Sunday, July 03, 2011

Atheists to Fly July 4 Airplane Banners in 27 States: ‘God-LESS America,‘ ’Atheism is Patriotic’

It's pleasing that atheists can be patriotic too but this campaign seems more designed to provoke than anything else. Contrary to the claim, atheists are hardly marginalized. They have their own political party in fact: The Democratic Party

Get ready, America. This upcoming July 4 is about more than simply celebrating our nation’s founding. Apparently, it’s also an opportunity for Atheists to set the record straight about their patriotism.

Thus, on Monday, people in 27 states will have the opportunity to look up in the sky and see airplanes flying banners that proudly say “God-LESS America“ or ”Atheism is Patriotic.” The campaign, being organized by the New Jersey-based American Atheists, is sure to stoke the fires of controversy. CNN has more:
“I’m a patriotic American. I served my country. I get out there and celebrate the Fourth, too,” Blair Scott, who calls himself a proud atheist, proclaimed. “This America belongs to everyone.”

Blair, the communications director for the New Jersey-based American Atheists, said atheists in the United States often feel alienated and face accusations of being anti-American because of their lack of belief in God. To combat those notions, his group is using Independence Day to say atheists love their country, too.

But, the campaign hasn‘t even been implemented yet and it’s already off to a rocky start. According to Justin Jaye of Fly Signs Aerial Advertising, the guy who helped organize the nation-wide blitz, of the 85 people in the nation who are able to fly these banner-bearing planes, only 17 agreed to participate. The fear of public reaction and the confines of personal religious belief led the majority of these individuals to refuse service. has more:
Scott… tells Seattle Weekly that in larger cities and more liberal areas, he had no trouble finding pilots to take the banners to the sky. But in Southern states like Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas and other conservative states like Montana, Kansas, and Utah, there apparently wasn’t a single pilot to be found who would fly a banner promoting atheism.

Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims that this reaction perfectly illustrates why the organization has more work to do. He says:

“This is a clear reminder of why we need to keep fighting because the bigotry against us is so thick that a lot of the pilots are afraid to fly our banners.”

American Atheists claim that the campaign is about showing the country that atheists are patriotic people too. But, these signs may end up being the catalyst for more friction between non-believers and religious adherents.


On the 200th anniversary of the defeat of Napoleon, why won't Britain be celebrating Waterloo?

The 200th anniversary of Waterloo, one of Britain’s greatest military triumphs, will pass with barely a murmur of commemoration, according to details slipped out by ministers.

There will be no national celebration of the battle in which Napoleon was finally overthrown to mark its bicentennial in four years.

Instead, there will be only ‘initiatives’ at army museums and ‘some commemorative activity’ at former homes of the Duke of Wellington, who led the British into battle.

The decision to play down the anniversary in June 2015 contrasts with the major events organised to mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in 2007.

They included a memorial service at Westminster Abbey and an apology on behalf of the nation by then prime minister Tony Blair.

It also appears to be a retreat from the attitude to the bicentennial of the Battle of Trafalgar in 2005, which was widely celebrated.

Yesterday MPs and peers condemned the failure to mark the Waterloo anniversary. Lord Laird, the crossbench Ulster peer who drew the admission from ministers, said: ‘I am disappointed. There should be a national event about Waterloo. It would be good for tourism and teaching history.

'People who don’t understand history are like children, doomed to be always going round in circles.’

Waterloo, fought a few miles south of Brussels on June 18, 1815, marked the final destruction of Napoleon’s army and the end of his bloody 16-year reign as dictator of France and much of Europe. Often regarded as the

British Army’s greatest victory under its greatest general, it led to a generation of peace in Europe and kept Britain free of war on the continent for a century.

Baroness Rawlings, a junior minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is in charge of marking the anniversary, told peers: ‘Initiatives are being organised by a number of national and regional military museums to mark the occasion, including the National Army Museum and relevant regimental museums, which come under the remit of the Ministry of Defence.’

She added: ‘There is also likely to be some commemorative activity at associated heritage sites such as Apsley House, the home of the Duke of Wellington, and Walmer Castle.’

Critics of the low-key approach believe underplaying the significance of the event may be influenced by apprehensions over the reaction in France and modern-day Brussels, where some regard Napoleon as a champion of European unity.

Education expert Robert Whelan, from the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘Waterloo is a battle of the most immense importance, not just for the Britain, but for the whole of Europe.

‘Britain was fighting a dictator who had conquered Europe with a loss of life comparable to that in the Second World War. If we had not resisted, history would have been very different.

‘Why are we not thinking of building something like the Millennium Dome to mark the event? You can hardly overstate its importance.’

Tory MP and former Army officer Julian Brazier said: ‘The French co-operated in the celebrations of the Trafalgar anniversary. Sometimes people who think the French do not like us to commemorate our military victories mistake the psyche of that nation.’

A spokesman for the DCMS said: ‘A Government-endorsed Waterloo 200 committee, which includes historians and other interested parties, has been established for a number of years and is considering how the anniversary might be marked.’


Sex at Work?

Frank Turek

Are you supposed to have sex at work? I guess it depends on your profession, but for most of us the answer is “no.” Why then is corporate America obsessed with training about sex?

As described in several recent columns by Mike Adams, I was fired as a vendor by Cisco for my conservative beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job. When a homosexual manager found out on the Internet that I had authored a book giving evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for society, he couldn’t tolerate me and requested I be fired. An HR executive canned me within hours without ever speaking to me. This happened despite the fact that the leadership and teambuilding programs I led always received high marks (even from the homosexual manager!).

How could an experienced HR professional commit such a blatant act of discrimination unless the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted left? Why didn’t Cisco’s relentless emphasis and training on “inclusion and diversity” serve to prevent this? Maybe it’s because “inclusion and diversity” means something different to corporate elites than to normal Americans. That’s why their training didn’t prevent the problem but actually created an environment of intolerance that led to the problem.

Cisco’s chief “Inclusion and Diversity” officer, Ms. Marilyn Nagel, had trouble on the phone defining what “inclusion and diversity” actually means at Cisco, so she sent me several links from the Cisco website. As in our conversation, I found no specific definition on the website but plenty of platitudes, such as Cisco is committed to “valuing and encouraging different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.”

If that’s the case, then why not value my “perspectives, styles, thoughts and ideas?”

Because only certain perspectives, styles, thoughts and ideas are approved, you see. “Inclusion and diversity” to corporate elites actually means exclusion for those that don’t agree with the approved views. Whoops, there goes “diversity.”

Shouldn’t the real intent of Cisco’s value of “inclusion and diversity” be to ensure that people in that diverse workforce work together cordially and professionally even when they inevitably disagree on certain political, moral or religious questions? It would seem so. In a large multicultural workforce, people need to work together despite political or religious differences. That’s a noble and necessary goal. It’s totalitarian, however, to subject people to “diversity” training and corporate sponsorships that go beyond teaching respect for people to advocacy of what they do in bed.

All employees should treat one another with kindness and respect because they are fellow human beings, not because of their sexual behavior. If people are to be respected simply on the basis of their behavior, then none of us qualify for respect because we have all behaved badly on occasion.

So instead of trying to force all employees to accept any sexual behavior—especially something as controversial as homosexuality—the inclusion and diversity police should be urging us to treat all people with respect simply because we are human beings. That’s all you need to be productive at work anyway.

But as soon as you start telling people from different religious and cultural backgrounds what they must think about homosexuality, you will offend and create conflict andr resentment. As a Christian, I am commanded to respect all people. That’s what I was doing at Cisco. But don’t tell me that I have to respect and celebrate what people do in bed. Don’t tell me that I must violate my conscience or my God in order to make widgets. That’s not only immoral and un-American; it’s manipulative and stupid. How does accepting homosexual behavior have anything to do with job productivity? Are we supposed to have sex at work?

There simply is no business reason to judge my beliefs about sexual behavior or anyone else’s. And even if some corporate nanny could dream up a reason, it would not justify the assault on an employee’s conscience or religion.

Notice that Cisco did not have a problem with my behavior. My job performance was deemed excellent, and I was “inclusive and diverse” by working in a respectful manner with people of all moral, religious and political views.

Cisco had a problem with my thoughts. Although I certainly accepted homosexuals, I committed the thought crime of disagreeing with homosexual behavior and homosexual political goals. So despite all their talk about “inclusion and diversity,” Cisco deemed my thoughts about something irrelevant to the workplace as grounds for immediate exclusion. Do you think they would have excluded me if I had pro-same-sex marriage thoughts? Of course not—that’s an approved view that Cisco actually sponsors (even though they deny it).

But people who don’t accept homosexual behavior don’t have to work at Cisco then!

True, they don’t. But if Cisco or any other company wants to make it a requirement that every employee and vendor personally accept the behavior of homosexuality or homosexual political goals such as same-sex marriage, then tell us directly. Broadcast it to the world. Cisco can’t and won’t because such a requirement would be a clear violation of the religious protections codified in the Civil Rights Act, and it would result in a mass exodus of employees and customers.

Instead, they create an oppressive culture of political correctness under the false banner of “inclusion and diversity” to achieve the same ends. They tell the world that they value and encourage “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas” while they punish or intimidate into silence people who have “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.” While Cisco executives would never admit this, their actions reveal this twisted truth: Cisco values homosexual behavior more than honesty, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

Is it the same at your workplace? Are you tired of having to hide your conservative or religious beliefs as if you live in a totalitarian state rather than America? If you continue to cower in silence before an intolerant militant minority, it will only get worse. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” It’s time to do something—speak up.


Australia: Homosexuals are more important than remembering those who gave their lives for others???

Anzac Day is Australia's day of remembrance for those who have fallen in war

ACTING Chief Commissioner Ken Lay faces a revolt from rank-and-file members over their right to be paid to march in a gay-pride parade, but not on Anzac Day. Officers are paid to support the gay event, but not for participating on Anzac Day, unless they have served overseas in the military or as peacekeepers.

The police union argues all former military or peacekeeping personnel, regardless of service overseas, should be paid if they march on Anzac Day.

Victoria Police command did not respond to questions about whether the policy might change. But a police spokeswoman said paid leave to march for non-overseas ex-service people was being considered.

Police Association secretary Greg Davies said the union was pushing for the change during enterprise bargaining negotiations. He said if officers could march on full pay in the Gay and Lesbian Pride parade, it was "one in, all in" and former military staff who had not served overseas should be paid to take part in the Anzac parade.

Under former boss Simon Overland all officers could participate in the gay march. Attendance is classified as being on duty, according to the Police Gazette. But officers who were not former military or peacekeepers with overseas experience had to take time off to march on Anzac Day.

Victoria Police argued officers had attended the gay march since 2002 and it "significantly" improved the "trust, confidence and co-operation" with the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.

Mr Davies said the rules were discriminatory. He said the RSL was now the Returned and Services League rather than Returned Services League, and recognised all military personnel.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: