Ron Paul quits CNN interview after being asked about racist newsletters

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul ended an interview with CNN after he was questioned about a hate-filled newsletter that was published under his name. The newsletters were published about 20 years ago and contained a number of incendiary comments about African-Americans, such as referring to Martin Luther King Jr. Day as “Hate Whitey Day.” All of the newsletters featured his name, but Paul has said he did not write the racist language.

“So you read them, but you didn’t do anything about it at the time?” CNN reporter Gloria Borger asked him on Wednesday. “I never read that stuff,” Paul responded. “I became aware of it probably ten years after it was written, and it has been going on for twenty years that people have been pestering me about this, and CNN does it every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?” “I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time, and I disavow them,” he added, when pressed about the issue.

After Borger continued to question Paul about the newsletters, he started taking off his microphone and ended the interview.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/21/ron-paul-quits-cnn-interview-after-being-asked-about-racist-newsletters/


VIDEO AT LINK

Appeals Court Says University Can Require Religious Student To Follow Ethics Rules

The Religious Right’s rigid mindset dictates that its adherents can do things on their own terms no matter what the law or anyone else says. As a student at a Georgia university and the Alliance Defense Fund recently discovered, federal courts don’t support that mentality. Jennifer Keeton was pursuing an advanced degree in counseling at Augusta State University until it became clear that she intended to impose her religious beliefs on clients in violation of the professional standards of her academic program.

According to the Associated Press, Keeton said homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and a “lifestyle choice” that can be fixed through “conversion therapy.” She said she would have difficulty working with gay clients.

School officials said professional ethics required her to treat all patients fairly and in accord with accepted counseling standards. The school put her on a remediation plan. When she refused to follow the plan and lost her first court case in which she argued that she was a victim of religious discrimination and that her free speech rights were being violated, she was expelled from Augusta State. Had the university allowed Keeton to violate the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics, the school could have lost its accreditation.

Keeton and her Alliance Defense Fund-provided attorneys appealed the initial ruling, but last week a federal appellate court rejected their claims. In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, a three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Augusta State’s action.

http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/victory-in-georgia-appeals-court-says-university-can-require-religious

From the decision:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201013925.pdf

We conclude that the evidence in this record does not support Keeton’s claim that ASU’s officials imposed the remediation plan because of her views on homosexuality. Rather, as the district court found, the evidence shows that the remediation plan was imposed because she expressed an intent to impose her personal religious views on her clients, in violation of the American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics, and that the objective of the remediation plan was to teach her how to effectively counsel GLBTQ clients in accordance with the ACA Code of Ethics.”

“Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And REASON for the WIN! Hooray!

Newt Reveals Plans to Wage Holy War on Atheists in America

It is absurd that we would be drawn so often back to the “War on Christianity” meme that seems to form the heart and core of every Republican campaign in 2012. Even the battles surrounding issues like marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights are framed in terms of “religious freedoms under attack” as though somebody is being told they can’t practice their religion if other people have an equal amount of liberty. And rather than focusing on the absurdity of claiming persecution on the basis of equal rights, the media legitimizes the Republican narrative as something deserving discussion.

Newt Gingrich likes to harp on the subject of “religious freedom” as much as the next Republican. Of course, as we have shown here repeatedly, the phrase “religious freedom” is a stand-in for something else: the privileging of Christian belief over all other forms of belief – or disbelief. Religious freedom should mean equal freedoms for all with regards to belief and that is what the First Amendment establishes by prohibiting government establishment of religion, originally applied to the federal government in the First Amendment and later applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in the wake of the Civil War.

But this isn’t what the GOP wants. The conservative Christian-driven GOP wants the establishment of Christianity as a state-sponsored religion in contravention of the First Amendment and all rhetoric directed at the topic is toward this end and this end alone. Newt Gingrich is no different. CBN claimed Monday evening to have received a document from the Gingrich campaign that shows how seriously their candidate takes this mythical war on Christianity. According to The Brody File, they “obtained an exclusive document that lays out in detail Newt Gingrich’s plan on day one of his administration to create, through Executive Order, a Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom in the United States.”

The document has been posted on Newt.org as of Tuesday in all its dubious glory. It would obviously have been crafted (and leaked) to show how serious he is on the subject of “religious freedom.” It would also demonstrate that Gingrich is well aware of how important it is that he makes a serious attempt to draw conservative Christian voters away from Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, who have more God-cred than does he, especially at a time when Newt is struggling with falling poll numbers. The Brody File further claims that “While Gingrich knows this commission will be welcomed by conservative evangelicals (read: key primary voters), this should not be read as an attempt to pander.”

http://www.politicususa.com/en/newt-reveals-plans-to-wage-holy-war-on-atheists-in-america
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 20-page-long document states that the Religious Freedom Commission would have as its purpose to:

“Examine and document threats or impediments to religious freedom in the United States and to propose steps for reaffirming and protecting the foundational principle of freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief upon which our republic is built and thrives.”

Translation: to wage war on secularists, atheists, pagans and everyone else who dares object to what Christians see as their right to completely ignore the First Amendment, or to repurpose it as a document establishing Christianity as America’s state religion.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/newt-reveals-plans-to-wage-holy-war-on-atheists-in-america

The document can be found here...
http://www.newt.org/presidential-commission-religious-freedom

Poor Joseph!

Santa Claus: The ultimate dry run

IT’S HARD TO even consider the possibility that Santa isn’t real. Everyone seems to believe he is. As a kid, I heard his name in songs and stories and saw him in movies with very high production values. My mom and dad seemed to believe, batted down my doubts, told me he wanted me to be good and that he always knew if I wasn’t. And what wonderful gifts I received! Except when they were crappy, which I always figured was my fault somehow. All in all, despite the multiple incredible improbabilities involved in believing he was real, I believed – until the day I decided I cared enough about the truth to ask serious questions, at which point the whole façade fell to pieces. Fortunately the good things I had credited him with kept coming, but now I knew they came from the people around me, whom I could now properly thank.

Now go back and read that paragraph again, changing the ninth word from Santa to God.

Santa Claus, my secular friends, is the greatest gift a rational worldview ever had. Our culture has constructed a silly and temporary myth parallel to its silly and permanent one. They share a striking number of characteristics, yet the one is cast aside halfway through childhood. And a good thing, too: A middle-aged father looking mournfully up the chimbly along with his sobbing children on yet another giftless Christmas morning would be a sure candidate for a very soft room. This culturally pervasive myth is meant to be figured out, designed with an expiration date, after which consumption is universally frowned upon.

--snip--

By allowing our children to participate in the Santa myth and find their own way out of it through skeptical inquiry, we give them a priceless opportunity to see a mass cultural illusion first from the inside, then from the outside. A very casual line of post-Santa questioning can lead kids to recognize how completely we all can snow ourselves if the enticements are attractive enough. Such a lesson, viewed from the top of the hill after exiting a belief system under their own power, can gird kids against the best efforts of the evangelists – and far better than secondhand knowledge could ever hope to do.

http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=6656

----------------------------------------------------------------

Read the whole story at the link, it's a good read.

I just attended a seminar on secular parenting in a religious world by the author, Dale McGowan. Good stuff.

Time for Nonbelievers to Emphasize Equality

Ever notice that you almost never see the terms "equal rights" and "atheists" in the same sentence? Let me explain why. Imagine a public high school with a serious discrimination problem, an institution with attitudes and practices about race, gender, and religion that are terribly outdated. Three students have decided they've had enough, and each sues to fight back against the unfair prejudice.

George, an African-American, has been excluded from the school's marching band because the band director is racist and will only let white kids participate. Lisa, an excellent math student, was denied membership in the school's math club because the teacher running the club feels that girls are naturally unfit for the field of mathematics. Tony, an atheist, is upset because his history teacher aggressively proselytizes Christianity, leading the class in a prayer each day and always encouraging the teens to "find Jesus."

As these three plaintiffs proceed through the courts to enforce their rights, we can learn much about the unique status of atheists in American society. George and Lisa, suing based on racial discrimination and gender discrimination respectively, will center their cases on basic principles of equal protection. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state or local government may deny citizens equal protection under law, and via this constitutional avenue minorities and women have successfully sought recourse against governmental discrimination.

Tony's case, however, will be much different. Tony will almost certainly base his lawsuit on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, arguing that the injection of religion into his classroom violates important church-state separation principles. The Establishment Clause approach, bypassing the equal protection arguments utilized by most minorities, is reflexively used by most aggrieved atheist-humanist litigants objecting to governmental religiosity. Though rarely questioned, this stategy of downplaying equality arguments in favor of the Establishment Clause has had far-reaching consequences.

http://secular.org/blogs/david-niose/time-nonbelievers-emphasize-equality

--------------------

You need to read the entire article for full perspective. Very thought provoking.

Reasons Greetings!

Dawkins Rebukes Cameron, Calling Bible 'An Appalling Moral Compass'

Richard Dawkins has challenged David Cameron’s assertion that the UK needs to return to Christian ideals, calling the Bible “an appalling moral compass”.

On Friday, in a speech to celebrate the 400th birthday of the King James Bible, the prime minister said the New Testament had helped give our country "a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today,” adding that we should "actively stand up and defend" these Christian values. However, speaking to Sky News, Dawkins, a renowned, scientist, author and atheist, said that Cameron is wrong to suggest the Christian Bible is going to “help us with our morals and our social wellbeing.”

“The Christian bible will help us with our literature,” said the author of The God Delusion. “It should therefore be taught in schools in literature classes, but it’s not going to help us with our morals, far from it.”

“The bible is a terrible moral compass, if you think about it. Of course, you can cherry pick the verses that you like, which means the verses that happen to coincide with our modern secular consensus, but then you need to have a rational for leaving out the ones that say stone people to death if they break the Sabbath, or if they commit adultery. It’s an appalling moral compass.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/17/richard-dawkins-david-cameron-bible-moral-compass_n_1155246.html

The Top Ten Misconceptions About Atheists

Let me correct some of the most egregious misconceptions believers have about us, in reverse order:

10) We don’t eat or molest babies. Nor do we agree with what allegedly atheist dictators did in the past century. Over-all we are good people. All you need to do is personally know one of us to see this. I have no doubt but that you probably already know an atheist. It’s just that you don’t give that person the freedom to tell you in this Christian dominated culture. I wish more atheists would “come out of the closet” because of this.

--snip--

3) We don’t claim to know with certainty that a god of some kind doesn’t exist. Not even Richard Dawkins or Victor Stenger thinks it’s impossible that a god of some kind exists (I heard them both say as much in debates). We do think the God hypothesis is unnecessary and irrelevant to life though.

2) We don’t have faith nor a religion. We base our conclusions on the available evidence. We do not take a leap of faith beyond those probabilities. And since to have a religion one must believe in supernatural beings and forces, we cannot be labeled as religious in any meaningful sense.

1) We are not a minority. We are the second largest denomination in America. Depending on how we define an atheist (if we include agnostics who are skeptics with regard to all “revealed” religions) we may even be upwards to 24% of the population. Worldwide we represent third place among the world religions, even though we’re not religious.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/loftus/2011/12/12/the-top-ten-misconceptions-about-atheists-2

--------------------------------

Now, I think this pretty much sums up the atheists/non-believers here on DU, so you can now stop posting the nonsense that directly contradicts this (you know who you are). To continue to make posts that contain this crap means that you are just trolling, are irrelevant to civil conversation, and should be ignored.

IOW, don't be douche.

A glimpse into the vague and blurry mind of a proud None

I don’t go to church on Sundays anymore, so it’s so kind of the New York Times to serve me up a bit of that familiar sanctimonious, self-congratulatory bullshit from a guy named Eric Weiner. Weiner is a smug member in good standing, he thinks, of that demographic called the Nones: people who don’t belong to a church, but maybe believe in a higher power. Or maybe not. It’s a broad catch-all category, so their beliefs are hard to categorize.

All I can say is that if Eric Weiner is at all representative, a lot of Nones are idiots: For a nation of talkers and self-confessors, we are terrible when it comes to talking about God. The discourse has been co-opted by the True Believers, on one hand, and Angry Atheists on the other. What about the rest of us? I can also quote myself: “squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town.”

I must also point out that Weiner is making a common mischaracterization of atheists: we aren’t sitting around fuming at the world, and we’re not primarily angry. Most of us are pretty damned happy with the universe (or at least, aware of reality), and we mainly get angry at denialists and fools — people with whom we should be angry — and if you aren’t pissed off at people who set environmental policy by the backward whims of their bible, or who deny civil rights to people because they don’t like their private behavior, or who vote for political candidates on the basis of how loudly pious they are, then there is something wrong with you.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/11/a-glimpse-into-the-vague-and-blurry-mind-of-a-proud-none/

---------------------

You NEED to read the entire rant, at the link. Please.