So, How’d The Test Go, India?

Over the past few days, I’ve had a substantial (for me, that is, a very small fish in the FtB pond) bump in page views, all coming from various locations in India. I have come to learn, over the past couple of years, that this means there is a test coming up. My verse, Time To Eat The Dog?, is in a textbook.

But the thing is, I never hear back from people (well, not true–I heard back from one, who agrees with me that it is a very simple verse, and was graded down for not having a deeper analysis) after they take the exam and get feedback on their answer! Also, I have never heard from any of the teachers!

So, If you are one of the teachers or students, I really would love to hear how people did! And if you are one of the MacMillan publishers, I am perhaps even more curious to know why you chose that verse!

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Struck Down

A judge in Pennsylvania
Did his utmost to explain: “Ya
Gotta let the people vote—and make it easy!”
He said “Voting’s fundamental!”
And the message that he sent’ll
Go a ways to fix a process that’s, well, sleazy.
Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley
Found the state’s case spread too thinly
And the “voter fraud” more mythical than real;
Ruled in favor of the plaintiff,
Might become the voters’ saint, if
His decision isn’t scuttled on appeal.
His opinion was well reasoned,
Any thoughtful reader sees, and
You can bet your bottom dollar they’ll appeal

It’s another decision worth reading–not because it is as beautiful a smackdown as the recent same-sex marriage decisions, but because it is just so damned thorough. I especially liked the examination of different sorts of acceptable forms of ID (noting, for instance, that the requirement of an expiration date on an ID has absolutely nothing to do with whether that ID can actually verify a voter’s identity), with the conclusion that (my paraphrase) the only common factor was that they added additional hoops to jump through, barriers (to mix metaphors) between potential voters and the ballot box.

The judge also noted the history of misinformation on the part of the state, with official letters to potential voters telling them one (untrue) thing, but no official retractions, no official correct information, only uncredited TV or radio ads (without the authority of the government behind them) telling people the correct information.

Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election. The voter ID law does not further this goal.

Of course, comment threads are full of people who clearly have not read the decision, and who have drunk the kool-aid of voter fraud hysteria. Some of the comments can be directly countered on Snopes, they are so popular; others are anecdotal accounts of one or two alleged incidents. The real (and evidenced) threat to democracy, though, was in a voter ID law that would have disenfranchised perhaps half a million eligible voters, systematically members of particular minority groups. The patriotic rhetoric of the complainers does not match the reality of who (in this case, Pennsylvania’s Republicans) are really out to commit fraud.

(oh… given that the actual decision is over 100 pages of judge-speak, you might want the NY Times coverage instead. But I do recommend the ruling itself.)

Just Marking Their Territory

Everywhere the big dog goes, he leaves his little sign
Alerting all the other dogs, “This property is mine!”
“This is mine, and this is mine, and this and this and this!”
He makes a claim of ownership, and seals it with a piss
He roams the streets and alleyways, and all around the town
He leaves his little messages, in yellow or in brown
He’s never paid a mortgage on the land he claims as his
He doesn’t pay the taxes; all he does is take a whizz
There are signs at every crossroads, half a dozen at the mall,
In the yards of private citizens, and one at City Hall—
These little signs are adding up, with more and more each day
But whenever I complain, they tell me “look the other way”

Take a look–Searcy, Arkansas has a dog problem. No, a God problem–I always get those two mixed up. There’s been a big God sniffing around and marking His territory all over town:

Seriously, those little white crosses are aesthetically crap–they must cost the church well under a buck apiece to make, they are not imaginative, nor artistic, nor historical, nor anything but tacky little ways for this God to mark its territory.

Around Cuttletown, there are people who post signs at intersections, advertising goods or services… and there are other folks who mark these signs with large, obscuring stickers that label the signs “LITTER” (which, legally, they are). The little white crosses, if placed on one’s own property, are nothing more than a sign of your tolerance for the tacky, a Christian equivalent of a plastic flamingo or ceramic garden gnome, but cheaper. If they are a sign of your faith, the sign’s message is “I love Jesus, but not enough to spend any money on Him–just enough to put up a tacky cross everyone knows they give out for free.”

No, the crosses serve no function other than that of a dog’s urine: they say “I’m the god (or dog) in charge here.” And the sheriff of Searcy rolls over and exposes his neck to appease the church, instead of picking the litter up off of the lawn and throwing it away.

“What If You’re Wrong?”

So I was looking at a hilarious church/state violation in the news (might write on it tomorrow, so no spoilers), and after a video played, in the “suggested videos” was prominently displayed a video entitled “what if you’re wrong?”. No, I didn’t even look at it; I’ve seen enough. It’s one version of Pascal’s Wager, and it’s asked as a “gotcha” to atheist speakers (because, of course, they are the only ones who can be wrong). But this time, I heard “what if you’re wrong?” (just that phrase, not the whole thing) to the tune of “I’m a gnu“. So, yeah, this one is not a verse, it’s a song. And, given the tune, it scans wonderfully… so if it does not scan for you, clearly, you are doing it wrong. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

What if you’re wrong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if the Greeks were right all along?
What if you should have been followin’ Zeus or Apollo, in-
Stead of some carpenter’s son?
What if your praying and kneeling just isn’t appealing
To gods that just wanna have fun?
What if you saw Aphrodite in only her nightie
You still think your faith is so strong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if you’re wrong!

What if you’re wrong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if you hear Heimdallr blow his Ragnarök song?
What if you should have been loadin’ a toast unto Odin,
A flagon of honey-sweet mead?
What if you found, if you say a quick message to Freyja
She’ll give you whatever you need?
What if you stutter and stammer at Thor with his hammer
Who smashes your head like a gong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if you’re wrong!

It’s simple probability—to join, or not to join
It’s the bet you place on black or red; the flipping of a coin
With that little pesky detail—which religion should you join?—
That exposes Pascal’s Wager as a scam
There are gods by tens of thousands; maybe millions; maybe more
Should you offer up a sacrifice, do you say which god it’s for?
And if others might be jealous, is this something to ignore?
True Believers may, themselves, be in a jam!

What if you’re wrong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if both you and the rest of your throng?
What if, of all the gods listed, one only existed,
And that one, no longer believed?
You’re in the church of your father, but god says “why bother?”
And all of your life, you’re deceived?
What if I mess up my timing and force all my rhyming
This impudent verse to prolong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if you’re wrong!

“Hostility Toward Religion”, or “Religious Hostilities”?

Let us celebrate the power
Of the simple preposition
Making bullies into martyrs with a word
When the truth is somewhat sour
Simply make a small edition
Though the putative conclusion is absurd

When “religion” and “hostility”
The Pew researchers mixed,
It’s religion on religion causing harm
To the best of their ability
The Post has got it fixed
Groups are hostile toward religion (sound alarm)!

When religions start attacking
The religious are the victims
Though that leads to a conclusion, rather odd:
Though the evidence is lacking,
There among the Christian dictums
Is that all religions worship the same God

It’s an internecine battle
True believers on both sides
And religious groups have earned their share of guilt
Yet the Christian Post will prattle
While the honest truth still hides
In the house of cards the Christian post has built.

The Christian Post headline (High Social Hostility Toward Religion Reported In A Third Of Countries Worldwide) tells you all you need to know about how they are going to spin the story:

A high or very high social hostility toward religion was reported in a third of the 198 countries and territories analyzed by the Pew Research Center in a report released on Tuesday, marking an increase in almost every major region around the world.

True.

Christians and Muslims were the two religious groups harassed in the most countries between June 2006 and December 2012. Christians faced harassment in 151 countries, Muslims in 135, and Jews in 95.

Also true. But if you remember last year’s BBC report on martyrs (in which we find that by far the greatest number of Christians killed in religious hostilities were killed… by other Christians, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and earlier in Rwanda–in both cases, with Christians on both sides of the hostilities), you might be curious about the reporting this time, too.

The Pew report on their study has a different headline (Religious Hostilities Reach Six-Year High) that makes it clear that the report is looking at more than just hostilities toward religion.

For instance, there has been an increase in

abuse of religious minorities by private individuals or groups in society for acts perceived as offensive or threatening to the majority faith of the country. Incidents of abuse targeting religious minorities were reported in 47% of countries in 2012, up from 38% in 2011 and 24% in [2007].

(bolding in original) The report gives examples–it is well worth reading.

The study finds that the share of countries where violence, or the threat of violence, was used to compel people to adhere to religious norms also increased in 2012. Such actions occurred in 39% of countries, up from 33% in 2011 and 18% as of mid-2007.

Again, many examples are given–most are new to me, but involve “efforts to enforce religious norms” not held by all citizens.

There is much, much more at the study. With so many (and increasing) incidents of religious hostility, it is small wonder there might be government restrictions on religious expression–hell, I would want the government to restrict, say, a church from dictating what my medical care includes! Ah, but even here, the report includes government restrictions where the government is itself taking the side of one religion:

Governments used force against religious groups or individuals in nearly half (48%) of the world’s countries in 2012, up from 41% in 2011 and 31% as of mid-2007. In April 2012 in Mauritania, for instance, “the government arrested 12 anti-slavery activists and charged them with sacrilege and blasphemy, along with other civil charges, for publicly burning religious texts to denounce what the activists viewed as support for slavery in Islamic commentary and jurisprudence,” according to the U.S. Department of State.

Oh, and it is worth noting that the Americas have far, far less religious hostility, either social or governmental, than other areas of the world. This despite determined bleating about a “war on religion” (a subsidiary of the “war on Christmas”, itself a subsidiary of “Fox News”).

A Whole Different Kern (Oklahoma SSM Ruling)

In Oklahoma, Terence Kern,
The news reports would have me learn,
Has ruled (He is a judge; he can)
Against the same-sex marriage ban
Though, for a while, the ruling’s stayed
Until the state appeals are made
So justice is a bit delayed.

The law that Oklahoma passed
Left same-sex marriage second-classed
They could not wed in-state at all
And should a couple come to call
Who’d married in a different state
Why, Oklahoma shuts the gate
Assigning them a different fate

But now (well, pending an appeal)
Such marriages again are real
And Oklahoma’s silly ban
No longer figures in their plan
And everyone is equal now
As far as laws like this allow
And Terence Kern should take a bow.

Remember Sally Kern? Remember Oklahoma discriminating against some of their citizens and treating them as less than equals? A whole different Kern has spoken:

U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern handed down the ruling in a lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples. Kern immediately stayed his ruling pending appeals, meaning gay marriages won’t happen in Oklahoma right away.

The gay couples had sued for the right to marry and to have a marriage from another jurisdiction recognized in Oklahoma.

Kern ruled on a constitutional amendment approved by Oklahoma voters in 2004 that says marriage in the state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. He said the measure violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by precluding same-sex couples from receiving an Oklahoma marriage license.

Once again as with Utah and Ohio, the actual Oklahoma ruling is well worth reading. My prediction: as with Utah and Ohio, comment threads will be full of stupid arguments that paint scenarios specifically addressed and answered by the actual ruling.

Meanwhile, In Cow Piss News…

Livescience.com, just yesterday, ran a story on a new health drink, made from cow urine. It’s been slightly updated, with mentions of a 2012 and a 2013 rat studies, but the main story is something we’ve seen before, back in 2009. Most of the quotes in yesterday’s article are actually from ’09.

As is this little jingle, for when the ad campaign gets rolling:

I don’t like the taste of Pepsi,
I don’t like the taste of Coke;
Dr. Pepper’s not the drink for me right now.
7-up and Sprite are dreadful
Every Root Beer is a joke;
What I really want is urine. From a cow.

If you like the taste of urine, you’re in luck!
If you think the taste of piss is bliss, it only costs a buck!
If you want to float your kidneys, you can buy it by the truck—
If you like the taste of urine, you’re in luck!

I don’t want to drink the Kool-Aid
I don’t want a mug of juice;
I don’t even want a tall glass of iced tea.
I’d really hate a cold V-8—
That’s vegetable abuse—
What I really want’s a cup of bovine pee!

If you like the taste of urine, you’re in luck!
If you think the taste of piss is bliss, it only costs a buck!
If you want to float your kidneys, you can buy it by the truck—
If you like the taste of urine, you’re in luck!

It’s a cure for diabetes,
It’s the finest healer known—
You will never need another drink than this!
In the battle of the soft drinks
This elixir stands alone,
And I guarantee it really tastes like piss!

If you like the taste of urine, you’re in luck!
If you think the taste of piss is bliss, it only costs a buck!
If you want to float your kidneys, you can buy it by the truck—
If you like the taste of urine, you’re in luck!

Spreading God’s Wrath–er, I mean Love, Globally

In America, the culture wars
Are given up for dead;
We can’t kill gays here (legally)—
Let’s kill them there instead

The bible belt is loosening—
Think bigotry? Think twice!
But hey, the world’s a big, big place…
Uganda sure looks nice.

Ugandan evangelicals;
American support—
A match that’s made in heaven, or
At least that’s one report

America’s morality
Leaves much to be desired;
But now, Uganda’s laws on gays
Are biblically inspired!

Uganda was the first to fall;
Nigeria, this week;
Both, evidence evangelists
Have found a new technique

We welcome the apocalypse
When God rights every wrong
And so we do our level best
To move it right along:

The end of days is drawing near
When God shows us his love
The world stands at the edge of doom…
Let’s give a little shove

Context: The Daily Show’s interview with Roger Ross Williams (third segment at link–individual segments not yet available).

Let’s Laugh At The Atheists (Or, Motes And Beams)

The atheist churches, where folks get together
And kinda do atheist things
Where one week you might hear a poetry reading;
The next week a music group sings
Where some discuss books, or see movies, or plays,
And agree, without god, that’s enough—
Let’s all point and laugh with derision at them,
Cos some like to do different stuff!

Some atheists want to have talks about science
While others, perhaps, find that boring
Some want to trade recipes, gardening tips,
Or some something this verse is ignoring
The range of opinions is varied and vast
Like a spectrum released by a prism
Let’s all point and laugh at their differing views
And we’ll call it an atheist schism!

A Christian’s a Christian, as everyone knows,
Cos we worship the very same Lord—
There’s maybe a difference or two in beliefs
But that’s something that’s best left ignored
Well, ok, there are thousands of differing sects—
Tens of thousands, some reckon, have grown—
But let’s laugh at the mote in the atheists’ eye
While ignoring the beam in our own

The good Catholic Christians at the Creative Minority Report (we laugh because we believe) are laughing at atheists. It’s just a brief report on the story that hit the atheist blogosphere last week about the “schism” in the new “Atheist Church”. Titled “Ha! Atheist Church Already Has a Schism!”, it begins:

This is just too funny. The first atheist Church started up a few months ago…and it already has a schism -a breakoff group that’s blasting the original atheist Church as a cult. Seriously.

I don’t know how exactly one atheist judges other atheists. “He doesn’t believe in nothingness enough!” or “Even though there aren’t any objective standards, I’m living up to them a lot better than that guy!”

So, to summarize: a gathering of atheists, the “Sunday Assembly” (note the lack of the word “church”) is termed a church by people in the media and in churches, and is then then assumed to have all of the qualities of other things that share the label “church”, whether self- or other-imposed. Like atheist invocations (who are they praising?), atheist chaplains (what god do they serve?), or atheist memorials (which god do they represent?), there is a frankly magical fascination with one definition of a word (and always the religious definition) rather than an honest understanding of the function of the action, position, or thing, which invariably is broader than the definition focused on (which, by the way, is why the dictionary includes other definitions as well).

A gathering of atheists, by definition and function, is a gathering of people who are defined by what they are not. For the most part, people continue to gather with one another when they have something in common. It is completely to be expected, then, that large groups of atheists will contain smaller groups of people who have things in common that may not be shared by other of the smaller groups. The larger group, after all, is not organized around one positively-defined belief.

On the other hand, there are (in theory) groups that are organized around a shared common belief in God. Whenever atheists must be put in their place and called the minority view that they are, “believers in God” are lumped together. So it must be the same god, don’t you think? So, large groups of believers do, in theory, share something terribly important (and especially important for the purposes of joining together as a church)… So while there is every reason to expect groups of atheists, brought together artificially, to naturally divide into mutually interested groups, groups of believers, brought together for the purpose of whatever it is their God wants them to do, should have every reason to agree on stuff (mind you, as individuals they may still disagree on anything else–there is no reason that they should have to cheer for the same football teams, or vote for the same parties, or like the same foods–but when they have gathered together for the purposes of their belief, they should be expected to agree).

The most generous number of Christian denominations I know of is roughly 41,000. Because this estimate includes nation-specific information, most international churches are counted multiple times (which sometimes matters, and sometimes does not). On the other hand, it only counts Christian sects, and Christians are only about a third of the global population. When the other Abrahamic faiths, the Indian and East Asian religions, the African and American indigenous religions, and many many more, are taken into account, we could very nearly conclude that religious people don’t agree on what God is. But let’s be generous, and just cut the number of Christian faiths by an order of magnitude. Dividing by the number of years Christianity has existed, we find that Christianity has averaged two new denominations a year… every year for nearly 2,000 years.

I’d refer the writers of the Creative Minority Report to Matthew 7:3, but my goodness, different denominations even use different versions of the bible, and I would hate to offend them…

Neurophrenology

Scannily, cannily,
Neuropsychologists
Use pretty pictures to
Search for the mind;

Sadly, it’s no more than
Neophrenology—
Looking for lumps of a
Different kind

I think if I read one more article using fMRI (or any other brain scan) to find the substrate for this that or the other experiential phenomenon, I may have to hurt somebody.

And not just because it is technologically inadequate; it is also that they are looking at the wrong thing. What we call “mind” is not (and, I would wager all my ink, can never be) found in snapshots of the brain–it is extended both in time and space. Don’t get me wrong–I am not proposing any sort of supernatural mind, of non-physical stuff; rather, that which we call mind is inferred from our own and others’ behavior, as we and they interact with a changing world over time. Such things are no more reducible to instantaneous brain states than “War and Peace” is reducible to a limerick.