…and this is a 
Carnivalia and an open thread
Category: Carnivals • Open Thread
Posted on: November 9, 2007 11:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I'm on an airplane on my way to Washington DC, for an event sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It should be good — I've heard that Blue Gal, D-Cup, Phil Plait, and some of the gang from Corrente will be there…and we'll find out who else. I'll report back later!
Until then, here are a few carnivals to browse.
Linnaeus' Legacy, a brand new carnival dedicated to classification
And of course, feel free to talk among yourselves! Except any lingering denialists. You can go look for a rock to crawl under.
Comments
I looked for an AU Chapter in Kentucky. Alas, there is not one. I'm thinking I should start one.
Posted by: zer0 | November 9, 2007 11:19 AM
Faith and the sinkhole:
Sigh. Just. . . sigh.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 9, 2007 11:38 AM
Hmm...
Did you see this one?
Senator Questioning Ministries on Spending
Senator Charles E. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating six prominent evangelistic ministries to determine whether they have illegally used donations to finance opulent lifestyles.
New York Times article here
I can't stand these religious con-artists.
They get rich off the money of people who can't really afford to have money taken out of their hand.
Posted by: DLC | November 9, 2007 12:14 PM
Thanks for the linky love and don't forget to mark your dance card...I'm your dinner partner Sunday night. I have a feeling we won't open the dinner singing "God Bless America," but the beauty contest between you and Phil should be fun, considering I've refused to be a judge. See you soon!
Posted by: Blue Gal | November 9, 2007 1:54 PM
With atheist friends like these, who needs enemies?
Posted by: MikeM | November 9, 2007 2:17 PM
MikeM:
"My child does not know what a prostitute is and she shouldn't be learning that at school," said the student's mother.
If your fifth-grader doesn't know what a prostitute is, he had better have a teacher who will let him know, even if she's as mad as a hatter. Just for vocabulary purposes alone!
Posted by: frog | November 9, 2007 2:43 PM
Denialists here!
I'd like to say, I liked your Sceptics links and thoroughly endorse the contents. This is my sort of stuff!
Thanks for the rock.
Posted by: GallileoWasADenier | November 9, 2007 3:12 PM
And anyway, where should your fifth-grade son learn what a prostitute is? The street corner? Your husband's call girl? James Taylor?
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 3:32 PM
It won't kill you, but there's a reason why hormones are forbidden in cattle raising in the EU.
Who is James Taylor?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 9, 2007 4:59 PM
Rey, I don't have a husband.
My 10 year old in the fifth grade knows what sex is, but we haven't quite gotten around to explaining the world's oldest profession to him. We'll get to that, I guess. I'm not sure there's a need for it when you're 10.
I don't recall any real trauma from the way I learned about prostitution -- from hanging out with other kids my age. But I think I'd prefer my kids not learn about it that way. I'm sure we'll tell them.
When I was a kid, the other kids in the neighborhood tried to teach me about the Cabbage Queen. I still have no idea what they were talking about.
Murder King, though... I like that.
For the record, in 7th grade, my daughter watched "Supersize Me." They make a PG version for middle schools, which is fine by me. I do own the R rated version. I don't object to them watching it.
Posted by: MikeM | November 9, 2007 5:06 PM
Hee hee, obscure reference.
James Taylor is a very low-key singer and songwriter. He'd have nothing to do with this discussion were it not for a South Park episode where the kids ask Chef what a prostitute is, and he sings a song about it (as is his wont) to the tune of James Taylor's "Whenever I See Your Smiling Face" (oddly). In the middle of the song, James Taylor himself (celebrity voice impersonated, of course) shows up out of the blue to sing a verse.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 5:08 PM
MikeM: I think I cut my post down too much from what it was. I actually was addressing the lady who made the quote. I'll just be going now...
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2007 5:09 PM
Did anyone else hear about Mickey Rourke's DUI arrest?
This is awful of me, but check out that mug shot.
Posted by: MikeM | November 9, 2007 6:29 PM
Demon or dog, it ended up on the news in Colorado.
Posted by: Mena | November 9, 2007 9:58 PM
Congress shall make no law one way or the other... Everything else is fine. Why do you need to go to a conference to realize this?
A largely Mormon community will have government institutions filled with people who reflect the community. Not allowing school children, who happen to live in a largely religious community, to pray in school would be a violation of their 1st amendment rights. Not allowing a teacher who comes from that community to lead a voluntary prayer would be too. Hence the reason why Congress has a chaplain. Why does one need to go to a conference to realize this?
John Adams' said in his fourth State of the Union address:
"It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and imploring His blessing."
Was he violating the Constitution when he said this?
FDR led the nation in prayer over the radio. Was he violating the Constitution when he did this?
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. I'm vaclempt.
Posted by: David | November 9, 2007 10:06 PM
Spacesquid laughs at your silly need for eight to ten arms.
From Zap, not Zap in Space.
Posted by: Sili | November 10, 2007 4:05 PM
How is it you know more than the writers of the constitution and the last 200 years worth of the Supreme court. You don't, just making things up.
Mormons have no legal right to oppress others just because they are a majority in Utah and surrounding areas. Not that it stops them from trying and discrimination against others is subtle and pervasive.
A largely Mormon majority would most likely massacre the Xians and other nonbelievers among them and drive them out without federal laws. And then secede from the USA. The first was in fact, done to them by the Xians of the Midwest. Their original intention in moving to Utah was to found their own country. There is still a fort in the hills above SLC, Fort Douglas. The guns are pointed down at the city in case the Mormons ever decide to rebel again.
Separation of church and state exists to protect everyone from bloodthirsty, murderous religious fanatics.
Posted by: raven | November 10, 2007 5:28 PM
1. Because Mormons have existed for the last so many years, as with the Amish, etc.
2. Because we have had a congressional chaplain since the beginning.
3. Many of our state constitutions mention God, and have so since their inception.
4. We have had blue laws on the books for quite some time now.
5. Because "In God We Trust" has been on our money for quite some time now.
The First Amendment simply says that Congress shall make no law one way or the other as far as establishment or disestablishment goes and as far as expression goes. In other words, the government is the people and therefore if the people is majority Mormon, then the government will reflect that and so will its laws (as long as they don't violate the constitution, of course). This is a side effect of Democracy, representative government, freedom of assembly, and the 10th Amendment. I would find it hard to believe that someone could be for freedom, yet against the freedom to raise one's children among a like minded community.
Even if one were to narrowly interpret the 1st amendment to mean what you think it means, one could make the argument that non-religion is basically a religion and that government should not play favorites to the non-religious either.
Posted by: David | November 11, 2007 3:04 AM