So I’m not.

I have to thank vorjack for the link to this. I never thought to check on how the bible burning party went.

It got rained out and they discovered there were state laws against burning paper anyway, plus protesters were on hand to give them second thoughts about trying to be so idiotic in public. They later videoed themselves cutting and ripping the books apart instead.

I wonder if they plan on recycling all that. Do some good with all that “evil” for a change.

Several copies of Invasion of the Body Snatchers crossed my desk at work yesterday. It was the 1978 Sutherland version. It’s okay as a goofy sci-fi picture, and a step or three above my current B movie fixation, so I’ll probably borrow a copy (it’s a library – don’t think I’m a thief). I think I’ll have to request a copy of the original 1956 version as well. It’s been a while since I watched that. It’s nothing like the remake.

The original was a loosely disguised allegory for Communism, and the film itself was based on a serialized work by a man named Jack Finney.

Look! You fools! You’re in danger! Can’t you see? They’re after you! They’re after all of us! Our wives…our children…they’re here already! You’re next!

John W. Whitehead lists that familiar quote from the character Dr. Miles Bennell who is the main character. He is, of course, talking about the pod people who take over human bodies so they’ll blend in and look normal even if they can’t act normal. It’s all part of a massive alien takeover that Must Be Stopped!

Now that I’ve recalled the fact that the show tends to call up fears of the Red Menace that was communism at the time, I wonder if that’s part of the reason why the red A is in fact red. Not to say we’re communists, but maybe the designer of the Out Campaign emblem (Dawkins?) recognized a similarity between the McCarthy era blacklisting and the harsh reaction to people who dare admit to be atheist. And we’ll wear the scarlet letter proudly, besides. No shame in that at all.

I found a larger version of this poster here but can’t you imagine a monkey throttling a religious figure here instead? The demon does have a very ape-like appearance already so it wouldn’t take much work to change it.

The belt says “Prosperity” if it isn’t clear. I suppose some appropriate faith-related name would be given to the figure instead (One Nation Under God?), but maybe it wouldn’t be necessary. Perhaps the reaction to the idea of selling the Vatican is less about faith and more about politics. Redistribution of wealth is too much of a socialist idea to fly, isn’t it.

And the flag would have to be redone as American so people could simply be appalled by the implications of that! It’s heinous to put a flag on the floor let alone dance on it, apparently. There’s a godless monkey dancing on our flag! It’s unpatriotic! Boo! Hiss! Hellfire!

Do I have a point to this? Not really. Well no, I lie – it’s this.

What really is the fear people have toward atheism? Toward atheist ideals. At the base, we tend to want a society where everyone gets educated and everyone gets the same rights. Shouldn’t everyone want that?

Promoting gay marriage will not lead to the annulment of all heterosexual ones. What two people do by themselves shouldn’t be the business of neighbours or friends or the mayor or the president. Love is love (except that incest crap and pedophilia – both are horrible disgusting perversions of sexuality).

Condemnation of churches that hide sex abuse should be done by everyone — including church members. It’s appalling to see how few pew sitters are willing to side with us on this. It’s appalling what they’ll forgive. No wonder cruelty thrives in that environment.

Separating religion out of education means people can learn their reading and writing and ‘rithmetic without ever having to pray to a deity (unless you really think it’ll help pass a test).

Taking it out of politics means everyone in the country gets a fair shake, not special treatment for some based on a favoured belief set specifically built to exclude the rest.

Living life without a god makes today matter more, I think. Atheists don’t have the luxury of filing our deeds in a “to be forgiven later” folder. What we do and say today will be judged today and I think the same rule should apply to everyone. Take responsibility, be accountable. Say you’re sorry and mean it. Promise to do better and follow through.

Mobility, and how much space there is to decorate it.

A Montreal taxi driver’s heading to court to protest tickets he received regarding the stuff he keeps on his dashboard.

Anyone entering Arieh Perecowicz’s taxi in Montreal quickly knows what’s close to the man’s heart. At various places around the dashboard, he’s posted photos of his family, religious artifacts, a couple of flags and a Remembrance Day poppy.

The items have never sparked a customer complaint or interfered with his work, the 65-year-old cabbie says. But it did provoke a series of tickets from Montreal’s taxi agency, which have resulted in a court battle that could test the line between personal and public space.

After successfully navigating through the chaos of Montreal’s streets for four decades, Mr. Perecowicz is steering into trickier territory: Whether a taxi can also be a vehicle for personal and religious expression.

I can see his side of it – you drive all day, it’s gotta get boring, you want to be able to look at your family or pause for a nod to your Jewish heritage on the special days or remind yourself of how great Canada is even when the traffic isn’t. Funny enough, he isn’t even that religious – he just likes the idea of having a couple protection prayer mezuzahs in the car while he drives. Again, Montreal traffic we’re talking about. They aren’t all sweethearts. Take all the protection you can, man, even if it’s all in your mind.

It’s unclear how they feel about the photos, flags and pins but the article definitely makes it look like the municipal agency that inspects taxis decided the Jewish stuff was “offensive” enough to justify giving Perecowicz $1,400 worth of tickets and make him remove it all.

Mr. Perecowicz can’t afford a lawyer and is representing himself in court next week. But he has been given support by the Quebec Jewish Congress, which says the case is an important test of Charter rights.

“This is an issue of freedom of religious expression,” said Abby Shawn, a human-rights lawyer with the congress. “This is the only case we know of where the taxi bureau has requested a taxi driver to remove his religious icons. It [the bylaw] has been applied in a very discriminatory fashion.”

Mr. Perecowicz is being prosecuted under Section 98 of Montreal’s taxi bylaw, which says cabbies can’t have objects or inscriptions in their cabs that are “not required for the taxi to be in service.”

I don’t know if I’d want to argue a religious angle on this. They’d have to prove the only reason he was targeted is because of his faith, wouldn’t they? He says he’s basically secular. Are they picking on anyone with bobble headed Virgin Marys or just him? It’s interesting to note that he never got any tickets about his dashboard until three years ago when he went to the media to complain about the agency not cracking down on unlicensed cabs. Methinks somebody can’t take criticism…

It’s hard to tell but I’m guessing the company he drives for has no problem with him keeping personal stuff in a car he sits in for 15 hours a day. Other drivers are certainly supportive.

His latest campaign is gaining sympathy from fellow cabbies in a city where it’s not uncommon to see everything from air fresheners to rosary beads and crucifixes dangling from cabs’ rearview mirrors, as well as family snaps on the dashboard.

“There are a lot more important things to look after than whether someone has a photo in his taxi,” said Dory Saliba, president of Coop de Taxi de Montréal.

At Taxi Champlain, which employs many drivers of Greek descent, cabbies often have a cross or icon of the Virgin Mary in the cab, a company official said. And photos of the family help during the long hours.

“If I’m at my desk at work I want to have photos of my family. This is like their office, but it’s their office on wheels,” said Betty Papanikolopoulou, acting president of Champlain.

She said she believes Mr. Perecowicz should be left alone. “His car is his business. As long as it doesn’t hinder the driver’s view and doesn’t put clients into danger, it should be respected.”

I agree. He has his license displayed where everyone can see. That’s the bylaw. If he wants to add some other stuff in there to make the space a home away from home, what’s the harm? He’s not peddling a religion on anyone, is he? He’s just driving them from point A to point B.

I hope he wins his case, even if they have to bring religious discrimination into it to do it. Better yet, I hope the judge dismisses the case and lets Perecowicz off the hook for the cost of those tickets. Taking this to court is a waste of time that would be better spent taking people to the airport and a waste of money that would be better spent on gas.

New header will be up until I get bored of it, probably. I liked the wordy one I had previously, but it needs redoing. This one could use more tweaking, too, but I got tired. I need to do more photography. PhotoImpact is the program I’ve got. I don’t use a fraction of the toys in there, but what I do use, I like playing with.

The original pic:

Dawn at the farm. Just happened to catch the cows going somewhere… and I think the last one’s just…going…

I don’t know why I find it so hard to keep up with this.

I’m just saying. Man, is this ever sloggy.

Soon going for Christmas supper at the relatives, and maybe going to play cards somewhere else later if the night gets dull in a hurry.

Good gift haul this morning – Inkdeath by Cornelia Funke, Wall-E, a set of quality dusting cloths, including a funky dusting mitt that I just yearn to sew googly eyes on, and a hand held blender. Oh, and I’ve so far won $10 on my scratcher lotto tickets. Better than usual.

First a joke:

A librarian was bemused to see a chicken walk up to the desk towing a small plastic wagon by a string. The chicken dropped the string from her beak and clucked, “Bookbookbookbookbookbook,” and the librarian, rather than attempt to give it a library card, hurried over to the withdrawn books store and selected a few light titles. The chicken ducked her head in a way the librarian figured meant, “Thanks,” picked up the string in her beak again and trotted her way out of the building dragging the loaded toy behind her. Later, the chicken returned with all the books and clucked for more. Intrigued, the librarian switched the pile of books on the wagon for a second set. When it happened a third time, though, the librarian decided to follow the chicken to see what was up. The chicken carefully rolled the wagon off the sidewalk and into the rough grass of a nearby park down to a small pond. When the chicken reached the rocks, a little frog hopped onto the edge of the wagon, took a quick look at the contents and croaked, “Reddit. Reddit. Reddit. Reddit.”

I decided it might be fun to keep a list of stuff I’ve read so I’ve added the “Lit List” page just for that. Feel free to check it out.

I don’t know if I like it. This quickPress thingie is kind of handy but I don’t like how narrow the regular posting window is now. And I don’t care for all the stuff on the right hand side. Makes it look cluttered.

I guess I’ll get used to it, but I didn’t see anything overly wrong with the old way. But I’m also new and not technically savvy.

Time will tell.

—
edit: 8:39

Figured out how to shrink the right side bar. Whee for me. That’s much better.

But now I kind of wish I’d seen her “Behind Closed Doors” episode because it was all about sex therapy. Apparently stations that ran the episode are under attack for not rating the show’s contents properly.

Last week, an episode of Oprah titled “Behind Closed Doors: Sex Therapy” was aired. According to the Parents Television Council (PTC), the show repeatedly warned viewers of the content of the episode before and during the broadcasts. However, the episode was rated TV-14, which means the episode was supposedly suitable for 14-year-old children.

Dan Isett, a PTC spokesman, says such instances are easily avoidable. “Occasionally, talk shows like Oprah and other shows of that nature do delve into these very adult-themed and oriented types of programs,” he explains. “But if you’re going to do that, at least rate the show appropriately so a parent can make a good decision and block that type of programming if it’s rated appropriately.”

The particular episode, according to Isett, should have carried a TV-MA rating for mature audiences.

Quick question, how many fourteen year old kids are able to watch Oprah in the middle of the afternoon? Aren’t most of them in school when it’s on? But I suppose there’s the home schoolers, and the TIVO and the web. Yeah, wouldn’t want them to get any smart information about sex and biology and sexuality from respectable people. The second you hear the word “sex” you have to take your clothes off and have some. Is the word that compelling?

Did they not see the commercial about it that said it was for mature audience with quotes describing what they were going to be doing? Did they not consider turning off the TV once they found out what it was about?

According to the PTC, that’s not good enough.

The default setting for broadcast television used to be family-oriented, while those desiring edgier, more explicit fare were free to seek it out. Today’s prime time television programming has become almost uniformly unsuitable for families, and often directly hostile to their values, making it very difficult for parents to shield their children and seek out alternative entertainment.

If you don’t like something on television, why don’t you just change the channel?

Television is the most public and powerful means of mass communication. It drives changes in social customs, speech, and attitudes, especially among youth. Because of its pervasiveness and persuasiveness, opting out is an entirely inadequate response to the dramatic rise in the amount of televised graphic sex, obscene and profane language, and gratuitous violence found on television today. These depictions affect everyone, including our children’s classmates and friends. Vulgar television means a more vulgar society; sex-saturated television means sexualized children stripped of their innocence; violent television results in desensitization to violence.

They encourage parents to write to television stations when they see stuff they don’t like. I think I can say I agree with their sentiment, though. There really is a lot of trash on television because trash sells. I suppose if enough people get annoyed by the lack of quality programming and really start to petition stations to change their emphasis from explicit entertainment, more wholesome shows might make the cut.

I know I’m coming out like a hypocrite after the last post, but yeah, I’d like to see less sex and raunchiness on TV, especially during the hours kids are more likely to be watching. I like that most shows want to deal with real life and real situations but I think people have forgotten how to be funny and engaging without resorting to blatant sexual content. The one-upmanship gets worse and worse as time goes on.

But do enough people want to go back to Leave it to Beaver or the Andy Griffith Show? Was our society really better off when sex was never mentioned and nobody was allowed to film toilets or double beds?

I dunno. Television and movie producers only give us what people seem to want. People want sex and blood and guts, I guess. They want wardrobe malfunctions and suggestive advertising. They want rude and crude and scandalous content and enough boobies and shots of leg to keep a person from flipping to another channel in case there’s more.

I wonder if anyone really cares about why.