. i only remember doing it at assemblies in jr. high and high school. however, for 4 years of elementary school (this waa a christian school) i had to say the pledge of allegiance, the pledge of allegiance to the christian flag and the pledge of allegiance to the bible daily. how sick is that?
There's a christian flag?
"Just because my parents dragged me to this state because of the job market, I have to pledge allegiance to it?"
I had to pledge allegiance to it just because my parents fucked here. *tip of hat to Bill Hicks*
Considering that Michael Medved hosted a series that introduced me to the joy of bad movies, I can't begin to express how sad it made me the day I found out he's right wing nutcase. Damn it though, I refuse to let that taint my Plan 9 enjoyment.
Back when GDub had higher approval ratings, and it was considered almost blasphemy to speak ill of him, much less that we needed to speak out against him--protest--burn him in effigy--whatever, people would say--You have to support your President!
I would tell them: If everyone had your attitude in 1776, we'd be singing Rule Britannia to this day.
Oh man--don't believe the "conventional wisdom" about the postal service in America. Please. Our service is just fine; Americans are just a) whiny babies that want things done their way NOW NOW NOW, and b) plug-ugly morons who are 99% of the problems with the mail system. When they're not failing miserably to address things properly, they try to mail the craziest things the cheapest way possible. This is a very brief list of things I've fished out of letter processing machines: Gum, candy, necklaces, headphones, pens, calculators, wedding rings, and WRENCHES. Did I mention that this was the machine for letters?
Anyway, the coding is fine. Each number is a breakdown from national to regional to local areas. It's not difficult to figure it out, either. Hint: Ever notice that the zip codes start with 0 in the NE, and 9 for the Pacific Coast? It's not a coincidence. Look for a big city in the first digit's area, and it's probably the X0 City. The codes will work in order from there, by next major city or state. For example, Los Angeles is 90xxx, San Francisco is 94xxx, Oregon is 97xxx and Washington is 98xxx.
As a few others have pointed out, it strikes me that he is worried about two events occurring simultaneously. The first, that the American public will in large majority vote for an atheist president. Second, that said president will be very unpopular. By his logic, PZ should probably take down his blog, as the majority of his readers would really like it to stay up.
Ben Stein will be medveds guest on his radio show friday, everybody be sure to tune in!
I don't think I can bear it. *smirk*
It's a shame, his book The Golden Turkey awards was quite good I thought.
medfly even stole that idea from forrest ackerman.
It seems like brainwashing because it is. At some point, my brain developed a handy Teflon coating, so you can imagine how much trouble I constantly had with Alabama public school teachers & admins for any of the following:
* Not wanting to say the pledge.
* Not wanting to put my hand over my heart.
* Silently mouthing the words.
* Saying different words.
The whole production always seemed just...stupid to me. Once I started learning some political history, I realized it was downright insidious. I would gladly swear allegiance to the Constitution and Enlightenment philosophy that inspired it, and to all the refinements made since, but this republic earns my allegiance in direct proportion to its embodiment of those things. Its record is spotty at best.
With that, Kseniya, you're just going from bad to urs...
What I noticed is that all his objections have to do with the ceremonial duties of the US president - which are the least important ones. The Thanksgiving speech is just a photo op. I doubt that very many Americans consider reciting the Pledge of Allegiance "meaningful". Sure, the US president is head of state but his primary job is head of government. He's a president, not a king.
Heh! Just imagine network coverage of the president pardoning the White House Turkey and portraying this act of uber-forgiveness to be further proof not only of our deeply devoted creator but more importantly the appearance of the president's devotion to the creator. Wait . . . haven't I seen something like that lately? Stuff the candidates said this week? In answers concerning their devotion to an ISS*? Never mind.
*Invisible Supernatural Spook
"So it makes me wonder how much of an issue it really is when you actually get an atheist or agnostic candidate in front of you."
I hate to be obvious, but it IS such an issue that the major parties have put mechanisms in place to ensure that candidates that reach the national level of awareness (and actually have a chance at winning a party nomination) do not have any personal ideological nuances (such as being an atheist) before they even sniff the parties' primary elections with any seriousness or chance of coming out victorious. And if this seems too undemocratic for you, go check up on the superdelegate system and look for the reason it was implemented by the Democratic party. It was designed specifically so the (paraphrase) Party could ensure that their nominated candidate would be truly in line with Party goals and ideas. Of course, their official explanation of their reasons is dressed up so as to not sound so fascist, but that is just semantics. Go read, and judge for yourself what the intent behind such a system really is.
Michael Medved's followers are called Medheads. I think they should be called Deadheads.