Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

I have seen stories come across about churches doing protests at peoples' funerals - soldiers and homosexuals alike. I am grateful to see that a jury is willing to differentiate between free speech and hateful disregard for fellow human beings.

This ruling is great too for the simple fact that it preserves the right to freedom of speech. You can hate all you want, but there are consequences for your actions. A great message to the fundamentalist Christian right in my opinion.

Sure the $11 million is absurd, but I think it sends a great message to those who choose to exercise their free speech without regard for civility.

Unfortunately, if something like that had happened to me it would have been the church winning the money instead of me. There's no way I would stand around and let a group of people protest at a funeral without becoming or attempting to become violent.

What do you think of this quote?

"Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles."

Tightlipped smiles? What's that all about? Is that the all-too-familar condescending smile we have come to know and love from those that are "saved" and have all the answers - not to mention God on their side?

Let me quit before I get worked up... Cheers to Maryland! Follow the link at the top of the post to read the full AP story.

WebUrbanist.com

This is a link to another blog that's in my Google Reader. This guy has some really cool posts, one of which I think you would really enjoy: 3D Architectural Illusions: Amazing Paintings, Murals, and Mosaics

The post I've linked you to is a collection of 3D paintings, murals, and mosaics that can be found on the side of buildings, walls, the ground, or the bottom of a pool. They're really neat and I wonder if they are as enjoyable in person as they are in a photograph.

You at least have to check out this post and if you like what you see, consider subscribing - he puts out some really good content.

Enjoy!

Any of the few that read this blog regularly know where I stand with regards to religion, not to mention the combination of religion and government. But thanks to this article from op-ed contributor Jon Meacham at the New York Times I found myself wondering, "Do I live in a Christian nation?" Then I asked myself whether there was any truth to John McCain's assertion mentioned in the article - does the Constitution establish the United States of America as a Christian nation?

The answer to both of those questions is simple: it doesn't matter. In my opinion, it wouldn't matter if America was a Christian nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, a Jewish nation, etc. History is nothing more than a shameful litany of wars and tragedies resulting from the combination of religion and government.

I don't believe that religion or government are independently bad things, but I think we can all agree that political and economic power mixed with religious fervor (no matter how well-intentioned) is a recipe for corruption and destruction.

If there is anything certain about the American Constitution and the intentions of our Founding Father's, it is the fact that religious freedom is what was sought after in the New World. Freedom to believe whatever one desires without fear of persecution or loss of civil privileges.

I still find it fascinating that 2000 years after the death of Jesus, almost 1400 years after the death of Muhammad, and almost 2500 years after the death of Siddhartha Guatama (Buddha) we as a civilzation have not moved beyond our unique perspectives (differences) with regards to religion and spirituality.

I'm really black and white on this issue: the government of people, in order to serve the needs of all and without exclusion, must be free of irrationality. No matter what your beliefs, religion and a belief in God or a creator is an irrational interpretation of the world we live in and our role in it.

How can I say this? First we must define what it is to be rational: according to the Oxford American Dictionary on my Mac, rational is defined as an adjective to describe something that is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic".

A person can no more rationalize the existence of God, the essence of religion, or the validity of Christianity than I can disprove the existence of God.

Whether or not America is a Christian nation and whether or not our Founding Fathers intended America to be a Christian nation is a moot debate. The truth is that America and the world consists of millions of non-Christian individuals that would likely find little appeal in identifying with a nation and government that affiliates itself with any one religion.

Can't we move on? Can't Christianity be left to the churches and individuals who find meaning in their stories, rituals, and beliefs and leave the function of government to individuals capable of distinguishing between matters of spirituality and governance?

I hope that one day we will abhor the admixture of government and religion as much as we today gasp at the sexually deviant behavior of our lawmakers. Getting off in a public restroom or flirting with teenage pages online pale in comparison to the national tragedies of our war-afflicted past.

Besides, even if a Christian ethos was an ideal for the United States government, I would argue that it falls seriously short of any semblance of Christianity if one were to properly scrutinize our domestic and foreign policies. So let's instead shoot for something more universal but equally challenging: a nation where no one goes hungry, goes without modern healthcare, or lives in fear of persecution or discrimination for differences in biology, ethnicity, or personal preferences. Perhaps when we can grasp the most basic principles of human rights we can have a national conversation about spirituality.