Remember Mark Sanford? He was caught red handed having an affair with a hot Argentine woman he called his “soul mate”, but the weight of the scandal hasn’t deterred him from leaving his post. Presumably, the man doesn’t know how to do anything other than misuse public funds and break his vows of matrimony. It does sound like he’s tailor made for politics, doesn’t it?

Since no one wants to back him up, he’s decided to turn to his only friend: God. After battling Obama’s stimulus plan (which would have been spent primarily on education in his state), he says he wants to stay and fight for “conservative values”, whatever the hell that means. He’s also delusional enough to think that the reason his approval ratings are so low is because of the need to defend himself rather than the fact that taxpayers are frankly tired of Representatives misusing public funds to go fuck their mistresses in Buenos Aires. But I digress.

Mark, no one is on your side, especially not your invisible friend. Have you considered the fact that perhaps it’s time to seek new employment? Maybe it’s time to go and enjoy life with your Latin lover. At the very least, stop hanging around Congress like some half dead zombie no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole. If you still want a career in politics, try laying low for a few years. Maybe then we’ll forget that you’re just a liar who can’t read the writing on the wall. Ok, probably not, but I’m sure you’d make an excellent car salesman or something.

After the attacks of 9/11, the US Department of Homeland Security was created to supposedly defend America from terrorist attacks. This very broad mandate has created one of the largest departments in the US government, and considering the frequency of terrorism attacks, I would argue that with an annual budget of roughly 52 billion dollars, they are an utterly useless and pointless organization. Of course, try telling that to Americans petrified by the possibility of another terrorist attack.

Even if terrorists were crashing one Boeing 747 a day, it would still be safer to travel by plane than by car, but that doesn’t stop over 40,000 people from dying on the highway every year (compare that to 120 each year who perish in plane crashes. That makes the odds of dying in a plane roughly 0.00003%). Meanwhile, Americans spend billions of dollars chasing ghosts while more pressing issues are being ignored.

I find the whole organization very suspect, especially in light of the fact that the Bush Administration, already heavily entangled in religion, set it up. I always suspected there were religious undertones to the organization, and this latest story out of Kentucky confirmed some of my fears.

It seems as though some disturbing amendments were added to the state office of Homeland Security when it was created, stressing the “dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth”. American Atheists Inc. and 10 Kentuckians (yes, that is what they call themselves) filed a lawsuit to have the reference to God removed, and to my great surprise, they’ve succeeded!

State Rep. Tom Riner (D-Louisville) added the amendments before anyone was really paying attention, and is disappointed by Judge Thomas Wingate’s ruling that the statement violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

I find it particularly funny Riner seems to think “God is not a religion”, and “God is God”. Hey Riner, what the hell is that supposed to mean, anyways? Don’t you think making reference to an invisible and supposedly all powerful sky god constitutes a religion? Just sayin’.

In case you were wondering, the answer is yes, Texas is now the craziest state in America. It seems like every day Texans are pushing back on separation of church and state, and now that they are requiring schools to teach the Bible, I have to wonder when they are going to officially declare themselves a theocracy.

It’s your typical reactionary response to modernism. Parents believe their children are immoral and corrupt because they refuse to read or follow the Bible (which is probably a good thing), and so they foolishly believe creating mandatory courses on the “Good Book” will fix everything.

I have to wonder what kind of shit storm this is going to create. The founding fathers specifically called for the Establishment Clause in the Constitution to avoid this kind of pandering to religion; as soon as one becomes the “official” religion of the state, the whole democratic process is threatened. The problem is these Christians are so busy trying to force their religion down everyone’s throat they are forgetting why this separation is so important. As a Christian how they would feel if their children were forced to study and learn the Koran, or the Upanishads?

According to the Texas Supreme Court (which should be known instead as the ‘Supreme Being’ Court), religious institutions have special status that regular organizations don’t. A small town tried to prevent two church halfway houses from being built due to zoning violations, but as it turns out, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act essentially makes it almost impossible for any municipality to deny a religious institution from setting up shop wherever they want.

The law was originally intended to prevent religious organizations from having to conform with anti-discrimination laws, as well as certain drug regulations (like the ingestion of peyote for ‘spiritual’ purposes). It’s now come to symbolize everything wrong with laws that supposedly ‘protect’ religious institutions.

How many more special provisions do we need to give these guys? Is being tax exempt, officially recognized, and lauded as paramount to society’s health not enough for these guys? Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. If a town has specific zoning laws, who the hell are these guys to force them to change?

When is Texas finally going to secede from the Union? These guys make your whole country look bad…

Here’s an interesting article from The Economist that deals with the UN’s resolution to make defamation of religion illegal. We’re all aware of how toothless the UN really is, but it doesn’t change the fact this resolution attempts to protect religious institutions instead of individuals.

Think of it this way; when the UN was created shortly after the end of the Second World War, world governments realized powerful institutions were at the root of the problem, so the focus was placed on individual liberties and protections. It was understood that by themselves, institutions can easily become corrupt, evil, and destructive, but so long as individuals were able to pursue their own interests without fear of persecution, it would at least indicate they were indeed free. A resolution that seeks to protect a religious institution from defamation is really trying to protect it from criticism, and nothing more. Imagine the same protection was afforded to fascism, communism, or any other institution for that matter? We wouldn’t stand for it, simply because we recognize the danger in protecting institutions rather than individuals.

Let’s stop beating around the bush and recognize precisely what this resolution is intended to do. Islam is tired of being criticized, and it wants all of us to play nice. Sorry, no can do. The fact of the matter is I consider this religion to be barbaric, cruel, destructive, and dangerous. I recognize individuals within Islam can be kind, loving, and caring; but as a whole, it is a religion that remains incompatible with our modern values. With this resolution, Islamic countries seek to make their position immune to outside criticism. So long as you torture and kill people in the name of God, I will continue to criticize your beliefs, regardless of how many stupid UN resolutions they try to pass.

Penn Jillette said something I liked; he said he doesn’t respect anyone who isn’t proselytizing. He feels there is something genuinely good about it, and I generally agree: if you have an idea you think is great, tell people about it. There is, however, a limit to how much preaching is acceptable. You should not, like this man, do it to coworkers trying to get their jobs done without you bothering them every minute.

Seann Friesen wanted to involve the courts after he was fired when he refused to stop proselytizing during regular work hours. The BC Human Rights Tribunal turned down his request, actually pointing out that his former employer went above and beyond to accommodate Mr. Friesen’s need to tell people about his religion.

If you’re interested in telling people your point of view, there are a few things you should remember. The first is the workplace involves many people of different beliefs and values trying to work together towards a common goal. The last thing they need in this tenuous connection is you making their lives miserable by constantly bugging them with religion. The second is that from my own experience, emotional passions are bound to spring up anytime you bring up religion, and if your safety requires the trust of other human beings, it’s best not to piss them off. And finally, and most importantly, if work is the only place these people hang out with you, there might be a reason for it; odds are they are not your biggest fans.

You like proselytizing? Do what I do: blog about it. It’s a lot easier, and you’ll find most of the people who come on your site will actually enjoy what you have to say. That way, you can keep your job, and fulfill that strange need you have to tell others about ‘the good news’