social justice v. charity

before i get into the differences, i think i should note to conservatives that we did get glenn beck's message-  doing anything beyond voluntary charity is communism, or socialism or fascism.  since these ism's are blended together so seamlessly in glenn beck's mind, it's a little difficult to tell whether social justice will lead to killing jews, killing capitalists, or soul-crushing bureaucracy.  or will it lead to all three?  who knows?  more importantly, who cares?

i think it's important to note that countries like france, britain, canada, post-war germany, to name a few, went, at least mostly, down the social justice path.  so far, no communism, socialism, or fascism.  no concentration camps or gulags.  just bureaucracy.  which, for all its negatives, puts people to work.  and longer life spans.  and some sweet-ass vacation time.  for all of conservatives' attacks on our government-maintained safety nets, i don't see these fuckers moving to places that lack them, just complaining about their fellow americans who need them.

i guess now would be a good time to describe why glenn beck has pissed off a lot of christians who normally might agree with him.  christians, traditionally, have considered it one of their church's duties to support and administer programs for the poor.  and, technically, glenn beck doesn't seem to have a problem with this because apparently it's voluntary to give to christian charities.  but many other christians go further.  there is a branch of christianity that interprets the teachings of jesus to avoid wealth and give to others even when it's a sacrifice to oneself.  these christians believe that charity from your excesses is only to impress others instead of actually fostering the sense of unselfishness jesus christ came to spread.  some catholics took this even further to develop liberation theology, which supported the human rights of the poor against the property rights of the rich, especially in latin america.  combined with the catholic worker movement, liberals and those even more leftist in catholicism have kind of carved an unofficial (and unapproved) niche for themselves.  but even pope john paul 2, while no fan of communism, was also no fan of unregulated capitalism and unrestrained greed.  his cyclical on treatment of workers makes andy stern of the seiu look like a libertarian.   martin luther king considered it his christian duty to examine the causes of poverty itself, and attempt to eliminate them.  king called this "a revolution in values", and he called on his supporters to not just fling coins at beggars, but to restructure a system which produced beggars (which is why the right should think twice before insisting MLK actually acted on conservative values).  mormons actually require members of their congregations to donate, or tithe, 10% of their yearly income.  they actually have to state to their bishop that they've tithed every year.  this is not voluntary if you want to belong to a mormon congregation.  even muslims are also in on the act, requiring all muslims to contribute a minimum percentage of their wealth to charity, and to show hospitality to strangers.  this is not considered voluntary in islam.  these contributions are considered a part of improving one's soul and one of islam's five pillars.  social justice has a long history in various religious beliefs, including christianity.  glenn beck may want to pause before he chalks social justice up to marx and hitler.

why is glenn beck so pissed about social justice anyway, and why would he think churches should shun it, and people should shun churches that practice it?  because it's compelled by law.  oh, my stars and garters!  social justice is when you decide you've had enough of an economic system in which people who do the grunt work of a company make poverty wages.  social justice is when you demand that health insurance companies do the job we pay them to do, or the government will step in and do the job better.  social justice is when you decide that some money in taxes to support school lunches is better than seeing kids go hungry.  social justice demands that our economic system value something besides profit.  social justice sees people as more important than profit, and that our economic system must provide for us, not the other way around.  we don't have to support unregulated, unprotected capitalism if all we have to show for it are fat cats and slums.

social justice does not denigrate charity.  in fact, involving oneself in charitable acts is one way in which people learn about social justice.  some who involve themselves in charitable programs see too many decent people who are not afraid of hard work but have bosses who are afraid of paying living wages.  some see too many people thrown away by our economy from sickness, drug addiction, and the loss of one paycheck.  social justice is what you do when you realize that private charities are not equipped to provide the help needed to everyone who needs it, especially in hard times when private charities cannot muster the donations to meet the need.  that is why our government, which can compel you through fines and possibly jail time, maintains a safety net of its own.  this safety net is not voluntary- giving to it doesn't make you look good for your friends, or get one into heaven.  however, this safety net is always there, whether the rich want to pay for it or not.

long story short- if you belong to a church which administers and supports various charitable programs, and your church has not come to question an economic system that treats rush limbaugh better than your own neighbors (who actually do something productive, instead of selling ads on a radio show)- then i'm asking you- how can your church not add 2+2 and get 4?  how can any institution which spends time with the poor not see the numerous roadblocks our economic system puts in their way?  record company profits through layoffs and poverty wages are great for stockbrokers, but end up placing a huge strain on our secular and religious charities.  poverty wages and easy credit nearly destroyed our economy, which also puts a huge strain on charities.  which charities don't see this?  and even worse, which charities see this and choose to do nothing about it because they can't find a bible verse explicitly telling them to?  i guess somebody thinks he can get through the eye of a needle.

just ignore all the tinfoil hats

conservatives have spent the last month on a global warming binge.  ever since winter came about a month late like it has for the last three years, conservatives have used the seasonal temperature drop to make you dumber "argue" that the moon landing was faked global warming is a hoax so the u.n. can create a one-world government through the hollywood elite.  in addition, the stealing liberating of emails from a british university has set afire anyone who can't thoroughly read or research anything.  this is the stupidest shit ever, especially since nasa can actually show you the data on worldwide average temperatures, sea level rises, and carbon dioxide concentrations and their rise. in a widget for the mac.  and i have yet to see sean hannity's explanation for march-like temperatures in january in new york. 

this leads to my point.  in the last few years, conservatism has become dominated by conspiracy theories.  global warming is a hoax.  evolution is a conspiracy by atheists to wipe out christianity.  obama was really born in kenya.  taxes are a plot to destroy innovation and punish the rich.  mexican illegal immigrants will return the southwestern u.s. to mexico.  there's a nafta superhighway linking mexico and the u.s. and it somehow wipes out u.s. sovereignity.   abortions cause breast cancer.  the gays want to provide safety for gay kids "recruit" your kids.  the hollywood elite wants you to hate america.  martin luther king was a communist.  joe mccarthy was right, and was crucified by liberals.    saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and syria helped hide them (or we found them).  iran is definitely developing nuclear weapons.  valerie plame was not a covert agent, and scooter libby's prosecution was political.  joe wilson was sent on a tantalizing junket to niger by his wife, valerie plame.  the clintons killed vince foster. it seems these days that whatever the conservative position, there's a conspiracy theory that supports it.

it says something about a political movement when the crap they take straight from their asses "facts" they use are not supported in peer-reviewed scientific journals, are flatly denied by investigators, have no evidence to support them, or rely on deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting others, notably scientists (see richard dawkins) and prominent liberals (see van jones).  it says this political movement has no credibility.  there comes a point where anyone in the conservative movement who still has a working brain and some desire to be an honest human being has to ask: is it us?  when your ignorant ranting "facts" have to come from a site that claims all other information is wrong, and only your site can be trusted, because the liberals have taken over everything else, then there's no reason why anyone should take your retarded scribbles "facts" seriously.  and if there's no reason to take your fucking lies "facts" seriously, then why take your opinions seriously, or listen at all?

finally, my point.  we seem, in this country, to have decided that all opinions are equal. but that's not really what freedom means.  in this country, anyone is definitely allowed to hold any opinion they please.  if you want to think nafta was a terrible treaty, that's fine.  but if you base that opinion on a superhighway that doesn't exist, that's not a real reason.  if someone dislikes nafta because it caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and can provide evidence of these job losses, that's a real reason. and that opinion is better than the opinion based on the conspiracy theory.

conservatives have complained that liberals tend to believe their opinions are "better" than conservatives' opinions.  well, our opinions are based on peer-reviewed scientific research, investigative reports with source material, non-partisan fact-checking, non-partisan government watchdogs, confirmed journalists' reports, and confirmations from the state of hawaii.  conservative opinions are based on firmly believing that the entire mass media is run by a cabal of liberals out to deny creedence to ignorant bigots "the truth", and therefore only information sources run by their fellow travelers can be trusted and are the only source of true stupidity "truth".

so excuse us if we pat ourselves on our backs for having done some fucking homework.  excuse us for paying attention during the class on the scientific method and how it prevents or detects stupid mistakes and hoaxes.  excuse us for using exhaustive investigations done by disinterested government officials or prosecutors.  excuse us for insisting that reports by journalists be confirmed before ranting about them.  if you could bother to do any of the above even for about five minutes, maybe one day i'll treat your opinions with a little respect.  but only a little.

5 worst motherfuckers of 2009

this is wtf?. not happy happy joy joy. so don't expect a 5 best pussy eaters of 2009, although i'm considering it.

harry reid- do i even need to explain? how does this man stand upright without a spine? to this man, compromise means that liberals give up whatever conservatives want in order to pass a legal version of horseshit. to this man, joe lieberman is a legislative asset. that's horseshit, too. joe lieberman uses democrats to "legislate" the way rush limbaugh uses the 1st amendment to "pontificate".

sarah palin- conservatives claim that liberals hate her because she's proof that you can be a feminist and pretty and conservative. well, she's pretty and conservative. here's a clue for conservatives, who STILL don't know what feminism is: no feminist who chooses to give birth to a kid with down's syndrome would force any other woman to do the same; no feminist would ever even CONSIDER forcing the cost of rape kits to collect evidence of rape onto the rape victims; no feminist would ever support abstinence-only sex ed; and no feminist would shove her kids in front of cameras to show her "family" values and then complain about the media when it turns out her family makes the spears family look classy. next time you feel like telling us all you're a feminist and you care about women's equality, STFU. you don't know shit about feminism. you're just pretty and stupid and that's why conservatives love you. face it.

which gets into my next problem with her: she makes being stupid acceptable. it should never be acceptable to be that stupid and ignorant and badly spoken. we, as a nation, should have learned that over the last eight years of president shit-for-brains. it turns out, approximately 1/4 of the country didn't. here's a hint for conservatives: when you're candidate appeals to the people who couldn't figure out that george w. bush is an idiot, that's bad.

dick cheney- go the fuck away. we hated you when you were the vice president and we had to pretend to care what you think. now we're not even going to bother to do that. stop acting like you can possibly justify anything you did. you can't. it wasn't legal, it wasn't constitutional, and it wasn't for us or our benefit. it was for your own personal aggrandizement, and for the use of future republican presidents. and please, for all our sakes but especially for the sake of those who lost a loved one on september 11, 2001: please stop telling us how awesome it is that you kept us safe after september 11. that's like the germans telling us how safe air travel was after the hindenburg. september 11 isn't a freebie- it was a collossal failure to check on warnings that came all that year, while you were really the president.

bill donohue- this man makes me glad i'm not a catholic or a christian anymore, but especially a catholic. apparently, criticism of the catholic church's policies, misogyny, and rampant child abuse is some form of hate speech. this interview alone should have gotten him banned from any type of media, for life. anyone who can minimize the horrific abuse and shameful coverup that happened over decades in ireland should be shunned. or maybe punished along with the perpetrators.

glenn beck- you're crazy. perhaps you're schizophrenic, or bipolar, or have some narcissistic or personality disorder. i don't know. high school psychology class was a long time ago, and you're not coherent enough for me to figure out exactly what keeps you from grasping the difference between fantasy and reality. but you can't. and your conflict of interest in telling your mouth-breathing listeners to buy gold is pathetic. even opinionators are not supposed to have conflicts of interest, and a real news network would have fired your ass for it. i'm not asking you to shut up, because if you have tourettes that's impossible anyway. i'm just asking you to seek professional help, and possibly commit yourself before the people of new york city have to.

ah, good old freedom

yes, i know the public option is out. and i'm pissed about that. in fact, a post about obama weaseling his way out of the public option may be due. but john ensign just leaped into my face with his own nugget of dishonesty and stupidity, and i couldn't resist.

john ensign has decided that the government mandating citizens to buy health insurance is a violation of the of the 5th amendment. because it forces you to spend money you otherwise would have used to buy a big-screen tv on health insurance. ensign has also decided that: 1- the pursuit of happiness is in the constitution, which it's not; and 2- that mandating citizens buy health insurance somehow deprives them of the ability to pursue happiness. ensign has also decided that all americans have the freedom to not buy health insurance, and that this is what people in ww2 fought for.

okay, john, i'm going to explain it nice and slow so you can eventually get it. NOBODY wants to die of disease or injury. NOBODY with cancer wants the freedom to choose to either go broke surviving or die. NOBODY with a broken leg wants to choose to let it to heal deformed so they can't walk normally again but still have an Ipod. you're talking about, and passionately defending, a "freedom" that nobody wants. at least you say you are.

so what's the real freedom ensign is defending? he's not defending the freedom to choose between death or bankruptcy court. he's defending the freedom to NOT CARE that others must choose between death and bankruptcy court. he's defending your freedom to turn a blind eye to those who suffer chronic health problems or die. he's defending the freedom to feel nothing for them, or tell them to go to charities that don't exist, or that have run out of money. that's the freedom john ensign cares about.

the government is mandating the purchase of health insurance because uninsured & underinsured patients' inability to pay their bills is contributing to unnecessary bankruptcies. their inability to pay also forces hospitals to increase their fees for services, which is one of the reasons why health insurance premiums have skyrocketed. which will slowly bankrupt everyone. which is why reform includes a mandate to buy health insurance. it is sad that we've reached the point where those who had to choose between insurance and food have affected people who otherwise wouldn't care about the uninsured. we liberals sure are sorry that their desire to live despite their poverty has affected your insured asses. but we have reached this point, and we need a solution to this problem, and the republicans have only proposed a piece of dreck that insures fewer people, and leaves those with pre-existing conditions in hi-risk (read: hi cost) insurance plans that the bill doesn't even create and that won't even cover the pre-existing condition that requires them to buy the hi-cost insurance in the first place. so unless you have something that will actually be worth paying for, STFU.

Only 90 minutes left for blasphemy

Happy International Blasphemy Day! We have only 90 minutes left. I spend most of my time mocking Christianity, but this gem from Islam cannot be ignored: apparently, Hamas has decided that girls who haven't reached puberty are marriagable. Seriously. Man,not even the FLDS sinks this low.

So here's my IBD question- in Islam why is pedophilia good, and alcohol bad? And can I really expect anybody following this religion to be sane?

Happy IBD! Go out and insult someone's religion, before one of those crazy believers makes it illegal!

maybe i don't want to seem nicer

some genius named nathan named his blog after a guy stupid enough to fall asleep on a window ledge and fall out to the street below. this makes nathan's blog worth reading for a reason that must occur only to christians. and nathan has decided he knows just how to make atheists seem nicer. because if there's one group of people whose opinions matter to me, it's the christians. oh wait, i meant the hell's angels.

nathan's first idea is that atheists need to stop feeling smug. i guess nathan doesn't like the condescending way we atheists roll our eyes at yet another recital of pascal's wager, or the first cause "argument". that eye-roll might have something to do with the fact that these arguments have been refuted, repeatedly and long ago. why should we pretend to care about bad re-runs?

i'll tell you what nathan- watch the south park episode where they explain what scientologists believe. and then tell me what our attitude should be with the people who actually believe it. then, make yourself, as a courtesy, sit with one of those weirdos at the times square subway station and get a stress test, and force yourself to listen to how the thetans are causing your problems, and what scientology's "evidence" is of this. do not tell me, with any expectation of being believed, that you don't feel the slightest bit smug about not having been hoodwinked into believing into some dreck l. ron hubbard dreamed up and sells in the mass market paperback section. and remember: one woman's dreck is another's "faith". try not to roll your eyes at the poor soul.

oh, and apply this to wicca, mormonism, and your smug knowledge that of course zeus and athena are false gods.

then, nathan wants us atheists to ignore christians' proselytizing, because they're not really trying to convert us anyway, just the people who haven't made up their minds. nathan, here's a fucking clue (christ, am i smug): we want to reach out to the people who haven't made up their minds too. we just do it by summarizing the "arguments" for the existence of a deity and refuting them. we also point out various contradictions in your "book", as well as the contradictions between the different things christians tend to believe about their deity. so, we have to address you whether you want us to or not. i know, your jobs are much easier when we don't . which is probably why you think it would make us seem nicer if we just let you spout gobbledy-gook with no rational, evidence-based response. it's like a football team's offensive squad demanding the other side not bother to defend their goal. i wonder what the ref would say?

nathan, dear, can intelligent and rational people believe in magic? and tolkien's elves? and tolkien's hobbits? can intelligent people there really was a cinderella, and spend their lives looking for that glass slipper? because that's all communicated by books too. your "book" is a collection of stories never meant to be taken literally as things that actually happened. it was people trying to forge a cultural heritage with a story of shared struggle and sacrifice. cute story, especially is you like killing innocent, firstborn children on behalf of the good guys. the god "communicating" through that book is a manipulative, vengeful, petty, jealous, bloodthirsty asshole who apparently has no problem planning our sins and then punishing us for them. and in order to forgive the humans whose sins he planned and plans to watch, he sent his "son" to earth to lead a blameless, sinless life. after this blameless, sinless life, this god then has the son's friends betray and abandon him, and then has the authorities of the patch of dirt the son lived and preached around force this son through the most excruciating, tortuous death humankind has ever devised (except, of course, suicide from watching general hospital). this horrific death then makes it possible for this god to forgive humans' sins. you call this intervention? here's a clue: this all-powerful god could have decided to just forgive people, but didn't. how do you rationally, intelligently explain why the tortuous death of someone who supposedly was himself perfect makes it possible for an all-powerful deity to forgive people for shoplifting? what was this god's thought process? what's rational and intelligent (not to mention ethical) about any of this crap?

i know you hear this all time, but where was this intervention during the holocaust? why does a just god let this happen, to his chosen people no less? i notice that this god lets alot of shit happen that just wipes out hundreds of thousands of people with one big wave. why intervene for the ancient hebrews leaving egypt, and not for people on the hijacked planes on 9/11? how does this god pick his interventions? i notice most of them happened in this "book", with parts dating back 4,000 years ago, with these last interventions happening about 1,900 years ago. why no interventions now?

nathan, do you read what you type before posting? do you know that a hypothesis is based on a series of observable facts? oh, i visited all these islands in the pacific ocean and found species are similar to each other and yet still different species. and i found that each one is perfectly well suited to that particular island's environment. and other people have found fossilized skeletons of animals that no one sees anymore. why would some species die out, and some survive- and does the environment have anything to do with that? i guess i could come up with a theory that explained how attributes that make a species better suited to a particular environment make it easier to survive, and pass on offspring with those attributes. and over time, attributes that are not good for an environment cause those living things to die without offspring. i guess i could test the theory by examining other environments, and observing whether species are suited to those. and i guess scientists in later generations could find even more fossils, and figure out how to date the fossils and the rocks the fossils are in, and then i guess some future scientists could also examine genes to see how closely related different species are.

oh, i noticed that people who get cowpox don't get small pox. why is that? i guess, maybe, the cowpox is not as strong as small pox, but getting it makes your body somehow better at resisting smallpox. maybe i could convince a few brave souls to be injected with pus from cowpox blisters, and see if they too resist small pox. but that would be a combination of induction and deduction, and the christians have decided that that can't be the scientific method. guess i won't bother.

get it, nathan? someone sees observable facts without an explanation, then makes an explanation. this explanation (called a theory) is then tested by experimenting and collecting additional observed facts. this theory is used as an explanation for facts until some new, observed facts no longer support the theory. then a new explanation is thought of, or the original theory is revised, and this new explanation is tested. see? in the scientific method, no one is required to except a theory without experimental data to support the theory. this enables human beings to understand how the world operates with the best knowledge we have at the time. which is a fuck of a lot better than trying to figure out how to make the sun stop in the sky.

however, you are correct about one thing: science is easy to abuse. just tell people that it's a belief system that atheists have "faith" in, tell people that the dinosaurs lived with people in the garden of eden, and put a saddle on a triceratops. but please note, it tends to be your fellow christians who do the abusing. i guess, to reach the undecideds.

which leads me to nathan's last pearl of wisdom. millions of people claim to be mormons, and therefore christians. can i judge christianity by these millions? what about the christians following sun myung moon? might not be in the millions, but a lot of people anyway. which millions of christians should i judge the religion by? the ones who want to go back to forced pregnancy and childbirth? which sect got it right? i just want to know- who are the real christians, who are the fakes, and who gets to decide who is what? are you the decider? am i? is the pope? how 'bout pat robertson?

and what is the christological narrative? four conflicting accounts? is the part about jesus coming back to israel to give the jews one last chance to accept him a part of the christological narrative? is jesus appearing in north america part of the christological narrative? exactly how broad is this broad narrative? and who decides how broad it is? me? you? the pope? jim wallis? mitt romney? sun myung moon?

as for quoting old testament law: i'll make a deal with you: when conservative christians stop telling me that homosexuality is considered an abomination in leviticus, and that some prophet in the old testament told us god knows us in the womb and therefore abortion is murder, i'll stop with the shit about not eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. oh, and we can see how the laws were supposed to work- the punishment is usually right there in the text, and it usually involved throwing rocks at offenders until the offenders were dead. i'm sure the christians who you consider intelligent and rational because they just happen to believe the exact form of christianity you do are cool with this.

it's time. okay, it's been time for a while

the right are not decent human beings. we on the left have been saying this privately for years. but nobody wants to blurt it out in public, except people who are never going to interview john mccain anyway. anyone who wants to get invited to speak on news and commentary tv shows have been unwilling to say this openly, because the tv talking heads all agree that to impugn someone's patriotism is wrong. except for people opposing illegal wars, or illegal torture, or unconstitutional detention. anytime you oppose something that is actually illegal or unconstitutional, well, that means you hate america. but i digress.

discussing the sad reality that basic human decency has fled america's right is currently limited to the blogosphere. this idea that right wingers want social justice and tolerance and peace, but just want to pursue those goals with unrestrained greed, theocracy, and unjust wars, is what most public, "respectable" figures must declare. but the time has come for public figures to publicly admit that the right wing of america could give a shit about social justice. america's right doesn't care if illegal aliens bleed to death right outside hospitals- in fact, america's right would enjoy the sight. america's right doesn't care about tolerance, and we know this because they never extend it to anyone but themselves. non-christian religions, non-white people, non-profit projects, receive nothing but scorn from them and will never receive anything else. and peace? has anyone listened to the right? with the exception of ron paul, the right has a long list of people they're dying to bomb, and they'll even sing the list to an old beach boys tune for ya.




and then there is the biggest delusion of all. the idea of republicans actually knowing what the fuck they're spewing about. spare me. these are people who shrugged, if even that, at the cost of our invasions of aghganistan and iraq. these are people who still wanted george bush's welfare to the rich in the form of tax cuts at a time when we "had" to fight those wars. these are people who supported the creation of a whole new department of the federal government and accompanying cabinet position (homeland insecurity, i think). these are people who supported the nsa listening to our phone calls, reading our emails, finding out what library books we've borrowed, and demanded that anyone who participated in this rape of our privacy be pardoned in advance. these are people who supported treating foreigners, many of who were innocent, worse than michael vick treated his dogs. these are people who thought locking someone up indefinitely (read: for life) on the president's say-so alone was a great way to preserve freedom. these are people who thought shocking and awing middle easterners into accepting foreign military occupation was requested by god. these are people who's idea of christian charity means that there is no amount of kicking someone when they're already down they won't tolerate. and they have the nerve to act like they care about the deficit now. and freedom. and government interference in people's private lives. and the religious beliefs of the president. and anything except their own pathetic, paranoid delusions.


because that is what the right in america has become. one big delusional cult. a cult that believes that obama is a muslim. and muslims are taking over (that's why obama's the president, so he can hand the country over to them). and obama is a racist, and so is jeremiah wright. and black people are racist. and obama is a communist, socialist and a fascist (you have to ignore the wars they fought against each other in spain and germany and russia, but oh well). and a bailout that we are supposed to get paid back to us, with interest, from the banks is going to bankrupt us. and that open season has been declared on gun owners, taylor swift, and white kids who ride the bus. and that the country is going to fail unless obama does. and that government bureaucrats will decide if anyone over 65 gets to live or not, based on whether or not they've read karl marx. and that global warming is a hoax to destroy the SUV market, and turn us into soviet russia (where i guess people lived in trees and were strict vegetarians). delusion after delusion after delusion. no matter how many times these delusions are argued against with facts and reason and some logical induction and deduction, the delusions continue.

there is a solution to this. we, as a nation, must start calling the right what they are. in public, on tv, on the internet, on op-ed pages, at family reunions, and at birthday parties. the right are lying, scheming, delusional, greedy, bigotted, sexist, theocratic douchebags. and they have been for a while. and we must freeze them out of the public realm. because there is only so much political discourse that anyone can have with a dining room table.