Today, in the United States, we commemorate (with a holiday and everything!) and celebrate the economic and social contributions of workers in the US. Sure, that’s kind of considered passe these days, as the GOP fights to dismember the remnants of organized Labor in the US, and the Democrats make vague protesting noises and wave their hands feebly (note to President Obama — a front page note at whitehouse.gov about Labor Day might have been nice …). The American Worker is lauded these in the ideal abstract as the Guy Who Can Do Anything, and rise from rags to riches and all that … but in practice, with Washington more focused on debt reduction than job creation, with unemployment remaining high and stagnant, with continued pushes for agreements that push jobs overseas, with attacks on the Minimum Wage, and attacks on labor agreements, and attacks on …
… well, it’s a very, very hard time for American workers. And the future is not looking all that bright.
Now, let’s not deify the American Labor Movement. It’s a human institution or twelve, and thus subject to all the foibles and failings of any such. Union leadership has been corrupted at times by the same power that business leadership is corrupted by. Labor movements are sometimes just as likely to take on an arbitrarily confrontational mode as to look for a way for everyone (and their own long-term employment) to win. Union contracts have sometimes gone beyond protecting basic benefits and safety for workers, and into Bizarro Worlds of entitlement and protecting the lazy and incompetent (I could tell you stories …).
But, like I said, that’s humanity. Business and Capitalism are just as prone to move from bold entrepreneurialism that enriches the community and provides jobs for workers to tax-sheltered vehicles for earning another yacht or twelve for someone who inherited a billion or two from Dear Old Dad and is perpetuating it by shifting all the Deadly Poison Mining and Manufacture to sweatshop workers in Malaysia where they don’t worry if kids are born with two heads.
Let’s instead remember what the labor movement — and focus on workers as the producers of weath and representatives of America — have brought us. Enjoy a 5 day work week? Glad for overtime laws? Pleased that your kids are in school rather than working in factories full of lots of exposed parts to cripple and kill them? Glad you’re not working in a factory full of exposed parts to cripple and kill you? Happy that you can get time off (even if it’s unpaid) when your baby is born or your parents are ill?
Then thank the organized labor movement (and the politicians that responded to it). Because we know that in a “state of nature” economy, too many employers will exploit and underpay and endanger and mistreat their employees any way they can get away with it for short-term, immediate profits. We know this because that’s the way it used to be before organized labor.
Sure, it’s weak beer compared to labor protections elsewhere (and while some might mock, it’s not clear that the US economy is doing any better than, say, Europe’s). But it’s something to remember and be thankful for on this Labor Day.
Some other thoughts …
“The story of the labor movement needs to be taught in every school in this land. … America is a living testimonial to what free men and women, organized in free democratic trade unions can do to make a better life … we ought to be proud of it!”
— Hubert Humphrey, Speech, Minnesota State AFL-CIO Convention (1977)
“Wherever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.”
We have an ideal in this country that hard work will be rewarded. That dedication to earning one’s pay will and doing right by one’s employer will mean one’s employer does right by you.
To the extent that organized labor interferes with or short-circuits that ideal, it has perhaps outlived its purpose. To the extent that business betrays that ideal, organized labor — and public policy focus on the regular American worker — is still very much needed.
Today in the US we celebrate the passage of the Declaration of Independence, in 1776. The DoI was a remarkable document, acting to provide a justification for rebellion, laying out the Colonists’ case, and establishing a philosophical / political framework for what the new country — and all nations/governments — should be. It formalized into a political break what had been de facto the case for a year — war between Britain and America — but also was careful in its language to focus the war on the actions of George III, not the English nation as a whole (or Parliament in particular). It was a distillation of Enlightenment thinking, and has influenced American rhetoric (and thought) in the 235 years since.
Here’s what I think …
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
As part of the heated debate over the DoI (both the idea of declaring independence, and the arguments to be used for it), it was agreed that it had to be passed unanimously. It was, in fact — well, with twelve colonies voting in favor, and one (New York) abstaining.
The whole thing was much messier and complex than the charming 1776 has it (though that musical is still worth seeing if you get a chance).
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Rebellion and revolution were not new, but “declaring the causes” out of a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” was. Part of this was, of course, a means of enlisting foreign support (e.g., from the French, Dutch, or Spanish) for the revolution. But part was a desire not come across as simple, petulant hot-heads throwing a political tantrum.
There’s an interesting mix — not all Jefferson’s — here of both secular and (at a distance) sacred. This is taking place in the “course of human events,” not by divine mandate. The new nation is entitled to exist by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” — a phrase as much at home amongst philsophers and Deists as those of a more personal religious nature. There’s notably no invocation of the Bible, of Christ, of the Great Jehovah. Modern evangelical Republicans would be aghast at this kind of language coming from, say, the White House.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Probably one of the most famous phrases in US history, about which tons has been and can be written. Distilling down the Enlightenment concepts of humanity — not sinful fleshbots created to be mastered by a divine order of things, but independent agents that were free, equal creations, each possessing as an intrinsic part of their creation fundamental rights: to live, to be free, and to be able to pursue their own happiness.
The DoI says that none of these can be taken away by the state (the irony of slaveholding, of oppression of women, etc., notwithstanding). The DoI doesn’t declare that the state is responsible for providing the fulfillment of those rights, any more than the state (a government, a king) grants them — but it must not try to take them away without going against the basic, axiomatic nature of humanity and creation.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The state’s role is not to graciously grant those rights — they already exist. It’s role is to make sure that those rights are not infringed upon, by others or by itself. That’s why we build governments, what the “social contract” is about. And those governments require a consent of the governed to be just.
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If a government isn’t doing that job — indeed, when the state begins to threaten those inalienable rights — then the people have a right to kick the bums out and create a new government.
It’s a radical thought, and it carries with it a tension in American politics to this day. Born of rebellion against an oppressive regime (at least by its own birth declaration), how does the US dare to oppose those who similarly rebel against it? While the US (or the US government) has sometimes embraced that concept of rebellion (see dubious comparisons between the Nicaraguan Contras and “Freedom Fighters”), and the American mythos is founded on that first, great rebellion, just try suggesting that oppression by the government requires it to be replaced and …
Well, if you’re on the Left then you get labeled a Commie. If you’re on the Right you’re (carefully) hailed as a Tea Partying patriot. Unless you try doing anything about it. So it goes.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Yeah, we don’t want a revolution every six months because someone’s corporate jet is being taxed too high.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
On the other hand, if it looks like the state is doing a crappy job, not by accident or folly, but through an intentional desire to ignore those fundamental rights and impose a despotism, then the people have not only a right but a responsibility to do something about it.
The issue, of course, is who bells the cat? At what point does one say, “This is enough, time to march on the capitol!”? Are you proven to be correct if enough people agree with you?
–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Though Parliament really held the power, the DoI focuses on George III as the author of their problems. This is in part because pretty much nobody liked George, but also in part in hope that future negotiations could be made with the British Parliament (a number of whose members were friends of some of the Founders). Plus, it’s easier to point at a king as the symbol of despotism, rather than the powers being exercised by an institution like Parliament.
The next part is the lengthy list of charges against the King to demonstrate he’s intentionally violated those inalienable rights, and thus has lost legitimacy as the colonists’ ruler. (There’s more analysis of the grievances, line-by-line, here.)
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Infamously, of course, a clause decrying how the King supported the slave trade was cropped out, due to the objection of some of the southern colonies.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Kings and governments are one thing; tyrants and despots cannot be tolerated.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
A quick note to British Parliament, that the colonists had not had any satisfaction from them, either. This one’s a lot less inflammatory.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
Again, much nicer language, with an olive branch held out for the future.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, …
The various delegations from the different colonies were chosen in different fashions, with different instructions. That they could be construed to speak as representatives, with a single voice, was questionable in some eyes.
… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, …
The DoI has more religious language than the US Constitution (which essentially has none). But where it’s present, it remains both literary and distant. “The Supreme Judge” here, as an example, or “divine Providence” later.
… do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; …
Which was the text of Richard Henry Lee’s resolution from Virginia, which had been passed on 2 July.
… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Though it took a decade-plus (and longer still since) for them to come up with an organized and effective means to do so — particularly in figuring out how much the states were “Free and Independent” amongst themselves. The tension, inconsistency, advantages and problems of the federal system remain today.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
While the costs paid by the signers of the DoI have been subject to a bit of patriotic myth-making, nobody can doubt that at the time of the signing it was seen as a momentous, and quite potentially fatal, step.
Katherine studied the American Revolution this year, but I have to wonder how many adults in the US have looked at the Declaration of Independence in the last decades, and really parsed what it was about: a philosophical statement about what government should be, and a justification, based on that statement, as to why they were separating from the government that had been ruling them.
We tend to co-mingle the DoI and the Constitution these days, with folks thinking “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are part of the latter, or that the freedoms of the Bill of Rights are in the former. With so much debate over the role of government these days, it might behoove people to give both documents a closer look.
The good citizen will demand liberty for himself, and as a matter of pride he will see to it that others receive the liberty which he thus claims as his own. Probably the best test of true love of liberty in any country is the way in which minorities are treated in that country.
— Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) US President (1901-1909); “Citizenship in a Republic,” address, Sorbonne (23 Apr 1910) #
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.
— Daniel Webster (1782-1852) American statesman, lawyer, orator; Speech (3 Jun 1834) #
Liberty not only means that the individual as both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions. … Liberty and responsibility are inseparable.
— Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992) Austrian-born economist and philosopher; The Constitution of Liberty, 5.1 (1960) #
Timid men … prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) US President (1801-09); Letter to Philip Mazzei (24 Apr 1796) #
The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.
— William Hazlitt (1778-1830) English writer; “The Times Newspaper,” Political Essays (1819) #
Parade magazine once again raises the issue of whether “The Star -Spangled Banner” should (as it has been since 1931) be the national anthem, or if we should choose something else. They even have a poll.
It’s useless.
Despite a plentitude of reasons why “America the Beautiful” should be the national anthem, the chances of a change happening are zilch.
Occasion: AtB is based on a poem by a woman. It is intrinsically wussy and unworthy. On the other hand, TSSB is based on a poem by a man, about a battle, in a war. There are bombs and rockets involved. And even though we lost the battle (the fort stayed intact, but Washington was burned), you just can’t beat a war song for a national anthem. Even if the folks we were fighting are now on our side.
Subject Matter: AtB is all about beautiful stuff, mountains and plains and the like. Clearly it’s hippy, eco-freak garbage that probably references Al Gore and Global Warming in one of its verses. TSSB, on the other hand, involves, as noted above, a war! With bombs! And rockets! And flags!
Utility: Sure, everyone complains about TSSB’s singability (and about the insane license various singers take with it to make it about a personal performance, not about the nation). But, really, how many kids are growing up learning AtB any more? And, yeah, even if we’re not singing it personally, we hear TSSB all the time at baseball games, football games, NASCAR races, and every other sporting event that relies on a national anthem to make it a suitably patriotic occasion.
Reason: If you’re going to change something, you have to have adequate reason. In this case, why would you get rid of a song that generations of folks have sung (or had sung at them), even if nobody can sing it and nobody knows about the events it describes? I mean, did you miss the part where I mentioned it has ROCKETS and BOMBS and FLAGS?
That’s America, dadgummit! And don’t you forget it!
JP Morgan Calls For Corporate Tax Break That JP Morgan Analysts Found Won’t Work – ” Congress already tried such a holiday in 2004.The companies that benefited most wound up cutting jobs, and companies started stowing even more money offshore in anticipation that another repatriation holiday could be wrung out of Congress.”
Quote of the moment: John Adams, celebrating the 2nd of July – “The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” Though, with the high fire risks in so much of the country, I suggest we refrain this year a bit from the Bonfires and Illuminations.
Team John Jay – Jay’s an interesting guy. Like all of the Founders, he refuses to be put into a simple ideological box. There are things he did that were admirable, others I disagree with. Why we want to have the Founders as some sort of monolithic set of demogods who deigned to create the perfect nation for us — a concept they, themselves, would have been appalled by — is beyond me. Heroes? Sure, albeit with more than a few feet of clay. People to admire, to study, to consider and remember? Definitely. But attempts to both deify them and to scrub their records are not only unworthy of the freedom they fought for, but dangerous besides.
It’s Reagan’s party no more – “Or more to the point, doesn’t it bother Republicans, just a little, that Barack Obama is more in line with the Reagan legacy than they are?” It sure bothers the Democrats …
Pawlenty and the line that cannot be crossed – The fact that Reagan could never be nominated — let alone elected — in today’s GOP makes the situation even more laughworthy (or sad).
The Craig T. Nelson problem – Of course, one could see this, in perspective, as a sign of how we’re all in this together, how we all help one another as an organized society over the rough spots, promoting the general welfare and acting as a unified nation. Unfortunately, that idea is anathema to the “I got mine, you go pound sand” devotees of Ayn Rand.
When a party refuses to consider bipartisanship – It’s difficult to tell whether the GOP are simply being gone crazy, or if they figure by staking out increasingly extreme positions they can wangle increasingly extreme “compromises.” Neither bodes well.
Bill Bennett Explains Why Freedom Is Slavery – Do I particularly want an incremental increase in public intoxication and the attendant safety issues? No. But as a trade-off from the massive costs of the pot-based War on Drugs? Sure. We know how to manage public intoxication, etc.; we do it now with the very legal but regulated alcohol industry. To argue that the sky will fall if pot is legalized (or decriminalized) is ludicrous.
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.
(Spelling and capitalization has been modernized.)
The 2nd was the date that the Continental Congress approved of Richard Henry Lee’s proposal for independence. Lee had submitted the proposal in early June, which was the topic of much debate (obviously). Congress eventually passed the proposal on the 2 July, which led to numerous headlines along the lines of Adams’ letter.
Two days later, the Continental Congress passed the formal Declaration of Independence, as written (primarily) by Thomas Jefferson. The date of that approval is what became a holiday in the US (as well as being the date, fifty years later, when both Jefferson and Adams died).
So enjoy the 2nd … or the 4th, or perhaps even a three day period encompassing the 3rd, too. Fire dangers are high out there, so hold off on the bonfires and illuminations. And I’ll leave it to each person’s conscience whether to commit solemn acts of devotion to God. And always be careful when celebrating with guns. But have a fine time, anyhow. Maybe throw 1776 into the DVD player and get a bit of music to go with your history (the embedded video includes some of Adams’ language above, as does much of the movie) …
A big shakeup in the DOMA defense – Law firms are certainly within their rights to decide whether or not to take certain cases, or even to change their minds after a time. This is not a “To Kill a Mockingbird” attempt to save an innocent whom everyone else has abandoned. This is defense of a political policy, which may appeal on principle — but, then, it’s not being done out of a noble sense of “defending an unpopular position,” either.
Even for Fox, a cheap attack – Stay classy (or at least truth-loving), Fox News! You really do justify that whole “Faux News” label sometimes.
Define ‘peacetime’ – I see Mitt is going to run on the “reality-challenged” ticket.
For some today is a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, demonstrating God’s promise of eternal life. For others (at least in the Northern Hemisphere), it’s “merely” another iteration of the celebration of spring and the rebirth of nature after the cold winter. And for others, it’s just a great excuse to hunt eggs and eat chocolate and enjoy friends and family.
Whichever (or none of the above) it is for you, I hope you have a Happy one!
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Beck Calls Huck “Progressive,” Huck Calls Beck An Idiot – See, it’s moments like these when I say, “Hey, Huckabee is actually a pretty rational, all-right king of guy.” Then he turns around and pals up with (also-Beck-friend) David Barton.
Have a happy Zombie Weekend – Heh. Yeah, I noticed that passage whilst doing the Passion reading on Palm Sunday. That particular aspect of the Crucifixion doesn’t usually make it into the movies.
Why Are Tech Founders Such Assholes? [Startups] – “What is it about computers and money that instills villainy?” Computers have nothing to do with it. Power (and money) corrupt … and, really, the folks most likely to strive to achieve either are most likely to be corrupted by them (or by their pursuit). I mean, really, is Gates any worse than Carnegie, or Zuckerberg than Rockefeller?
Wonkette Thinks It’s Okay To Mock Trig Palin. Bulletin: It’s Not – Making an ass of yourself in the name of snark knows no political boundaries, unfortunately. This kind of humor (even its marginally weaker form that Wonkette is so infamous for) is one reason why I don’t read her.
What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010 – Well worth reading, especially Greenwald’s commentary on the story of the reaction to WikiLeaks being as important as the information revealed. The only caveat (as we saw with the Cuba/Moore tale): diplomatic cables are not objective truth, and at least some fraction of what was “revealed” was what folks were reporting on to their bosses, or rumors that were being passed on, not necessarily smoking guns (cf. your own company’s email system).
Badass Quote of the Day [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] – The problem is, it’s not a binary thing. There is a lot of good the US has done. There’s a lot of good ideas we’ve shared, too. I hold no truck with the “America is TEH EVILLL!” croud. But by the same token, the idea that God has mysteriously favored this country to be the moral (if not economic and political) arbiter for the world, or that this somehow gilds all of our actions into some sort of exceptionalism (i.e., that we are an exception to … what, the forces of history and the nature of humanity?) is equally ludicrous, and just as dangerous.
Congress Should End Ethanol Subsidies : Dispatches from the Culture Wars – Imagine spending $6 billion / year, not on subsidizing net-fossil-neutral ethanol subsidies for major agribusinesses (don’t fool yourself it’s all for Mom-n-Pop farmers), but on some actual renewable energy sources — heck, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to recycle all those Amazon boxes from gift-giving into fuel?
South Carolina Holds Secession Ball [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] – “But we do celebrate the courage and the integrity of 170 men who signed their signatures to the Article of Secession – the courage of men to do what they think is right.” But doesn’t WHAT they thought was right play into the question of whether it deserves celebration?
Porn site: publicizing takedown notices is copyright infringement – Yes, by slapping a copyrighted image in your takedown notice (so you can notify someone in the notice of what you say they are violating), you are now making it a copyrighted document in and of itself, which means it has to be kept hidden. Brilliantly evil!
Guns for Christmas – All I can think of here is that Zombies for the Holidays video …
Tomes 2010: Harry Potter Mania Edition – Nicely written. And, yes, setting the movies aside (though they do have something to recommend them, esp. later on), these are books that a lot of adults would get a lot of entertainment (and thrills) from. I’ll probably be ready to reread the series again after the next (last) movie comes out.
Reading as inclination leads – I think it’s good to push oneself (or to be pushed a bit), but I’m also very much (obviously) a believer in Reading What You Like, and then encouraging yourself to like more.
Actually, this is more of a test post than anything else, to see if the Redirection problem has been resolved. But, in the meantime …
Well, all of the gifts that have arrived have been wrapped. This afternoon we prep for the Big Christmas Eve Dinner, and this evening indulge in same. The Great Christmas Triangle Route for tomorrow is mapped out — Christmas morning here at the Ks, early afternoon at my folks’, dinner at my brother’s, dessert at the brother-in-law’s in-laws. Thus wraps up our first week here.
Not sure what next week holds. I’d like to get some more of our pictures uploaded and edited (I did a block of them earlier this week, but haven’t gotten back to it since). There’s serious talk about hitting the Getty Museum Villa in Malibu; with Katherine on a Greek Mythology kick, we thought she might have greater appreciation for it. We have a get-together planned later in the week at Jim & Di’s house, and there are some vague plans around New Year’s Eve brewing that may or may not include a Demolition Derby.
Our friend Mary called, discussing New Year’s Eve upcoming. In a break with long tradition, it seems that Margie and I will be going out that evening, along with Mary and Stan.
She reported that the parties she was seeing were all labeled “New Year’s 2011” parties.
Margie passed this on, thinking I’d immediately go into a “The Year 2000 was not the first year of the 21st Century”-style pedantic rant. In general, she knows me pretty well in this kind of thing.
But I think they are correct. Yes, the soirees are all taking place on New Year’s Eve, which will still be 2010. But they are, in fact, celebrating the New Year, which is, in fact, 2011.
Maybe this is closer to the pedantic “Noon” not being 12 p.m. because p.m. is post meridian and Noon is the meridian.
Regardless, party on! (If only we had a good idea about what we were going to be doing.)
Okay, so I obsess a bit about Christmas cards. I come by it honestly — my mom is a diligent Christmas carder. Call it pathology, call it OCD, I just feel a keen obligation to send out Christmas cards each holiday season.
(Note: just like I’m very laid-back viz my own religious internal imperatives vs what other folks choose to practice, I don’t consider my obsession with Christmas cards to be an indictment of anyone who doesn’t share said obsession. I just feel like sending out cards is part of my holiday social obligations and, honesty, my pleasure to hook up with folks with whom I don’t correspond outside of Christmas.)
I usually have a variety of cards — at least two, classified as “religious” and “secular.” Yes, I acknowledge that some folks don’t celebrate Christmas (or this season) as a Christian holiday, and other folks do. To me, that means two sets of cards, just like you’d have multiple outfits for different occasions.
Now that I’ve confessed that sin, let me confess another: I write Christmas Letters.
Yes, those horrid, wretched, self-indulgent, gag-worthy missives describing the past year from our internal family perspective, from waxing lyrical about Junior’s grades, to snarkily boasting about that cruise to the Bahamas, to boundarilessly entertaining correspondents with the details of Aunt Gertrude’s kidney stones.
My thinking on Christmas Letters is this:
It’s a useful end-of-year review for me.
I try to send it just to folks who might be wondering how things are going with us.
I don’t take it too seriously.
The letters go to folks who are (a) not close friends and family [who presumably already know all this stuff], but (b) relatives or friends who’d actually give a darn (I think) about reading a one-page summary of the year’s health, travel, work, and home improvement events. (I keep the letter to one page long; my life isn’t interesting enough to go beyond that.)
(For the edification of all who are not in the above list, I’ll be publishing said letter here has a blog post some time later this month. I’m sure that gives everyone an added reason to live.)
Christmas Cards this year was also a bit of a catch-up event. As you may recall (or would know if you read our Christmas Letter, dagnabbit), last year’s cards were interrupted by … well … Margie’s broken ankle and the hilarity that ensued about that. I think I ended up sending an apologetic email around instead, and considered it good.
(We actually got gifts bought last year — largely due to Margie being unable to do much else than sit on the sofa-bed and sort through catalogs and order things. Of course, she was on pain meds, which is why the odd gaps, doubling-up, and occasional mis-selection of gifts we chalk up to the “Percocet Christmas.”)
Anyway, this year we had a plethora of cards to choose from — a large supply of three different cards. Of course, I also had the challenge of, for the first time, using an export out of Google Contacts as the Christmas Card list, plus using Open Office as a mail-merger for producing labels.
On the other hand, we now have a color printer, which means that the Christmas Letter and the Twelfth Night invite could have color without using rubber stamps.
Ah, yes, the Twelfth Night invite. We do a holiday party each year (that’s Margie’s “she comes by it honestly” contribution to our holiday period mania). But given how zany December is, we do it in January, hence referring to it as a Twelfth Night party (though we never do it by the official Twelfth Night). But one of the decision points that has to be made pre-cards is the date, and then invites need to be printed up for folks who are not in our immediate Gmail circle … and then the invite needs to be written up and then printed and then cut up (since we do half-sheets folded for the invite), and …
Oh, yeah, then after we stuff half our Christmas cards with the invites, we discover that I cunningly wrote up an invitation in December 2010 giving a party date of January 2010 (vs January 2011). *sigh*
(Note for next year: Katherine noticed that the invitation was formally from Margie and me, and took umbrage at that. So Kay gets to be part of the invitation, just like she’s part of the Christmas Letter.)
So there’s a fair amount of prep that takes place before the card trigger that gets pulled:
Buy cards (already done for this year)
Buy stamps (thanks, Costco!)
Decide on Twelfth Night date, then create Twelfth Night invites.
Research Christmas Letter (i.e., review blog posts for the last year)
Write Christmas Letter
Refine list of folks to whom cards go.
Figure out how to export said folks’ contact info and turn it into address labels.
Create return address labels.
But once all that is done, the actual card work is (relatively) quick — it took me about four hours to inscribe each card, get it addressed, return-addressed, stamped, and out to the mailbox. It would go faster if I didn’t write something in each card beyond just signing it for the family. On the other hand, it would go slower if I hand-wrote each address, so there you go.
So all the cards for the season are complete, save anything we get in the mail from someone that we didn’t get a card from. Since, unless it’s wholly inappropriate, one definition of those to whom you should send cards is those from whom you receive cards.
Going back to the Christmas Letter, it occurs to me that, now that I have color printing, we can, if we get our act together on processing photos, include a picture or two of us in said letter. Note that is a big “if” … I am woefully behind this year in reviewing and editing and labeling and uploading photos …
Anyway, that’s a long-about way of saying that I’ve sent out my Christmas Cards (i.e., they are in the mailbox with the flag up), and oh what a good boy am I. Until I realize someone I missed that I oughtn’t have.
Now, about selecting and ordering Christmas gifts …
I love Christmas. I love it as a religious holiday. And I love the secular side of the Christmas season — the gift-giving, the Santas, the food, the getting together with family and friends. And as a symbol of light in the darkness, I like and appreciate all the winter holidays that people celebrate at this time of year, across cultures and religions.
For some folks, though, You’re Either For Christ, or Against Christ.
Some Christians do just seem so ready to be offended if they are not (a) the Big Dogs on the Block, (b) the only ones who get mentioned, (c) the Owners of the Month of December. Indeed, anything that disturbs those majoritarian senses of entitled ownership … is considered “persecution” and “war.”
No, people, this is persecution and war. You’re just being spoiled brats who’ve been told you have to share “your” toys with others.
So after discussing the Evils of Atheistic Billboards yesterday (or, more properly, the hypocrisy of Christians condemning Atheists for proselytization efforts), a few more items bobbed up on the subject. Like this billboard:
It came up at this page at Pharyngula in conjunction with PZ Myers objecting to an atheist with Christian family members who objected to the billboard as simply being provocative. Les shared the article in Google Reader, and I commented:
Isn’t there a difference, though, between at least sometimes “letting people go about their daily lives in peace” and “bowing and scraping and saying ‘Yassuh’ to the religious”?
My main problem with this particular ad is that, I don’t like anyone telling me what I “KNOW”. In some ways, this strikes me as the flip side to “Even atheists know in their hearts that God is real” crap.
Reminding theists that atheists are real, that they are good people, even that they disagree, is in fact a good thing. It’s also good (as noted yesterday) to let people who aren’t believers know that there are kindred spirits out there. Telling people, at Christmas, that their beliefs about Christmas are a myth (and that, arguably, they KNOW it to be true) strikes me as being unnecessarily rude.
That said, I then ran across today this even more pathetically maddening article on the subject, from the “Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.” And this one deserves (sigh) a lengthy screed.
Now, if the CADC was focused on pointing out places where Christians were, in fact, unfairly defamed, pointing out how that was the case, and asking that people of goodwill join in stopping such occurrences, I’d be all over that.
Double poopy-heads!
Instead, the CADC’s MO is basically to screech, “Hey! They called us poopy-heads! But they’re double poopy-heads!” Which is, of course, just what Jesus indicated one should do and feel when being persecuted for His sake, right?
As we enter the Christmas season, atheist groups are lining up again to bash Christianity.
Some atheist groups are interested in “bashing” Christianity, for a variety of reasons. They don’t usually restrict themselves to the Christmas season.
A group called American Atheists purchased a billboard in New Jersey that shows a silhouette of the Three Wise Men approaching the Nativity. Underneath is written, “You KNOW it’s a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON!”
Well, that much is accurate.
It's not a myth, it's just Cliff's Notes
Biblically speaking, of course, the Wise Men men did not arrive while the newborn Jesus lay in the manger. Nor were there canonically three of them. Nor do they even appear in more than just one of the Gospels. So, even from a Biblical standpoint, the whole “We Three Kings of Orient Are” is a myth within Christianity. But that’s not quite the intent of the billboard, I suspect, and, mysteriously, the CADC would probably handwave away that aspect of it, so I suppose I digress.
It’s interesting that this same hostility isn’t displayed against Muslims during Ramadan or towards Jews during their Holy Days.
Well, despite fear of Muslims taking over America, or fear of the overwhelming power of Jews in the media, both groups remain tiny percentages of the population and of the culture. If one is out to object to religious myths, it makes sense to take on the big dog in the yard.
That said, atheists do, as appropriate, criticize Muslims and Jews. It’s hardly surprising that the CADC doesn’t actually notice this. Especially as the CADC probably sees this as some huge crypto-Atheist-Muslim-Jewish conspiracy against Jesus. So it goes.
Apparently the American Atheists are ignorant of the fact that history proves Christ’s birth is not a myth.
Plus, Jesus is pearly-white and rosy-cheeked and CERTAINLY not swarthy or Semetic
Despite fervent assertions to the contrary, the historical basis for Jesus is hardly as settled as that, let alone the specific events surrounding his birth. The last time I looked, there was at least some basis for Jesus’ historicity, but not not so much as to assert “ignorance” of the “fact” of the “proof.”
But, then, “blessed are you who have not seen, but have believed.”
Jesus is not only the promised Messiah, God born of human flesh, he is the crucified and risen Savior of the World.
Which isn’t exactly arguing from history.
Over three hundred fulfilled biblical prophecies, corroborated by non-Christian sources and eyewitness testimony are stubborn facts atheists simply pretend aren’t there.
Wow. Really? I mean, sure, the Bible (esp. Matthew) is full of “fulfilled biblical prophecies,” but that’s kind of to be expected.
I looked around at the CADC site for the basis for this assertion, but their “Resources” page is simply an introduction to “Seven Reasons Barack Obama Is Not A Christian.” Um … right …
Atheists seem to hold a deep-seated, irrational resentment against Christmas and the joyous message of salvation that it declares. They are apparently too proud to admit their sin and need of a Savior, so they flee to “REASON.” Yet, their atheistic reasoning is so inconsistent and depressing.
Oh, those Atheists — so “deep-seated irrational,” so “proud” and “inconsistent” and “depressing.” It’s a good thing the CADC can try to defend against the defamation of Christianity without defaming others, because otherwise those Atheists sure would be easy targets!
Ahem. So we trot out the standard anti-Atheist memes here:
Atheists are driven by a resentment/hatred of God/Christ and, by extension, Christmas. The idea that one might legitimately, honestly question the facts of Christianity, or its theology (itself a tangled web that’s cause Christians to come to blows and blood and the auto-de-fe in the past), is utterly beyond comprehension.
Atheists are just simply too proud to admit that they are sinful and in need of salvation. Never mind that some Christians seem to proud over their having achieved salvation over those other poor schmucks who are headed to the Fiery Furnace.
There’s nothing to base these idea on, other than wishful thinking. It’s as silly (or slanderous) to assert that atheists know in their heart that God exists and are simply ignoring Him out of fear or pride, as it is to assert that theists know (ahem) in their heart that God is a myth and are simply going along out of fear or pride.
And, by the way, what is it about REASON that makes it something one “flees” to? Sign me up with Abraham Heschel, a man of faith:
Without reason we would not know how to apply the insights of faith to the concrete issues of living. … The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.
The idea that God created us as Reasoning individuals says to me we are called on to use those cognitive tools that God provided us. I think there is room (at least in my life) for Faith as well as Reason — indeed, as with Heschel, I think both are critical components. But to dismiss atheists as “fleeing to Reason” is to denegrate one of God’s great gifts to us.
I have always wondered why atheists spend money on billboards to try to persuade others of their position if they really believe their own ideology. According to honest atheists, if there is no God logic dictates there is no truth, right or wrong, or meaning.
Yet some atheists are compelled to live as if what they think is true, and that their lives actually do matter. It looks to me like they didn’t read their Nietzsche very closely and can’t live according to “REASON” after all.
The appeal to “honest atheists” aside, while it is true that some atheists are nihilist (just as some Christians are hate-mongers), and some think Nietzsche is the coolest philosopher ever (just as some Christians think Pat Robertson is da bomb), most of the ones I know do believe in “right and wrong,” do feel that life has “meaning” — but a meaning that they figure out for themselves, and right and wrong as they reason makes sense, as opposed to simply taking what a preacher or scripture or some other blessed authority dictates.
I’m not sure what it means to say that “if there is no God, logic dictates there is no truth.” I’d look for more education on the subject, but the Resources page is still blathering about Obama being an Evil, Liberal, Radical, False Christian.
As a Christian I understand it’s impossible to make sense of this world and my life apart from God. Jesus Christ alone meets the deepest need of mankind- reconciliation to a Holy God.
As a Christian, I am glad you (whoever you are) find sense in this world and life as informed by Jesus Christ. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly demonstrable truth, let along logic and reason, that nobody can can do similarly without Him. There seem to be plenty of people in the world to demonstrate just the opposite, no matter how much you claim it is impossible.
Some of them even seem to be (gasp) atheists.
Reason ultimately ends in hopelessness, meaninglessness and despair.
Because?
The Christ Mass According to St. Frankie
Atheists want us to replace “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” with “Have Yourself a Nihilistic Breakdown.”
Oddly enough, I don’t know any atheists want anyone to have “Nihilistic Breakdowns.” In fact, most of them would be happy for folks to have a “Merry Little Christmas” (If I noted that the song is utterly non-religious, other than using the word “Christmas,” would I be being provocative?).
That doesn’t sound very attractive to me. I much prefer a living hope and the supernatural joy of Christ, thank you very much.
And more power to you. But if you can’t do so without mocking and namecalling of those who feel differently — does that raise you much above the level of what you’re criticizing in others?
This post would not be complete without looking at the comments. As one might expect, most show all the fervor of the original poster but with half the REASONing. For example:
We shouldn’t be surprised that someone foolish enough to hate and disbelieve in God would go to all lengths to make others “two-fold more a child of hell” than themselves. They particularly hate Biblical Christianity because Jesus Christ is the one & only way to eternal life.
If one disbelieves in God, why would one hate God? The underlying accusation here is that atheists not only know that God is real (they actually believe in him), they’re going through the atheistic motions out of hatred of God, and to suck others into their hell-bound maw. I.e., atheists aren’t just wrong or unenlightened or mistaken, they are intentionally evil.
All I can say here is that this doesn’t match most of the atheists I know. It’s altogether possible, even likely, that some avowed atheists are actually anti-theists — they believe in God, but they are, in fact, angry and rejecting of their concept of God because of something that’s happened in their life. But most of the folks I know who are atheists have taken a bit more reasoned approach to their beliefs (more reasoned than most Cultural Christians), and are a-theists primarily for a reason.
To me, atheist are a testimony to Christianity as they have to name God before they can deny Him. They have just named what they deny.
God is a Magic Name, and if you say it three times, there’s a 2d100 percentile chance that He will appear …
Proof via the Gospel of St. Calvin
Ah, Pascal’s Wager. What a truly heart-felt, sincere, positive, loving reason to be a Christian. Or a Zoroastrian. Or a Hindu. Or SantaClausist. Or …
I continually marvel at just how angry, resentful and even downright hostile atheists will become toward people who are simply exercising their own free will and Constitutional rights to choose what they personally want to believe and follow, just as the atheists have done. If atheists sincerely believe that God, Heaven, Hell, eternity, etc. are all part of some impotent, superstitous myth, why do they care so much that some people might choose to believe in it, even total strangers they don’t even know? That they protest so vehemently tells it all, I think, meaning they actually know the truth, mad as everything at even the slightest reminder. Trying so desperately to hide from the truth, visible, vocal Christians must be real nasty thorns.
Or, maybe, they get tired of Christians arguing that not only are they (Christians) right, but that they (Atheists) know it but are desperately trying to hide from the truth.
Or, framed another way, If Christians sincerely believe that God, Heaven, Hell, eternity, etc. are all real and therefore they are themselves saved, why do they care so much that some people might choose to disbelieve it, even total strangers they don’t even know? That they protest so vehemently tells it all, I think, meaning they actually know the truth, mad as everything at even the slightest reminder. Trying so desperately to hide from the truth, visible, vocal atheists must be real nasty thorns.
I will note that some of the commenters are actually reasonable, even suggesting that Atheists are ticked off, not at Christ, but at Christians.
It bothers me, and angers me when Christians act out on their own fears and hatred of non-Christians. If atheists want to challenge the existence of God, lets organize a civilized and publicized discussion about it. Other than that, I say we join the organization American Atheists in promoting the free exercise of religion for all people in this country. The great men of Christ who formed the foundation of this country respected and protected the rights of conscience for all people – we should recognize that the institutional church has not always done so.
Amen, brother.
So, to summarize:
I’m not thrilled with the billboard in question largely because it’s confrontational and asserts what people believe in their hearts — as obnoxiously as the old “there are no atheists in foxholes” canard …
… or, to turn to this particular CADC post, as obnoxiously as the “atheists hate God therefore they hate people who believe in God because they are too proud and cowardly and sinful to admit they themselves believe in God” calumny.
If you can’t protect yourself from defamation without defaming others, then consider simply turning the other cheek. It’s not easy, and it’s not something I, for one, do nearly as well as I ought, but, especially for those who claim to follow Christ, it’s what we’re supposed to do, dagnabbit.
House GOP Ends Climate-Change Committee Because It’s Not Real – Because why would we need to have a congressional focus not just on climate change, but on energy independence? Just drill, baby, drill! And with enough warming, soon everywhere will be a deep-water drilling site!
Strange bedfellows and ethanol subsidies – Amusing. But the whole ethanol thing has been a bi-partisan vs bi-partisan issue for a long time. It will be interesting to see how the “federal spending doesn’t create jobs” thang goes alongside the “cutting this federal spending will cost jobs” thang.
Wasn’t My Job to Do My Job – So from Simpson’s standpoint, it was to put out what HE thought were the solutions to the problem, not to come up with something that that the commission could all agree on. Um … then why do you think you weren’t the only one asked, knucklehead?
Kyl: Dems Cave By Monday Or No START Treaty | TPMDC – So, Sen. Kyl, the issue is not all your ostensible concerns over nuclear security and upgrading our remaining weaponry, but it’s about playing political games. Got it. Thanks for revealing yourself as a hack.
Bedroom Decorating Is a Hot Trend for Tweens and Teens – WSJ.com – We’ve (esp. the [ahem] maternal grandparents) certainly indulged Kay with some redecorating efforts in her room, though much has been DIY, not via Pottery Barn and the like. And that’s how you can do it without spending several thousand dollars every couple of years (sorry, Kitten).
Foreign aid and public confusion – “This may be the single most important fact about public opinion regarding the budget: most Americans think that much if not most of the money the federal government spends goes to things they don’t like and people they don’t like, whether it’s wasteful pork or foreigners or lazy welfare recipients. So when you tell them we have to start slashing government, they think, ‘Sounds great — it certainly won’t affect me!'”
What the right’s “American exceptionalism” attack on Obama is really about – “Let’s stipulate at the outset that there’s really no point in getting into a debate with right-wingers over the question of whether Obama believes in ‘American exceptionalism.’ That’s because the right intends this attack line as a proxy for their real argument: That Obama is not one of us.”
Pence’s priorities – “I think the minimum that we have to do right now for Americans that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure that no American sees a tax increase.” Welcome to today’s compassionately conservative GOP.
All 42 Senate Republicans announce hostage plan – “Also note the unstated truth behind the threat — Republicans will block literally everything until they’re satisfied, at which point, they’ll try to block literally everything anyway.”
So pleased you’re spending so much of your life alongside mine!
Today, in the United States, we commemorate (with a holiday and everything!) and celebrate the economic and social contributions of workers in the US. Sure, that’s kind of considered passe these days, as the GOP fights to dismember the remnants of organized Labor in the US, and the Democrats make vague protesting noises and wave their hands feebly (note to President Obama — a front page note at whitehouse.gov about Labor Day might have been nice …). The American Worker is lauded these in the ideal abstract as the Guy Who Can Do Anything, and rise from rags to riches and all that … but in practice, with Washington more focused on debt reduction than job creation, with unemployment remaining high and stagnant, with continued pushes for agreements that push jobs overseas, with attacks on the Minimum Wage, and attacks on labor agreements, and attacks on …
Today in the US we celebrate the passage of the Declaration of Independence, in 1776. The DoI was a remarkable document, acting to provide a justification for rebellion, laying out the Colonists’ case, and establishing a philosophical / political framework for what the new country — and all nations/governments — should be. It formalized into a political break what had been de facto the case for a year — war between Britain and America — but also was careful in its language to focus the war on the actions of George III, not the English nation as a whole (or Parliament in particular). It was a distillation of Enlightenment thinking, and has influenced American rhetoric (and thought) in the 235 years since.
Katherine studied the American Revolution this year, but I have to wonder how many adults in the US have looked at the Declaration of Independence in the last decades, and really parsed what it was about: a philosophical statement about what government should be, and a justification, based on that statement, as to why they were separating from the government that had been ruling them.
Parade magazine once again raises the issue of whether “The Star -Spangled Banner” should (as it has been since 1931) be the national anthem, or if we should choose something else. They even have a poll.
For some today is a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, demonstrating God’s promise of eternal life. For others (at least in the Northern Hemisphere), it’s “merely” another iteration of the celebration of spring and the rebirth of nature after the cold winter. And for others, it’s just a great excuse to hunt eggs and eat chocolate and enjoy friends and family.
Our friend Mary called, discussing New Year’s Eve upcoming. In a break with long tradition, it seems that Margie and I will be going out that evening, along with Mary and Stan.
(Note: just like I’m very laid-back viz my own religious internal imperatives vs what other folks choose to practice, I don’t consider my obsession with Christmas cards to be an indictment of anyone who doesn’t share said obsession. I just feel like sending out cards is part of my holiday social obligations and, honesty, my pleasure to hook up with folks with whom I don’t correspond outside of Christmas.)
So all the cards for the season are complete, save anything we get in the mail from someone that we didn’t get a card from. Since, unless it’s wholly inappropriate, one definition of those to whom you should send cards is those from whom you receive cards.
There’s nothing to base these idea on, other than wishful thinking. It’s as silly (or slanderous) to assert that atheists know in their heart that God exists and are simply ignoring Him out of fear or pride, as it is to assert that theists know (ahem) in their heart that God is a myth and are simply going along out of fear or pride.
The appeal to “honest atheists” aside, while it is true that some atheists are nihilist (just as some Christians are hate-mongers), and some think Nietzsche is the coolest philosopher ever (just as some Christians think Pat Robertson is da bomb), most of the ones I know do believe in “right and wrong,” do feel that life has “meaning” — but a meaning that they figure out for themselves, and right and wrong as they reason makes sense, as opposed to simply taking what a preacher or scripture or some other blessed authority dictates.
… or, to turn to this particular CADC post, as obnoxiously as the “atheists hate God therefore they hate people who believe in God because they are too proud and cowardly and sinful to admit they themselves believe in God” calumny.
