Oh the joys of GodTube! It really is a gold mine of God fearing goodies.

In the following video (over eight minutes long), you will hear all of the Biblical recitations that forbid us from participating in "clubbing". Yes, if you go to a club with your friends, you're almost certain to drink too much booze...and we all know that a liquored up lad or lass is the devil's playground.

On the contrary, if one follows the word of God and goes to church on Saturday night, all thoughts of debauchery will disappear from your mind. Of course there is an important caveat...you never know what might be on the mind of your minister...he may well have his sites set on tapping your mother or your sister...or God forbid...your father or brother. Worst case, he may even have you in mind...because he undoubtedly knows how effective it is to write ridiculous rules that lead young people to feel sinful, repressed, conflicted...and in need of "counseling and comforting". I hear that's their specialty...if you catch my drift.

Yes, the more I think about it, one can never be sure who is a disciple of the devil. Why I'm so concerned with the cunning nature of satan and sin that I just won't be able to force myself to attend Saturday night mass. It's just not safe enough for me. I know, I know...the Pope has forbidden gay men from the priesthood...but what's to say the devil can't turn a manly minister into a maniacal molester in a matter of moments?

After all, look what the devil was able to do to Pastor Ted Haggard and so many other god fearing Christians. If only someone would make a video on how to identify the devil at work in locations other than clubs. I'll just have to hope that this video is only the first of many more. Then again, what if the devil is the motivation behind this video?

Oh it's all too complicated...where is the Rapture when you need it? Come to think of it, I saw a few videos on God Tube that might be able to give me an exact ETA. I guess I'll put on some music, grab a beer, and head back over to "Club Christ". Care to join me? Call your friends and head on over. I hear the Jesus rave is still on for tonight.

In a move that is sure to keep same-sex marriage in the media spotlight, New York Governor David Paterson has issued a directive requiring the state of New York to recognize same-sex marriages from those states and countries where they have been allowed. The governor argues that the move is consistent with long standing New York law...law that has always required recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions.

From The New York Times:

ALBANY -- Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

The directive cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York's longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain.

Monroe County filed an appeal with the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state's Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so.

In the larger picture, the move may be part and parcel of a tipping point in the battle over same-sex marriage. At the very least, this action coupled with the ruling of the California Supreme Court, may lead opponents of same-sex marriage to reconsider their opposition to the granting of any of the same rights that are currently afforded to heterosexual marriages.

Until now, opponents of same-sex marriage have been able to ignore the granting of reasonable rights to same-sex couples by placing their focus on same-sex marriage as a threat to the institution and the family. The latest polling in California seems to suggest that more and more citizens are shifting their views on same-sex unions. That shift, assisted by the Supreme Court ruling, may indicate that the issue of equality is beginning to eclipse the fomenting of fear that has been the cornerstone of the religious right's efforts to deny any recognitions that might legitimize homosexuality.

I've long argued that a majority of Americans are ultimately fair minded...though they are frequently slow to shed fears that can prevent them from making objective conclusions. In the case of homosexuality, the religious right has sought to cloak their hatred and bigotry as a simple adherence to morality. Unfortunately, more and more citizens are able to recognize the true agenda of those opposed to same-sex marriage...which is actually an effort to prevent the codifying of any gay rights.

The fact that gays have sought the full array of rights has, to a degree, allowed the religious right the leeway to disguise their agenda as well as distort the agenda of the gay community. That dynamic has served to heighten fears and relegate a rational discussion of basic rights to the back burner.

While I'm concerned that the California ruling has the potential to initiate a backsliding or a backlash against gays, the ruling of the court, coupled with Governor Paterson's clearly articulated justification for granting basic rights and recognitions to same-sex couples, may be the point at which fair Americans realize that they can't allow their reservations about homosexuality to be the impetus to deny rights to their fellow citizens.

The following video is today's announcement by the Governor detailing the directive and the rationale by which it has been issued.

In the following video, John Safran, an Australian television personality known for edgy stunts and television segments on sensitive subjects, decides to head to Salt Lake City and have some fun giving members of the Latter Day Saints a taste of their own missionary medicine.

Once Safran and his director arrive in Utah, they gather up their atheist literature and propaganda, don white shirts and dark ties, put on name tags, jump on their bicycles, and set out on an early morning mission to the homes of unsuspecting Mormons.

Unfortunately, Safran and his pal encounter some rather indignant and intolerant folks while attempting to share their beliefs on atheism and evolution. It seems that many of these Mormons believe it is better to be on the giving end of a missionary message than it is to be in the unenviable position of receiving one.

I guess their training is only about puttin' it to the non-believer. Perhaps that's why the Mormons who knock on our doors have no compunction to keep sticking their pamphlets in our faces and looking for any possible opening to inject their ideology.

Needless to say, I couldn't help but enjoy watching my Mormon friends doing their best to avoid getting "stuck". Let's hope some of them now understand why Safran and many others like him aren't interested in "taking it" anymore.

If you haven't figured out the topic of this posting from the above title, let me be the first to tell you that the right leaning blogosphere is in an uproar over a scarf worn by Rachael Ray in a Dunkin' Donuts advertisement.

Here's the gist of the objection - the scarf looks similar to a "keffiyeh"...which is the type of scarf "polularized by Yassir Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim Terrorists." Hence, blogs like Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs, and Michelle Malkin...amongst others...decided to bring the offense to the attention of Dunkin' Donuts and ask for the advertisement to be pulled. Dunkin' obliged the request and explained that nothing malicious was intended by the inclusion of the scarf.

Look, had the scarf been utilized to make a political statement, one could argue that it was offensive and inappropriate. Clearly Dunkin' Donuts is in the business of making a profit and anything that might offend portions of their customer base isn't apt to be selected to appear in their marketing materials. Hence, inferring Dunkin' is guilty of anything more than an insensitivity to the diversity of their customer base would be, in my opinion, unreasonable.

I have no reason to doubt Dunkin's sincerity so I'll move on to the rhetoric of those who view the scarf as an opportunity to launch a veiled assault upon those who object to some of the actions of the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11.

Pardon my skepticism, but when I realized who was behind the protestations, the first thought that crossed my mind was that this was part of an endless effort to link every possible event with terrorism in the hopes that they will invoke the fear of a threat to our national security. No doubt much of the GOP's political success under George Bush results from efforts of this very nature.

In light of the fact that the GOP brand isn't highly regarded at the moment, my cynical side tells me that invoking terrorism and fear is evidence of some level of desperation...especially when it involves nothing more than donuts, a domestic diva, and a damn scarf.

Moving on, I decided to have some fun and highlight the hyperbole and the hysteria being broadcast on this particular topic by one of the blogosphere's biggest bloviators...Michelle Malkin. Always righteous and perpetually pedantic, Malkin is dogmatic in directing her derision towards all those who ignore her ideological incantations. As such, it only seemed appropriate to rename Dunkin' Donuts in deference to her defiant demagoguery.

With that said, I'm introducing Dogma's Donuts. They're divinely delectable, faithfully flavorful, and religiously ready at the crack of dawn. Stop by soon...Michelle is on standby to stuff you full of her Christian confections.

The following video, Flock Of Dodos, is a documentary on the debate between those who accept evolution and those who argue in favor of an intelligent designer. I could be wrong, but it is arguably one of the best I've seen on the subject.

While the filmmaker is an avowed evolutionist, the treatment of the subject is an even handed and thoughtful exploration of the issues. Rather than add to the already large body of rhetoric and propaganda, this documentary is refreshingly unbiased.

The documentary exposes the crux of the intelligent design argument...that evolution and Darwinian Theory are not necessarily one and the same. Hence, they contend their disagreement isn't necessarily with the general notion of an evolutionary process but with the fundamentals of the origin of life as elaborated by Darwin. That provides the necessary opening for the introduction of an intelligent designer (creator).

While it is possible to understand the contentions of those supporting intelligent design, I suspect their approach is more about creating a difference without a distinction in order to find an opening for the introduction of their religious ideology...albeit repackaged and disguised to look like a simple scientific disagreement.

The problem I have with those who push the intelligent design angle is their endless energy and ability to impose an absolutist bent when confronted with the volumes of evidence for evolution. While I understand their position, I cant get around the contradictions that exist in their other applications of their absolutism.

On the one hand, they suggest that the fossil record lacks enough transitional creatures to conclusively support Darwin's contentions. On the other hand, they believe virtually every word written by numerous authors over a number of years in the Bible. This includes a belief in Jesus based primarily upon the written accounts of those followers who embraced his ideology. When Kansas school board member Kathy Martin states her disbelief in the fossil record...and argues that no one was there to see a lung fish walk out of water...the selective application of evidence becomes apparent.

Regardless, the filmmaker, Dr. Randy Olson, argues that the successes of those who favor intelligent design comes from their ability to approach the debate with a seemingly reasonable and unemotional demeanor...a demeanor that has the potential to be viewed as distinctly less dogged than the outrage that is coming from the scientific community. Olson contends the anger coming from the scientific community isn't all that advantageous to succeeding in squelching the quasi-creationists.

Olson's treatment is beneficial because he's able to think about outcome without becoming overwhelmed by his own understandings of the scientific evidence. In other words, he's kept his eye on the dynamics that may well determine the end result of the debate. Olson's awareness of voter sentiment...and the predisposition towards religious beliefs that has dominated American politics for the last thirty years...assists Olson in remembering that those supporting evolution must win the public relations discussion as well as the scientific debate.

In the end, Olson's documentary should instruct us that this battle will be about far more than a arrogant and erudite recitation of the scientific evidence. Winning hearts and minds remains a relevant endeavor...one that the scientific community and those who support it must not ignore.

In the following video segment, Stephen discusses the Bible and the recent ruling of the California Supreme Court on gay marriage with Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. Perkins and his organization are rabidly anti-gay and it's obvious that he's uncomfortable throughout his conversation with Colbert (unfortunately many of these right wingers have no sense of humor).

I always enjoy watching the holier than thou squirm when confronted with some of the inconsistencies found in their dogma...and Colbert is one of the best at exposing them. I'm sure Perkins couldn't wait for the segment to end.

In many ways, people of faith begin with a conclusion they derive from their interpretation of the Bible and then their subsequent observations are tailored to support their established beliefs. Science, on the other hand, attempts to look at the evidence as it is revealed in order to determine if it can be utilized to support a plausible hypothesis.

All too often, people of faith reject evidence that contradicts their beliefs while scientists hope the evidence will refine the prevailing theory in order to more closely approximate a fact based finding. The former seeks to support a singular truth while the latter accepts the probability of a progression towards more truth.

One can offer lengthy explanations to describe the differences in the practice of science and faith...or one can rely upon a very basic flow chart. Since I'm having a tough time getting wound up today, I decided to keep it simple. This is one of those times when I'm happy to allow a visual to effectively communicate an important distinction.

In light of the ongoing efforts of creationists (now packaged as Intelligent Design) to discredit the theory of evolution, it seems appropriate for us to first have a clear understanding of what evolution is and what it isn't. The following two videos are the first offerings in a series designed to give us the basics on the theory of evolution.

Those who are insistent upon nothing less than divine creation have a seemingly limitless energy to craft clever (though contrived) rationales to explain away evolution or to distort its meaning in order to appeal to those of faith. Time and again, they ignore the basic premise of the scientific method...and therefore seek to establish this as an all or nothing debate.

The truth is that many scientists concede that they cannot disprove the existence of God. At the same time, they point out that the scientific method is compelling in its ability to support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, for many creationists, there can be no overlap or compatibility. They can only find comfort if God created everything in its final form at the moment of its origin. Anything short of a literal understanding of the Biblical version of creation will suffice...and that means that each and every component of evolutionary evidence must be undermined and rejected.

Hence, those who support Intelligent Design are engaged in a propaganda war designed to pit science against religion in order to suggest that it is impossible to believe in both. They do this because they want to force people of faith to fall on the side of religion and their arguments are designed to assist in characterizing science as the antithesis of religion. Sadly, this is simply the nature of literalism and the intransigence that it facilitates.

In the following video, Pastor Hagee seems to lament that times have changed. In that recognition, it appears that he yearns to return to the world as he used to know it...a world before television and a world where closets were for clothes (a reference to gays that he expands upon in the video).

From my perspective, I support his journey...so long as he returns to the past and the rest of us get to stay here in the present. If he did so, he wouldn't have the opportunity to spew his nonsense on television and those of us who came out of the closet could enjoy a world absent the bloviating and bigotry demonstrated by men of his ilk..

Unfortunately, I don't believe Hagee has any interest in returning to the past; rather he wants to meld the narrow mentality of yesteryear with an intransigent mindset similar to his own...one that seeks to force today's government to adopt his Biblical interpretation of morality.

Regardless, I know I wont be planning a return to the past. Further, if Pastor Hagee believes he can push the gay community back into the closet, he's probably going to be very disappointed.

Perhaps he should ask God to help him build a time machine so that he and his followers can travel as far back in time as they desire. I'll happily spring for the bon voyage party.

In the following video clips, Richard Dawkins shares his views on a wide range of topics surrounding his agnostic beliefs. He offers his opinions on the source of morality for non-believers and dispels the commonly held view that religion is the primary source of morality in our modern world. Dawkins also suggests that atheists have assumed the societal position homosexuals held fifty years ago...meaning that they are often the most reviled or rejected segment of society.

Dawkins also offers his opinion that science and religion are incompatible. In his defense of Darwinian theory, he contends that there is no need to interject notions that a divine being was also involved in the process. Dawkins argues that the beauty of the Darwinian theory is that it explains how we got from a place of simplicity to one of immense complexity without a designer.

One of the more compelling portions of the interview occurs in part four wherein Dawkins explains his harsh criticism of the God that appears in the old Testament. I note this portion because it demonstrates the blind willingness of many individuals to ignore the actual words found in the Bible.

In fact, the interviewer proves Dawkins' point when he insists that Dawkins' views may be too harsh or disrespectful. Unfortunately, the interviewer makes his admonition regardless of the evidence found in the Bible. This inclination to afford blind respect and erroneous attributions to religion is one of the primary criticisms Dawkins voices in his writings.

The Family Research Council has followed in the footsteps of Focus on the Family with the introduction a new video segment on their web site. FRC calls their program The Truth in Black & White, and it features Tony Perkins, the president of FRC, and Bishop Harry Jackson.

I've included two of their videos below. In the first, Perkins and Jackson tackle stewardship of the earth and global warming. In the second, they take on the recent ruling of the California Supreme Court to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage.

The contrast found in the logic of these two videos is notable and indicative of the hypocrisy that is so often demonstrated by the religious right. Note that in the first video, Perkins and Jackson suggest that global warming hysteria is fear mongering and a fabrication of men like Al Gore. Apparently the God that speaks to Al Gore is a fraud...and men like Perkins and Jackson are here to tell us which God is real...and which problems the real God wants us to address.

They suggest that while we need to be good stewards of the earth, God knows what he is doing with his creation (the earth and its people) and he will sustain them according to his own plan. In fact, Perkins states that we shouldn't "surrender national autonomy nor do we need to sacrifice the family budget and the income that families are making" when addressing that stewardship. Little did I know that God finds it acceptable for us to put the interests of the United States above those of the rest of the world and that he doesn't expect us to give up any of our wealth in order to preserve his creation. Apparently God intends to subsidize this particular issue.

So let me see if I've got this straight. Men like Perkins and Jackson don't think Americans should sacrifice any of their income to protect the planet...at least not in accordance with Kyoto or any of the plans put forward by the likes of Al Gore. On the other hand, these are the same people who routinely expect their followers to open their wallets and contribute generously to the FRC and the causes they deem to be necessary and in need of immediate attention.

That brings us to the second video which is on the subject of same-sex marriage. In this instance, apparently Perkins and Jackson don't think God has a sufficient plan for addressing the issue of homosexuality...even though God would had to have known it would exist (and had a plan to address it) just like they contend he would have known that fears about the climate of the planet would eventually trouble some of its inhabitants.

Here's where we begin to see the inconsistency and the hypocrisy. Perkins and Jackson conclude that the FRC and the religious right need to step in and take an activist role in preventing gays from obtaining the rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts. Is this because God's plan is lacking when it comes to gays? Funny how, in this instance, families are routinely asked to dig deep into their budgets to fund the FRC and their efforts to pass amendments in California and other states to ban same-sex marriage. Far be it for me to know what God deems a justified financial sacrifice...though Perkins and Jackson seem convinced they know.

In other words, with regards to global warming, God wants us to be good stewards but we need not and should not do anything drastic because he knows what he's doing and he doesn't expect us to crimp our budgets. On the other hand, he needs us to do everything we can to stop the gays. Is that because he doesn't have a plan or because gays have somehow figured out how to outsmart God? Apparently Perkins and Jackson have concluded that God needs his hetero human subjects to become his proxy warriors in addressing homosexuality because he just can't go it alone.

Perkins and Jackson seem to think all of this is completely black and white...but I contend it is merely more of the same cut and paste pontificating that has come to define their inane ideology. Talking in circles may suffice for those who are willing to suspend rational thought and ignore reasoned analysis...but I find it to be the equivalent of washing the windows with a bucket of dirty water.

Yes, the effort might make one feel better but it sure as hell does nothing to enhance one's view and one's understanding of what lies on the other side. Rather, it serves to preclude those on one side from ever having to consider arguments that might undermine the absolute ideology they embrace and the fears that endear them to it.

In the end, it's obvious that Perkins and Jackson believe that personal faith should intervene in public policy...but only when doing so furthers the issues of faith they have conveniently chosen to cherry pick. Perhaps they think that's black and white. I think it's about as clear as mud.

Focus on the Family, the empire of demagogue James Dobson, has launched a new video feature that gives outsiders an insight into the values they embrace...and they undoubtedly place a lot of value on the acquisition of cash...especially if it can be used to further their fundamentalist agenda.

The Colorado Springs based organization now produces two video segments - one is called Stoplight and the other Turn Signal...catchy metaphors for their desire to put a "stop" to anything they deem in conflict with their Bible based bloviations and to direct people to "turn" away from secular sensibility and accept the dogma they deem to have been sent to them from the divine director.

In the following segment of Stoplight, Stuart Shepard muses on the government's economic stimulus checks and how the money, unjustly taken from voters to fund a flawed government, could be put to better purposes. Of course those purposes include items like banning same-sex marriage and appointing more right leaning judges as well as eliminating a woman's right to choose.

And don't forget the most important purpose...donating more money to Focus on the Family so that Dobson and his disciples can lead lavish lives that support the contention that God rewards good people...with material wealth (prosperity theology). Yes, God thinks the best way to nurture the soul is to stuff a load of cash into the checking account.

You see, the folks at Focus on the Family are strong proponents of marriage...especially the one that unites them with money and the intoxicating power it brings. Apparently they have an updated understanding of the expression, "Charity begins at home". Yes, Jesus was a nice guy...but he could have been far more effective if he had been a well-heeled snappy dresser with a stable of lawyers and lobbyists. After all, apostles and the downtrodden are so passe.