Enquirer's Loser of the Week

A happy New Years to this week's lone Enquirer looser, out going FOP President Roger Webster. He was booted from his post this week and I think the city is better for it.

Party Poopers

I guess standing is now a crime in Ohio. I guess sitting will be the next thing banned. All you will be able to do while at college is stand at attention in front of an adult (over age 30) and to sleep tied into your bunk at night. Meals will have to be eaten while walking, unless walking is banned too.

Battle of the GOP D's

Pat DeWine is looking to take the next political step by running against John Dowlin in the Republican primary for Hamilton County Commissioner. This will make everyone wonder two things: 1. Will Pat quite City Council? 2. If he does or if he wins the Commission seat, who will take his place on Council. I predict no on #1 and Leslie Ghiz on #2.

I have to wake up reporter Cindi Andrews to a fact about something she listed in the article

Kabaka Oba, a Cincinnati boycott activist, is the only Democrat who has filed for the seat.

It is a fact that Kabaka Oba is a militant black racist and separatist. I have no problem reporting that he is on the Primary ballot, that is reasonable. Just listing him as a "boycott activist" gives him some kind of legitimacy, when everyone with a brain knows he is just the black version of a KKK wizard.

The Post's Report.

Ohio: The Pulse of Presidential Politics

The Enquirer reports on the coming onslaught of politicking by both the GOP and Dems. Ohio is the bell -weather state of bell weather states. We always are fickle for Presidents, but this year with things looking to be a bloody battle (literally I think) the politics should be coming sooner than before.

One element of bias in this article is the description of Move-on.org's commercials as "anti-Bush." If stating what they believe is the truth makes their commercials "anti" something, I guess every Coke and Pepsi ad are anti-milk.

New FOP President Speaks

The Enquirer reports on the new FOP President Harry Roberts. Some interesting facts on Sgt. Roberts: He lives in the city of Cincinnati, and he graduated from Withrow High School. Is this a break from the Elder voting block? Was this a vote against the old guard, or is they guy just an Eastside transplant to the old Westside guard? I really know nothing about this guy. Is he is new rational blood in the FOP or is he more of the same?

Rob Bernard Reponds

Rob Bernard responded to my post on a FOX News article. Rob makes the argument that religion should not be banned from public areas. I agree. Individuals have the constitutional right to make their religion known on a non-fixed basis. If you want to walk through fountain square carrying a cross, that is fine, as long as you don't interfere with anyone else. Erecting that cross (or Menorah or a 10' penis) is not something I find to be valid on public property. Secularized symbols of Christmas I have problem with having on public property. Santa Claus, Christmas Trees, etc are fine. They might indirectly refer to the religion, but they are not dogmatic teachings or divine symbols from Christianity.

What I don't think Rob sees is that from my point of view "sharing" should be voluntary.

I would argue that it is intolerant to keep religion out of public areas. The exclusion of religion from the public arena is simply taking another side in the religious debate. Putting up a big cross, nativity scene, menorah, Star of David or a giant Torah doesn't push your religion on others because they don't comply with that religious code. It doesn't say "join our religion and follow our beliefs or something bad will happen to you" it says "this is a symbol of what we hold dear and we want to share it." Opposing religious expression is as much a statement of religious beliefs as anything else.

Two points: First, a religious belief requires a belief in a god or gods or supernatural entities or supernatural creators. Opposing religious expression is not a religious belief, nor an expression of religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a belief, yet, but beliefs alone don't make a religion. A religion has to do with a god or the supernatural. Second point: in the above excerpt the "we" in the "is a symbol of what we hold dear and we want to share it" comment is what is the problem. This “we” is so varied that they only way to fairly determine it is not make it "we", but make it "me." If you want it on pubic property keep it to "me," if you want to make it "we" why not keep it in your church? If I want to share in your religion why can't I just go into the buildings with a big cross on top? Once I am there the "we" can share with anyone any type of in your face religious expression they wish, without any government intervention (except for established laws).

Keeping religion out of public places does not indorse atheism. The government should take a “don’t ask don’t tell” type view on religion. It should do nothing but protect the right of any individual to practice their religion and provide the ability to government workers (military, police, etc) who while on duty are unable to practice their religion. This is were military Chaplains come into play.

Also for the record, I don’t have anti-religious beliefs. Am I an atheistic-agnostic? Yes. Do I believe that all known religions are invalid? Yes. Am I against anyone being prevented from practicing their religion? NO! What I am against is people thinking that when they superimpose their religion on me or when they try to make me to comply with their religious dogma through law that they are practicing their religion. If pushing one’s religion on others is such a vital part of one’s religion (you know getting more members), then it sounds more like a Ponzi scheme.

Finally, if Rob or any religious person wants to celebrate their religion they have the constitutional right to do so. They can build a church and sing praises to “God” or “Satan” or “Ra” or “Odin” until their lungs turn blue. They can do that while walking down the street. What they can’t do is use the government to help them proselytize. The purpose of publicly expressing religion is to ADVERTISE it. Why do you advertise? To make people aware of your product. Outward expression of religion (mainly speaking about the big three monotheistic religions, but I think all apply) has two core purposes: to try and let others know what your religion is and to let others know you follow that religion. The first is a means of proselytization and second is a means of identification of compliance. That is a cold and clinical description of what outward expressions of religion are, but I don’t see any other valid explanation. If you don’t want to show off your religious beliefs, then you really would not need to express them. If you want people to act like you, what is often considered most pure is by acting upon those beliefs, instead of telling people you believe them.

FOP chief Update

The Enquirer has a full story today. In it Keith Fangman hints that there were sound reasons for Webster to be voted out, but did not get into it. There sounds like a huge backstory here worth telling. Will anyone ferret it out?