Next week, blasphemy gets its own holiday

A friend brought this to my attention. As I read, I had difficulty getting too upset. I certainly wasn't amused but perhaps bemused. The folks quoted give me the impression of being petulant children begging for attention by making a scene about something the adults around them are doing.

Next week, blasphemy gets its own holiday

By Leanne Larmondin

TORONTO—You’ve never seen Jesus like this before: dripping red nail polish around the nails in his feet and hands, an irreverent riff on the crucifixion wounds. The provocative title of the painting: “Jesus Does His Nails.”

Blasphemous? Absolutely. Deliberately provocative? You bet.

But childish and even amateurish in comparison to the famous bit of blasphemous art perpetrated by Andres Serrano. Somehow seems kinda high school to me.

It is part of an upcoming art exhibit in Washington that will mark the first-ever International Blasphemy Day next Wednesday (Sept. 30) at the Center for Inquiry DC near Capitol Hill.

Hmm. I suppose 'international' because someone is coming down from Toronto. I doubt the contingent from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan will be very large... Like "Tom's Famous Steaks and Hoagies" I'm also impressed by their presumption that they are the first group to publicly blaspheme. Still seems like that grade-school boy who says, 'poopie' and giggles at his own trangressivity.

Artist Dana Ellyn says her “Blasphemy” paintings are a tongue-in-cheek expression of her lack of belief in God and religion. The self-described “agnostic atheist”—she doesn’t believe in the existence of any deity but can’t say for sure one doesn’t exist—says her introduction to religion was in college when she studied art history. Stories from the Bible, she says, are just that: stories.

So, Ms Ellyn isn't serious about her blasphemy, but she is organizing an art show around it. I smell an opportunist. Oh, and is it just me or is there something irrational about someone who doesn't believe in God whether He exists or not. Seems like the sort of anti-intellectualism and lack of rationalism that the Center for Inquiry would eschew. But, at least Ms Ellyn bases her opinion on a sound intellectual background of a college art history class. Certainly, that is enough for her to justify gainsaying 2000 years of theological, philosophical and intellectual history.

“My point is not to offend, but I realize it can offend, because religion is such a polarizing topic,” Ellyn said of the exhibit.

Any bets on where Ms Ellyn comes down on the 'polarizing topic' of children rescued from Abortion?

This from the Facebook page for Blasphemy Day: "The purpose of Blasphemy Day is not to promote hate or violence; it is to support free speech, support the right to criticize and satirize religion..."

So, they would probably be all in favor of this picture:

Atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and free-speech advocates around the world will mark Blasphemy Day by mounting their soapboxes—figuratively and literally—and uttering words and displaying images that may cause offense.

And they’re making no apologies.

“We’re not seeking to offend, but if in the course of dialogue and debate, people become offended, that’s not an issue for us,” said Justin Trottier, a Toronto coordinator of Blasphemy Day and executive director of the Ontario chapter of the Center for Inquiry. “There is no human right not to be offended.”

Mark Steyn has found out differently from the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Various campus 'speech codes' also give the lie to this bit of silliness. Perhaps Mr Trottier should be asked why he isn't having his show in Toronto. And does he really expect rational people to believe him when 'Jesus Does His Nails' is one of the exhibits? Sophmoric in word and deed.

St. Thomas Aquinas described blasphemy—deliberately showing contempt or irreverence for something considered sacred—as a sin “committed directly against God ... more grave than murder.” In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

While it may sound as anachronistic as a witchcraft trial, blasphemy remains punishable by death in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. In addition, Ireland recently introduced a defamation law making blasphemy punishable by fines up to 25,000 euros ($37,000 US). What’s more, six U.S. states (Massachusetts, Michigan, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) have laws that, in some way, prohibit or regulate blasphemy, noted Ron Lindsay, a lawyer and president of the CFI International in Amherst, N.Y.

CFI also cites efforts by the United Nations to introduce anti-blasphemy resolutions that many say would curtail free speech about religion.

These grown-up babies with more time and money than sense are really giving blasphemy a bad name. Grown-ups know that the UN resolutions are being pushed by Islamic states to protect their Islamic theocracies and to add cover for their persecution of Christians and converts from Islam. That is a serious subject. This nonsense is really nothing more than a stunt by the emotionally impoverished that is nevertheless dangerous in that it may lead an impressionable person astray. Again, I have little doubt that the organizers would be aghast at truly radical public utterances; like those of St. Francis of Assisi:

"My little sisters, the birds, much bounden are ye unto God, your Creator, and always in every place ought ye to praise Him, for that He hath given you liberty to fly about everywhere, and hath also given you double and triple rainment; moreover He preserved your seed in the ark of Noah, that your race might not perish out of the world; still more are ye beholden to Him for the element of the air which He hath appointed for you; beyond all this, ye sow not, neither do you reap; and God feedeth you, and giveth you the streams and fountains for your drink; the mountains and valleys for your refuge and the high trees whereon to make your nests; and because ye know not how to spin or sow, God clotheth you, you and your children; wherefore your Creator loveth you much, seeing that He hath bestowed on you so many benefits; and therefore, my little sisters, beware of the sin of ingratitude, and study always to give praises unto God."

Sept. 30 was chosen for the inaugural Blasphemy Day because it is the anniversary of the 2005 publication of the controversial Muhammad cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The cartoons resulted in worldwide riots by outraged Muslims and widespread self-censorship by media.

Strange thing is, all of the religiously- oriented paintings on Ms Ellyn's web site are explicitly anti-Christian. If the impetus to this theater really is the cowardly response of the Danish government and newspapers to the violent Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons (which they should be protecting as incidents of free speech), why has Ms Ellyn refrained from her own satire of Islam and Mohammad?

Lindsay said the Blasphemy Day events are part of his group’s larger Campaign for Free Expression, which encompasses more than protection of speech about religion. CFI, he said, aims to expose all religious beliefs to the same level of inquiry, discussion and criticism to which other areas of intellectual interest are subjected.

Judging from the subject matter I reviewed while composing my replies, I cannot fathom why CFI and the rest of the organizers would propose subjecting religious beliefs to a less rigorous level of inquiry, discussion and criticism than they have already been subject to by their adherents and their devout opponents. These witlings cannot hold a scented candle to even the most mediocre theology student.

Besides the Washington art exhibit, Blasphemy Day events include:

-- a Blasphemy-Fest! at CFI Los Angeles that will feature a talk about free speech followed by three provocative films;

-- supporters worldwide have been encouraged to take up The Blasphemy Challenge (http://www.blasphemychallenge.com) by uploading their denials of faith to YouTube. A typical recording: “Hi, my name is Ray and I deny the Holy Spirit. (pause) No lightning. Maybe next time.”

-- a Speaker’s Corner, modeled after the famed soapbox in London’s Hyde Park, and a Blasphemy Challenge at CFI Toronto;

-- a blasphemy contest held by CFI International, in conjunction with its Campaign for Free Expression, in which participants are invited to submit phrases, poems, or statements that would be, or have been, considered blasphemous. Winners will receive T-shirts and mugs printed with their winning phrases.

I have one: "There are no dead atheist!" Think about it...

Will the public events and demonstrations disturb some people? Without a doubt, said Lindsay, but causing offense is not the intention. Participants are encouraged to avoid vulgarity and profanity.

Back in the day, being intentionally blasphemous was considered vulgar and well, I suggest they look up the definition of the word, 'profane.' How does one be profane while avoiding profanity? These rationalists at CFI are awfully irrational.

“We’re stressing that we want something that is insightful and thoughtful,” Lindsay said. “The point we’re trying to make is that we’re against restrictions on speech based purely on the possibility that some people might be offended, because if you go down that path there’s no end to it.”

Indeed.
"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled as well as privately run Medicare alternatives, on Monday said it was investigating a letter Humana Inc sent enrollees about efforts to overhaul the nation's healthcare system.
"CMS warned Humana it would take necessary enforcement action, and agency spokesman Peter Ashkenaz said Tuesday it is unclear when the investigation will conclude. The company has said it is cooperating with the probe."
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/09/22/afx6916781.html

"Ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski is used to being taught at home by her mother, Brenda Voydatch. Bible study was part of her curriculum until this year, when a judge ordered Voydatch to enroll Amanda in public school.

“The court has stepped in and said that this child and the mother are too religious and the child needs to be taken out of that environment and exposed to other worldviews, and that is a constitutional problem for all of us,” says John Anthony Simmons, Voydatch’s attorney.

"The judge’s order goes on to say, “Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs… suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”"
http://www.nhpr.org/node/26912

Seems like some speech is more equal than other. And there is one thing I'll bet all these rational blasphemers believe in:

Obey, by Dana Ellyn

Sen Warner's unhelpful answers

I mentioned in the previous post that Sen Warner's office did respond to my email regarding his positions on the medical goods and services industries.

His office sent a canned response with a letter attached. The letter was from Sen Warner and eight other senators to Sen Baucus.

Let's look at the email first:

"I share your concerns about the need for comprehensive health care reform, especially during this challenging economic time. "

Somehow I doubt that my concerns with federally designed 'comprehensive health care reform' are quite the same as his. My concern is that they get away with it. The market for medical goods and services, particularly the health insurance market could use some reform, but the stuff the Democrats are trying to impose will not fix what's broke but will inevitably make what works even more broke. It seems like they want to pour cement into an engine block to fix a leaking tailpipe.

Heritage and Cato, among others, have made actual common-sense proposals that will improve the delivery of medical goods and services and does have a reasonable chance of controlling costs while maintaining consumer freedom.

"Although I do not support a government-run single-payer health care system, I believe we need comprehensive reform to achieve a competitive, cost-effective, and efficient system. This effort should be primarily focused on ensuring that all Americans can get adequate health coverage, and the coverage must be cost-effective and based upon data-driven medical standards. We must ensure that competition remains among health care providers because it is precisely that competition that drives innovation and cost reduction in the industry. Any final reform should also include measures to promote prevention and wellness, senior navigation through the health system, health information technology ("health IT") and telemedicine."

Let's see, Since the federal government is moving out on the 'comprehensive reform;' someone, presumably the federal government will establish the 'data-driven medical standards;' and enforce 'measures to promote prevention and wellness etc.;' Sen Warner is OK with the 'government-run' part. He appears to be open on the means by which the federal government forces 300M Americans to pay for all of the new bureaucrats who will be needed to suck the remaining life out of our medical industry.

"As evidence that there is room to compromise, several alternatives are being discussed ranging from non-profit regional co-operatives to a delayed public option."

Ah, there is room to compromise between the blatantly Socialist and the merely Statist positions: should the central government run the medical industry out-right or should it merely direct how it is run by its corporate donors? Where are the Republican alternatives? Never left the committee rooms. Sorta reminds me of the alternatives given to the Melians by the Athenians: surrender and die as slaves or just die now. When Obama and Pelosi gloated, "We won" back in January, they echoed the Athenian 'negotiators,' "The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they must accept."

"I also believe that a central focus of this effort should be cost containment. I recently led an effort by freshman Senators in which we expressed our concerns to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the importance of ensuring that we find ways to pay for health care reforms. I am attaching a copy of that letter in this mailing. "

And Chairman Baucus listened. His final submission trims almost 10% from the House version. So, instead of underestimating the costs with a nearly $1,000B bill, his proposal underestimates a nearly $900B bill. I'm thinking if we are already over $1,700B in debt, we can't afford $900B any more than we can $1,000B. If that's his idea of 'cost containment,' he needs to find himself another job as soon as possible, I don't want him applying that theory of 'cost containment' to the federal budget and the US economy. Let him apply it to his own private business in Virginia and see how long it lasts.

Sen Warner's unanswered questions

I took the opportunity to attend Sen Warner's town hall in Fredericksburg the other night. We were not picked to ask questions, so I emailed the questions I would have liked to ask to his office.

I received a canned email response a little over a week later. Here are the questions left unanswered by his reply:

1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs

I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.

Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.

I anticipate all of the above.

2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?

3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?

4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.

Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally [sic] management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?

5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.

Does the federal government really care about my health?

Like the Left has done for decades in the Abortion debate, they are attempting to seize the rhetorical key terrain in the medical marketplace debate by choosing the terms of the argument and thereby imposing their premises on their opponents.

The front page of the 14 Sep Wapo tabloid, The Express featured a prominent article on Pres Obama's appearance on 60 Minutes to push his scheme to impose greater bureaucracy on the American medical industry. He is well on his way to succeeding in one respect. The article notes Obama's accusation that Republicans are 'trying to block an overhaul of the national health care system.' The phrase 'national health care system' is the common phrase used by both proponents and opponents of the Democrats' scheme to nationalize the medical industry.

But it is only a rhetorical trick. There is no 'national health care system' in the United States. There are national, regional and local markets for medical goods and services. There are regional and local medical systems - some public, some private, none comprehensive to anywhere near the extent envisioned by the Left and being pushed by Obama and the Democrat Party.

There are some national medical systems: The VA and Military Medical systems come to mind.

The proponents of nationalizing the medical goods and services marketplace will have already won the rhetorical battle if they are allowed to control the terms of the argument.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) held a town hall in Fredericksburg, VA this past week. If I had the opportunity to ask questions, these are what I would have asked Sen Warner:

1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs

I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.

Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.

I anticipate all of the above.

2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?

3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?

4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.

Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?

5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.

Peggy Noonan

From Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ as taken from:
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/peggy-noonan/2009/09/05/coruscating-on-thin-ice.htm:

"The president's biggest potential long-term problem in terms of the public part of the presidency became obvious to me only during the past week.

I watched with great interest much of Teddy Kennedy's wake and funeral, and saw in a clearer way than I had in the past a big cultural difference between the elites of the two parties, or rather the Democratic and Republican establishments. Pretty much the entire Democratic establishment was at the Kennedy services, and the level of shown affection among those in the pews and the audience was striking—laughing, hugging, telling stories, admitting weaknesses, weeping. It was Irish, and old-time. If it had been a gathering of the Republican political and journalistic establishment it would have been less emotive, with little shown affection. Polite laughter, cordial handshakes, a lot of staring ahead. A guy with his head down and you think he's mourning but he's BlackBerrying. They don't especially like each other, they compete against each other, and they don't feel the need to fake liking each other. They have the old dignity of the old grown-ups. And I suppose their style reflects some of their philosophy: Politics isn't about emotions but thoughts.

The difference between the party establishments struck me, but is not my point. This is: The president walked into the funeral and moved toward the front pews nodding, shaking hands. He hugged Mrs. Kennedy, nodded some more, shook more hands. He was dignified and contained, he was utterly appropriate, and he was cold.

He is cold, like someone who is contained not because he's disciplined and successfully restrains his emotions, but because there's not that much to restrain. This is the dark side of cool. One wonders if this will play well with the American people. Long-term it is hard to get people to trust your policies if they think you're coolly operating on some intellectual or ideological abstractions.

I don't think as a presidential style it will wear well with the center. And it may not wear well with the president's own party. They may come to see him, in time, as not really one of them. And that's when things will really get interesting."

Wow. One part of my mind recalls Robert Hugh Benson apocalyptic novels. The villain is described that way: cold, emotionless, coolly intellectual.

Another memory is jogged by the phrase, "operating on ... ideological abstractions." That would also aptly describe the perpetrators of the French and Russian revolutions and the anarchist bomb-throwers of any given decade of the last century.

Our quixotic young president occasionally reveals other glimpses of the character beneath. I have not seen anything to engender my confidence in him yet.