Sexual Revolution: How One Pedophile Destroyed America

I know most of my readers are strong advocates of the wall of separation between church and state, but if you ever had even the slightest doubt, read this article on World Net Daily. It's scary stuff.

They start with the laughable claim that Alfred Kinsey, the sex researcher who pulled us out of the dark ages of sexual repression, was a pedophile. From there, they build a case against every advance we've made about sex and sexuality since 1950, and conclude that our legal system should return to Bible-based laws!

Here is what these ultra-conservative religious nutcases would do:

"Pre-Kinsey, sex laws were based on biblical authority and considered an area of 'public rights,' meaning we recognized sex had civil consequences on society," Reisman said. "Post-Kinsey sex laws are based on 'scientific authority' and are considered 'private rights,' which claims sex has no social consequences."

In other words, if they were in charge, the government would have the right to peek into your bedroom and decide what's legal and what's not.

City of Angels: Why is Christian Philosophy so Negative?

We watched an old Meg Ryan / Nicolas Cage movie last night called City of Angels. It was a decent romantic tragedy, though a bit slow moving. But it got me to wondering: why is Christian philosophy so profoundly negative? Why does happiness always come at a terrible price? Why is love a zero-sum game where if someone wins, someone else has to lose?

(Spoiler alert!) In City of Angels, Nicolas Cage plays Seth, an angel who watches over the good citizens of Los Angeles. Meg Ryan plays a heart surgeon (Dr. Maggie Rice) who is having a personal crisis over the fact that some of her patients die. Since Seth is an angel, he doesn't have human senses like touch, taste or smell. To make a long (literally) movie short, Seth falls in love with Maggie, discovers that angels can "fall to Earth" and become human, and so he gives up his immortality for love. After a good dose of reality (cuts, bruises, rain and getting robbed), he gets to spend one blissful night with Meg Ryan before she is hit by a truck and killed.

I totally don't get this. This is one of the weirdest things about Christianity: whenever something good happens, it has to be balanced by something tragic.

Seth the angel is immortal and he loves saving people from danger and comforting them when they die. He gets to hear the choir of Angels in the sunrise every morning. But God has given humans the greatest gift of all. Seth is denied the pleasures of touch, taste and smell. He can't feel a caress,

Christians Beaten by Atheists, Jews and Mormons on Biblical Knowledge

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just published an interesting new survey about how much Americans really know about religions. Much to everyone's surprise, the atheists and agnostics came out on top!

The headlines are filled with stuff like Atheists Outdo Some Believers (NY Times) or Atheists and Agnostics Know More About the Bible than Religious (National Public Radio).

But not so fast! It turns out that Atheists didn't really win, it was more like Christians lost. The atheist/agnostic category got the best score at 20.9 out of 32 questions. But look at how it really went down:

IHOP vs IHOP, Pancake House has No Sense of Humor!

It's IHOP versus IHOP in a battle of trademarks!

It seems the International House of Pancakes (IHOP-pancakes) is out to get the International House of Prayer (IHOP-prayer) for trademark infringement! A religious group in Kansas City made the foolish decision to use a long-established trademark as its own logo.

What the heck were they thinking? Did IHOP-prayer think maybe Jesus would intervene and convince IHOP-pancake to ignore this deliberated infringement? That maybe IHOP-pancake would just love to have their pancake house associated with a Christian prayer group?

Or maybe they didn't even bother to check the law books about trademark rights, brand-name dilution and so forth.

Whatever their reasons, it was a dumb move. The law is crystal clear: IHOP-prayer is going to get hammered on this one.

Tea Party: Living in an Alternate Reality

I finally figured the Tea Baggers out. The problem isn't that Tea Baggers are wrong or stupid. They're not an evil mob hell-bent on returning us to the dark ages, even though that's exactly what their agenda would achieve.

No, the problem is the internet and cable TV, which have allowed them to build a new reality, a different reality than the one in which the rest of us reside. They live in one world, we live in another. Unfortunately, our two worlds occupy the same physical space.

We used to interact with our neighbors. We went to a few churches and schools, shopped at our local stores, and maybe joined a club or took dancing lessons. We had to rub shoulders with our neighbors, many of whom had political views quite different from our own. We were immersed in the diverse mainstream political culture. It was unavoidable.

On top of that, our TV and radio stations numbered just a few, and they were required by law to provide access to all viewpoints. Our newspapers might be liberal or conservative, but they never were radical.

In other words, we couldn't avoid hearing our neighbors' viewpoints.

But in a weird twist of irony, the information age has spawned a new new cultural phenomenon: deliberate ignorance. Instead of two or three TV stations and one newspaper, now we can select from hundreds of sources for our information. Why is that bad? Because we can listen only to what we want to hear. We can choose to be ignorant of other views. We can find a news station, a web site, and an online group of friends who will do nothing but reinforce and even amplify our world views.

It doesn't matter how nutty, outrageous or even factually wrong our views are, we can find a dozen web sites of self-congratulatory friends who will supply us with "facts" to strengthen our position and with moral support to make us feel good about ourselves. Worse, we can avoid encountering anyone who might have a different view of the world.

The internet and information age were supposed to bring the world together,

Republican Hypocrisy: Christine O'Donnell's Witchcraft More Important than Politics!

Once again we're learning that Christianity is a virtual requirement for elected officials in the United States.

Christine O'Donnell, the Delaware candidate for United States Senate, is homophobic, she refuses to give interviews to anyone but Fox Noise, she recorded an anti-masturbation video that's downright creepy, and she was a media consultant to the sado-masochistic Mel Gibson movie The Passion of the Christ. She's never served as an elected official, and in fact has no relevant political experience.

But none of these glaring problems would disqualify her from serving in the upper house of Congress of the most powerful country in the world. She can be a crazy, inexperienced, air-headed Sarah Palin clone and still be a viable candidate.

But when an episode of Bill Maher surfaced where O'Donnell admitted to dabbling in witchcraft in her youth, the proverbial smelly stuff hit the fan. Now even the likes of Karl Rove are calling her to task and questioning her viability as a Republican candidate.

Why is it that religion is still a requirement for office in the year 2010? This is the home of religious tolerance, the country where government and religion are supposed to be separate, where no religious test is allowed for any public office.

I find it deliciously ironic that Christine O'Donnell's own party is turning against her

Kicking the Pope Around ... Again.

After losing the California governor's race in 1962, Richard Nixon gave his famous reply, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore..." He blamed the media, rather than his own arrogance and poorly run campaign, for the loss.

When is Pope Benedict XVI going to give us the same pleasure? When is modern history's most unloved Pope going to do the right thing and resign his corrupt reign of indifference? Even Santa Claus wants Benedict to resign!

The Pope's remarks to a UK audience yesterday in which he compared modern atheists and secularists to Hitler are so pathetic it challenges my ability to make a witty remark. Doesn't he know about Godwin's Law? By mentioning Hitler, he automatically lost the debate and he doesn't even know it!

What seems to concern Benedict today? Could it be the safety of our children?