Just last night it occurred to me that football officials should have flags in two different colors, instead of just yellow. Then when there is a penalty, they could throw one flag for an offensive penalty, and a different one for a defensive penalty, thus letting the offense know if it got a "free play," and encouraging them to go for a big one.

Please forward this to the commissioner of the NFL. Thanks.

From imk2's summary of Religulous--

no....see what you failed to mention, and what i think was the most important and MAIN point of the movie is that it is calling for us non-religious, atheist people to get off our ass, stop being so ambivalent and passive....and start taking control and action against religious majority who are basically running this world into the ground.

he said that we are the BIGGESTY minority (compared to blacks, muslims, jews, asians) in the country, yet we have no power, no voice, no agenda, no support and no recognition.

Is this really the point of the movie? Because if it is, I've got some issues.

But first, let me clarify what my issues AREN'T:

I don't want theocracy.
I'm not anti-science.
I don't want any special privilege for me or others that share my faith.
I don't have anything against atheists (To be honest, I often prefer their company).


Issue number #1. Does Maher really want atheists to "take control" and/or take "action against" the religious? Isn't that what the problem has been with religious people is in the first place? (that we take control of others and act against them?) Is his argument really that atheists must become more like religious people by imitating our most negative characteristic?

The power practiced by religious people over other people is a huge problem, but is the solution for other people to take power in the same manner? I hope not. This has not gotten us anywhere.

Issue #2. Does Maher really believe that atheists should have greater power because they are a smaller minority? This doesn't make sense to me, and even if it WAS logical, it still wouldn't be a productive argument.

Before I explore how it doesn't make sense, I have to point out that it really doesn't matter, as his assertion isn't true. Sure, there are less atheists in the the USA then there are Asians, or Jews, but there are other, far smaller minorities. Check out this survey:

Athiests are a minority, but there are far less people who believe in Santeria, for example, than no God at all. Ditto Scientologists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, and Jedis.

Now I believe that, because they are a minority, practitioners of Santeria and Atheists both deserve special protection against the majority's tendency to tyranny. But do I believe that they are entitled to a greater voice because they are smaller? Of course not! I don't think anybody wants to put Scientologists, Wiccans, or Rastafarians in charge (as interesting as it might be . . .) just because they are smaller.

(And before you say, But all of the others are believers, and should be counted as one, look back on the comparisons that Maher made. His categories don't even remotely line up--mixing race into an analysis of belief!)

But lets say, just for the sake of argument, that being a minority entitles you to additional power (again, I believe in special protection for minorities, and equal treatment, without a doubt). Do athiests really want to make this argument? With every generation, the number of athiests is increasing, and the number of believers is decreasing (at least in the USA). If we apply this logic (and I don't think we should), religious people will be back in charge within a generation--two at the most.

Even though I am not an Atheist, I do believe that they make some points that religious people need to hear. I guess it's not really my place to tell an atheist how to be an atheist, but I'm going to make a couple suggestions anyway, and you can consider the source and disregard them, if you want.

Please, learn from the mistakes of religious people, and rather than imitate dogmatism, pushiness, and an "us vs. them" rhetoric, engage the thoughtful with collegiality, and trust that the nuttiness of the crazies will expose itself.

Secondly, start with the stuff that works. For example--Atheists and theists often argue about which system leads to ethical behavior. but this underscores a shared value that ethics are important. Likewise, we both tend to appeal to reason, which demonstrates another shared value. Share the best of what you've got, instead of attacking the worst of what we've got (I will do the same).

To be honest, I don't expect to make a theist out of you all, any more than I think you can convince me to become an atheist. (I mean, I'll try to keep an open mind, but its a big part of who I am.) However, this does not mean that we need to be enemies any more than gay and straight people need to be enemies, or people of different races/cultures need to be enemies. Despite (or because of?) radically different foundations, we can learn from one another and grow together.

Maybe it will be a while before reasonable dialogue can happen. I know, believers have piled on atheists for years, and its kind of ridiculous to call for a new kind of engagement now that we are losing power, but maybe you can be better than we have been.

Anyway, how atheists behave is out of my hands, but I know that Christians and other believers can (and should) hear them. I will do everything I can to engage in any conversation with respect, not seeking to take power over my dialogue partner, nor seeking to win an argument, but with the hope that we can learn from one another and grow together.

Peace, my athiest friends.

I am going to see Religulous, eventually, because I know Bill Maher is funny. I don't think, however, he tries to have a real conversation (I could be wrong--I'll tell you when I see it.)

What I like about this movie is that it tries to bridge the divide between people of faith and the rest of the world, rather than increase it.

And yes, that means that religious people have to change. But faith doesn't have to grow intolerance. Once upon a time, it led to greater love.

Anyway, there's a good movie tonight, shown for free, at rust belt books.

If you google, "yinz love da stillers" (e:strip) is now on the front page.

This weeks episode (notice the Maulers t-shirt--a nice touch)

I that's it for now--but here are some nice pics from the pet blessing.

So look below, if you want to follow me up to the minute.

Sorry BRO haters, but I gotta do what I gotta do to maximize good press!

My Dad is a great guy, but he has two habits that drove me crazy when I was a kid.

1. He doesn't end conversations in a timely manner. It's never easy to leave because there is always one more thing to say (which of course, leads to another thing).

2. When using a desk phone, he would dial first (on speaker) and then pick up the phone to talk.


I now see clearly that I have both problems myself. I can understand the talking thing, but who would have thought I would pick up the phone thing?

This Sunday, 2pm, at Lafayette Church (sorry about the bad near-pun)

Which means another "yinz love da Stillers." Enjoy:

My friend Dan will present his one man show, "It is no desert" at Niagara University. It is a great show. Here is a review from another time it was performed:



Also, in searching I learned that I have a friend with a wikipedia page! I wonder if any of my other friends do? (I don't think so):



Sadly, I cannot attend the show, but I promise it is worth it. For tickets: