Photo by Phil Roeder

The United States Supreme Court will not be hearing Sylvia Spencer et al v. World Vision, the controversial case of three World Vision employees who were fired for not believing in Jesus as God or the Trinity as required by World Vision’s company policies. World Vision won the appeal in 2010 in front of the Ninth Circuit, and that decision stands.

In the World Vision case, all sides agreed that the nature of the firings were religious, but the fired employees argued that World Vision was not truly religious since its work was humanitarian rather than religious, and not significantly different from groups like the Red Cross.

So what about jobs that do not involve religious work at all, such as a shipping worker or a web developer? The Court says [PDF],

The nature of the Employees’ duties is irrelevant to our analysis. If World Vision qualifies for the exemption, it is entitled to terminate employees for exclusively religious reasons, without respect to the nature of their duties.

What does this mean for people like me who are closet atheists in other Christian companies? It means I need to find a new job or risk being fired. I already knew this, but I think it’s getting to the point where I can’t put it off much longer. Despite the poor economy, I’ve got to get out of here.

According to the decision, firing someone based on religious beliefs is not limited to places of worship or schools.  As cited in the court’s decision (pages 7-8), here are nine factors considered in determining whether an entity qualifies for religious exemption.

1. whether the entity operates for a profit,
2. whether it produces a secular product,
3. whether the entity’s articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose,
4. whether it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue,
5. whether a formally religious entity participates in the management, for instance by having representatives on the board of
   trustees,
6. whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian,
7. whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities,
8. whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution, and
9. whether its membership is made up by coreligionists.

You can read the Ninth Circuit’s Sylvia Spencer et al v. World Vision decision here [PDF].

It’s being replaced–this time of a 51-foot walking Jesus with his arms stretched out in a welcoming gesture.It will be called “Come Unto Me.” Welcoming or not, I want to name this thing Zombie Jesus. He wants your brains and he’s coming for you!

An artist's rendering, released in Nov. 2010, of the new Jesus statue that will be built at Solid Rock Church in Monroe to replace the one destroyed by fire in June last year. (Cincinnati.com)

This time around, non-flammable materials will be used in construction and a lightning suppression system will be built in to prevent a repeat of the June 2010 blaze that reduced the first structure – a waist up replica of Jesus with arms raised high – to pieces of charred steel.

Good idea.

Photo by radarxlove / Chelsea

I feel so sorry for the women of South Dakota who dare fall pregnant against their wishes. Personal reproductive choice is being limited even more than ever all over the country as illustrated by the new bill signed into law by SD Governor Dennis Daugaard. This new law requires a three-day waiting period before a woman is allowed to have her abortion–the longest wait anywhere in the nation. Women are also forced to attend anti-abortion counseling sessions at pregnancy help centers.

Since many of these centers are specifically Christian institutions, the balance of this “counseling” is easily called into question. The point of these centers is to convince women that their choice is wrong and that they are broken, fallen people who need to carry their babies full-term. I used to volunteer at a pregnancy counseling center as a teenager, and our training centered around convincing girls and women of three things: God loved them, abortion is murder, and sex before marriage is wrong. At my center, we were taught to show you care for the women by praying with and evangelize them. You want them to trust you and believe what you say so that you can save the life of the unborn children. Your entire mission is to save the baby and the woman’s soul.

This piece explains how I feel about the new SD law:

That the anti-choice movement is mostly a Christianist movement bent on imposing its religious beliefs on the public at large is one of the most under-discussed aspects of the abortion debate. This law should highlight the theocratic underpinnings of the anti-choice movement. Most and probably all crisis pregnancy centers are religious organizations that object to abortion because it conflicts with their religious dogma about female sexuality, women’s roles, and their belief about when the soul enters the body. Requiring women to sit through a lecture on Christian ethics about sexuality before getting an abortion should be a clear-cut case of a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, even if the crisis pregnancy centers are careful to avoid saying the word “Jesus” too much.

Republican state senator Al Novstrup claimed the bill is somehow protective of women, offering them a “second opinion,” which indicates not just his disrespect for religious freedom but his profound ignorance of options counseling typical to abortion clinics, especially Planned Parenthood, which runs the sole abortion clinic in the state. I don’t imagine he’d see it that way if the state required citizens to hear a “second opinion” about other private decisions based on personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Would Novstrup enjoy having to listen to a lecture from an atheist or Muslim group before joining a church, getting married or making plans for his own funeral? Why then is it appropriate to force women to listen to religious lectures before making a decision that involves their own religious beliefs about life?

Not only was he found not guilty of disorderly conduct, but the Hawaii Senate has now unanimously voted to end all daily prayers.

I consider this a great victory for the Constitution and an example for the other 49 states who have failed to do the same. Way to start the ball rolling, Hawaii! I hope other legislatures will see the wisdom in guarding the necessary separation between Church and State and follow suit.

Hey baby, what’s your sign? You don’t know anymore, do you?

Woo-woo lovers everywhere are going apeshit because the astrological calendar has added a 13th sign, Ophiuchus (try to get a sexy tattoo of that on your ass, ladies). This addition shifts the dates for all the other signs:

Capricorn: Jan. 20 – Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 – March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18- May 13
Taurus: May 13- June 21
Gemini: June 21- July 20
Cancer: July 20- Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10- Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16- Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30- Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23- Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29- Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17- Jan. 20

Take me for example. I used to be a Pisces, which means that I was (supposedly) intuitive, dreamy, artistic, humane, sympathetic, sensitive, compassionate, perceptive, tender, and impressionable.

Here’s the NEW me: Aquarius! I’m (supposedly) individualistic, assertive, independent, humanitarian, inventive, original, eccentric, opinionated, intellectual, idealistic, cool, friendly, and detached. How can you be both friendly and detached? I have no idea, but apparently that’s who I am. The stars told me so!

Hey, maybe it is true! According to my profiles, as a Pisces I was “spiritual” but now I’m an “intellectual” and “logical” Aquarius!

I find this stuff to be both interesting and ridiculous. I admit I love knowing more about myself and analyzing my traits and personality. Does that mean I take astrology seriously? Shit no. The stars can’t tell me who I am more than a cold reading by any psychic.

But damn, I love seeing people freak out that their Zodiac tattoos are now incorrect. Are you passionate or intelligent now? Are you compatible with an Aries or not? The internet is filling up with cries of OMGAHH, HOW WILL I LIVE WITHOUT SOMEONE TELLING ME WHAT MY PERSONALITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

I get the feeling that the dewoosional are just empty shells waiting for someone else to fill them with fluff. Fill your own shell … with cheese or maybe a personality or an original thought!

This Aquarius is going to go listen to some music to celebrate my new personality.

Read the entire decision document here:

Prop 8 Ruling (it will pop up, and you can expand it)

This is a tremendous victory for gay rights!

• Atheism!
• Religion!
• Ethics & Morality!
• Politics!
• Inspirational Whatnot!
• Science!
• God!
• Feminism!
• And more! Only $19.95 plus tax!

I tried to avoid clichés and other over-cooked wordaphernalia. Use my contact form if you have some favorites you think are worthy of that sort of list. In other words, don’t tell me “Atheism is a non-prophet organization” thinking I’ll find it original and witty. It’s not.

Enjoy!

“Should the pope resign?”
No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly – ideally – qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.

In the words of some college student somewhere… “Oh snap!”

(source)

Photo by The Cambodia Trust (flickr.com)

There is no god. Even if there were, it clearly doesn’t give a damn about you missing some bodily tissue. If it did, it could fix it! How do we know this? Science!

The fabulous website whywontgodhealamputees.com is based on the challenge that if a god is all-powerful, all-loving, and promises to answer prayer, then why won’t this god heal someone who has a missing limb? It’s never happened, and we know it never will. At least, not through prayer.

An exciting landmark has been reached in regards to a gene that may regulate tissue regeneration in mammals (that means humans too, Creationists!). This ability to replace damaged flesh with healthy, scar-free flesh seems to be triggered by the loss of the p21 gene. When the p21 gene is lacking, cells behave more like embryonic stem cells rather than adult cells.

“Much like a newt that has lost a limb, these mice will replace missing or damaged tissue with healthy tissue that lacks any sign of scarring,” said the project’s lead scientist Ellen Heber-Katz, Ph.D., a professor in Wistar’s Molecular and Cellular Oncogenesis program. “While we are just beginning to understand the repercussions of these findings, perhaps, one day we’ll be able to accelerate healing in humans by temporarily inactivating the p21 gene.”

[Andrew Snyder, Ph.D. stated,] “In normal cells, p21 acts like a brake to block cell cycle progression in the event of DNA damage, preventing the cells from dividing and potentially becoming cancerous,” Heber-Katz said. “In these mice without p21, we do see the expected increase in DNA damage, but surprisingly no increase in cancer has been reported.”

(Read the rest over at PhysOrg)

If it may work on a mouse, could tissue regeneration be available to humans in the future? Do you think this would encourage or stifle the superstitions about divine healing?