Next week, I am winging my way to Washington, DC, to participate in the annual meeting for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
How cool is this?
Very, very cool. The folks at AUfSoCaS decided to invite a few bloggers who have been vocal about the issue of religion and politics, and for some reason I got in on the action (hi Blue Gal!). I don’t have the list of who all will be there, but besides Blue Gal her own self will be DCup and some other guy who apparently also writes a science blog. "PZ" something or another.
In fact, I’ll be sharing a hotel room with him (it was my idea, for the record) and as he suggests on his blog, maybe a get-together for DC BABloggees and Pharyngulistas might be in order. There must be some good places to get together on the Hill… well, more info on that later as it develops.
Anyway, the AUfSoCaS meeting sounds like it will be fun, interesting, and informative. I suspect it will also be uplifting and motivating. We’re even undergoing lobbyist training, and last I heard appointments with Congressmen are being arranged so we can discuss pertinent issues. I need to read up on the stances (har har) of my reps so I have some history and background on them.
I’m very excited about this. Obviously, I’ve been writing on this issue for quite some time, and while I love being able to have my voice here on the intertubes, I also want to explore how to be even more pro-active on these issues. I was tired of watching our Constitution being flushed away so I started to speak up. Now, after this, I’m hoping that speaking up will just be step one in a longer line of action items.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Phil,
When you comment again about this meeting, it would be interesting to see if anyone offered insights from the standpoint of the Neocons co-opting church-state issues to advance right-wing political agendas under the guise of religion.
Also, if you go to dinner with PZ Myers and are within earshot, be sure to ask the waiter if they are serving the special today; fried Zebrafish.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
You and PZ! I smell a sitcom.
Coming this summer: One of them is a nerdy astronomer, the other is a crazy biologist! We’ll call it Philaryngula.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Phil should actually ask for some calamari,should have a pool how soon some one from the right comes here and says they liked when this was a science blog.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:08 am
AU is a great organization (and a fine measure of astronomical distance :-). When I was studying for my theological studies degree (non-pastoral, atheist track), I got to go to one of their national meetings in DC. Wonderful group. Many old-school Baptists (i.e., the ones who remember why separation of religion and state was established in the first place) make up the leadership, IIRC.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:19 am
davidlpf: “Phil should actually ask for some calamari…”
That’s better! I mentioned the Zebrafish because it was written about as a topic of special interest over at Philaryngula. (:
November 5th, 2007 at 4:14 am
I have some experience at volunteer lobbying. You’ll likely only meet with Congressional Staffers unless the event is very large, but the trip will eye-opening for you. When you see the paid lobbyists walking around, with all the staffers recognizing them and practically cheering when the lobbyist enters a congressperson’s office, you’ll see how part of the system really works.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:56 am
I’ve noted that Americans United is often quite good in its advocacy before the Supreme Court. In the Ten Commandments cases a couple of years ago, AU’s brief was one of the best.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:43 am
“I suspect it will also be uplifting and motivating.”
Ironically, this is the same kind of language Promise Keeper’s uses to promote their events.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:56 am
As a DC BABloggee, I’m very excited about the prospect of a meet up. But I can’t find any information about this meeting on the AU website. When will it take place?
J. D.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:21 am
As a student of Leo Pfeffer, the anethma of the established religionists, I am jealous.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Dyslexics of the world, untie!!!!!!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:58 am
This is big for you - I’m looking forward to hearing about it.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I’m sorry to hear this. No joke.
As far as I am concerned PZ Myers is a bigoted, unapologetic jerk. He publicly claimed that anybody who plays poker is stupid for doing so, then not only refused to back away from this statement, but re-iterated it.
I may agree with him on many matters, but anybody who is willing to insult the intelligence of others because of their leisure hobbies is a bigoted idiot who deserves no creed. Doubly so when the bigot is clearly so wildly uninformed that they do not even understand what they are talking about.
He is no better than the creationists he attacks. He’s just differently closed-minded. It’s too bad you’re stuck with such a jerk.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Kevin, you are entitled to your own opinion. Why isn’t PZ? Seems kind of hypocritical of you.
I’m not familiar with PZ Myers - don’t know who he is other than some science blogger that Phil keeps talking about. But I’d like to know an example of how he is “clearly so wildly uninformed that they do not even understand what they are talking about.” Can you provide a link to his alleged remarks regarding poker?
Who’s being the jerk here?
B-)
p.s. I used to play poker fairly regularly with some buddies, and I can say from experience that every one of us had done something stupid.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Sounds like a lot of fun and a very worthy group.
Try not to get any of that squid slime on you
P
November 5th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Cool! I live an hour from DC. What’s the plans?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I think it is a shame that a meeting like this is needed and that groups such as AUSCS or FFRF must exist. Why don’t the balloon brains in Washington just read the Constitution? It clearly mandates that government must not have anything to do with religion. Why shouldn’t a President who openly scoffs at this fundamental document be impeached?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I only have one quibble. Couldn’t you have at least roomed with a vertebrate?
I doubt one more astronomer is going to make much difference in D.C., but I’m glad to see you being recognized for speaking out on this vital subject and being put somewhere where that speaking might actually reach people with the power to do something about it.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Skepterist; I did a quick search of PZ Meyers’ blog (which I just started reading after hearing about it here, and it is most excellent), and the offending post seems to be this one: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/it_would_be_funny.php It’s one sentence. Judging from the comments on it, some poker players are a touchy bunch.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’ve been an AU member for a few years. I’ve also heard Barry Lynn, AU’s president, speak a few times and he’s wonderful! Have a great time.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:15 am
OK, Christians, start your flatulent postings about how this is actually a Christian nation.
Let the re-writing of history begin…
November 5th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’m wondering if there’s a slim chance that this meeting will appear on CSpan?
November 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
A meetup sounds fun! I live close to DC, so hopfully hubby and I can make it. I’ll stay tuned for details
November 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
You sure spend a lot of time on social studies. Do social studies qualify as “science”?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I’ve seen three religious types in the past week claim that a certain percentage of Americans are on their side. They were all in interviews about the upcoming movie The Golden Compass and it’s alleged anti-religious theme, or in the books at least. I hear the film has been declawed. They religibots are worrieed the films might lead kids to read the books.
Great books, by the way. Very original.
Anyway, the first guy I saw claimed 85% of the USA was on their side. The next guy claimed 90%. The final guy two nights ago claimed 95%. He must be counting people who have simply heard of Jesus Christ.
the last survey I saw in 2001 indicated Christians at 80% and *falling*. 27% were Roman Catholics which I don’t think would want to be lumped in with the evangelicals. Atheists and agnostics were 15% and Evalgelicals barely registered.
> “He publicly claimed that anybody who plays poker is stupid for doing so,”
If he said that, the he should stick to biology, because he understand ZERO about poker. Poker is the only cason game other than blackjack where skilled play can make you a consistent winner. I made $1500 last time I played power in a casino’s daily tournament and I generally win in the long term.
Eh… I read a couple PZ posts after I saw Phil mention him and gave up. He’s a self described “Liberal” and so is an ideologue. That brings ANYTHING he has to say under suspicion in my book no matter how well informed he is. And, yes, I say the same about self described “Conservatives”, “Libertarians” or any other of the isms. It’s the sign of a rigid ideology which will cause reality distortion in order to make the world fit a preconceived notion.
If one is going to be a skeptic, IMHO, you need to go all the way and turn the skepticism toward all things and all people.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Thanks for the linky love, BA. Looking forward to meeting you. I’m sitting next to PZ at the blogger dinner, which incidentally has Barry Lynn mentioned earlier as the keynote speaker.
I’m a Christian who does not believe we should be (or are, according to our Constitution) a “Christian nation.” There are a few of us.
You’re both safe at this meeting. I don’t expect AU to sponsor any crazy late night poker games. :-).
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Dyslexics of the world, untie!!!!!!
– I love it!
Many Christians believe in separation of church and state. They know what happened when the Catholic church became the state religion of Rome.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
While it’s probably dangerous to say here, QD, you and I seem to think a lot alike. I’m perhaps a bit to the left of you, but generally I like the way you think.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
>”and the offending post seems to be this one:”
He’s an ideologue. Anything he does not like or approve of is stupid. He’s no different from the billions of other ignorant ideologues living in on this world. He a textbook example. If I read his blog enough, I could probably write a simulation that would be accurate to several decimal places. I have better thing to do, though, such as watching my lawn grow.
There’s bad gambling (slots, roulette, craps) where the house pwns you, and good gambling (blackjack, poker, horse racing, pro sports) where with some effort and information you can win consistently. And even the bad gambling can provide cheap entertainment, especially craps which even I play now and then for fun (but only with 10x odds or better).
My own Dad is a scary good horse race handicapper, ’sand has extra retirement income courtesy of the local racetrack. He also good at picking the beatable point spreads in football games (both college AND pros).
A local Indian casino has daily low to medium price poker tourneys. I played in two this year. In the first I won $400 and in the second I won $1500.
But I guess I’m just stupid.
Or PZ is just jealous of us cool kids who actually succeed at something he can’t understand. 
Or he’s just a nerd who thinks everything can be reduced to math.
I have a small circle of freinds who are skilled gamblers, and we generate a little off the record extra income via gambling. In the end, we value the opinions non-gamblers on about the same level as a rat turd.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
>” I’m perhaps a bit to the left of you”
You can’t any fixed direction away from me. That’s my point. Sometimes I feel a free market solution is best. Sometimes a government solution. Sometimes a mix. Sometimes something completely diffeerent. I’m probably farther to the left on some things than even Phil or PZ or many posters here. Yet on a few things I my opinions would get me labeled fascist in some circles (unfairly IMNSHO but there you have it).
November 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Fair enough. My fault for claiming a false dichotomy. I’m likewise something of a libertarian socialist fascist hippie.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Howdy from Alberta. Just wanted to put in a thought from a staunch Christian Believer. I’m all for separation of Church and State. I also agree that Creationism should not be taught in Public Schools. It should be taught in Church… that’s what Church is for. I also feel that it should go the other way too. The State should not interfere with the ideologies and docrines of a Church. The street runs both ways. Just saying.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Darth,
Agreed, but generally the State (at least in the US) does not decree what doctrines any particular religion may hold.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
If you want a mostly depressing view of the impact of religion on government and society, see this week’s The Economist. The cover story is The New Wars of Religion.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Hey, thanks for the link, BA! I’m looking forward to meeting you this weekend.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Daffy says: “OK, Christians, start your flatulent postings about how this is actually a Christian nation. Let the re-writing of history begin…”
If you’re going to do a troll, you’ve got to be more subtle.
QD - I like the way you think, too. There are lots of us who don’t consider ourselves anywhere on the political spectrum. Most people think I’m conservative, or at least to the right, because of my fiscally conservative nature. Being a self employed engineer and author for nearly 22 years will do that to you. But then they get confused with my liberal stand on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and atheism, especially having been raised Catholic. Leftists are confused by my stand on unions and welfare, being a big fan of self-reliance.
I like to think of myself as hovering over the center of the spectrum. I’m a Libertarian, because that’s the only party that comes anywhere near my personal beliefs. I vote for whomever I think will do the best job for the office (in the last election I voted for 7 Republicans, 5 Democrats and one independent). Neither the right nor the left show any difference to me. They both use the exact same techniques (dishonesty, fear mongering) to achieve the exact same ends (power). I notice that when this blog takes a bend towards the political, as it has more lately, every vestige of skepticism goes out the window and the ad-hominems fly thick and fast. Most of the responses are full of leftist dogma, complete with attacks on anyone who doesn’t agree.
Mostly, I skip those entries, just like I skip the right-wing harangues of some of the conservative blogs I visit.
- Jack
November 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I really like PZ Myers’ writing, especially his asides. His sense of humor swims right over the heads of the self-righteous, self-absorbed pompous types who occasionally post in the comments over there.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:47 am
As far as meeting places go, I can suggest Capitol City Brewing Company: they have homebrewed beer, food, and the last time we had a Howlerfest, they didn’t seem to mind that we had an underage non-drinker or two among us (in case that’s a concern for anyone).
November 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Claiming that you’re “nowhere on the political spectrum” is symptomatic of a failure to understand what the political spectrum is. It doesn’t expect to pin down every one of your beliefs, just the general thrust (and therefore, in theory, the underpinnings) of the majority of your beliefs.
Noone seriously thinks humans are consistent enough to be placed into neat categories, that’s why it’s a spectrum in the first place.
Jack Hagerty, you are, by your own description, a textbook Libertarian. That means that you “tend to the right” (that is, resemble a Republican) on economic issues and “tend to the left” (that is, resemble a Democrat) on social issues. Like most Libertarians, you’re smart enough to know that your party’s candidate (if there’s even one on the ballot) doesn’t have a chance in hell, so you vote for a Democrat or a Republican based mainly on whether they’re more focused on economic or social factors.
QD, you may be politically confused, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who can find themselves on a political spectrum is an idealogue. Also, that word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
As to gambling, it’s stupid for someone. The only way someone makes money in gambling is if someone’s losing it. That’s how the system works. In “bad gambling,” you’ll always lose money because the game is designed such that the house makes money and you lose it.
In the other kind of gambling, you essentially have to cheat to win.
Sports are only gambling if noone knows the outcome of the game, which is usually fairly easy to guess, especially with good intel, thus why professional odds-makers can make money.
Of course, they’re only making money because some idiots are betting against them, and if you’re consistently able to win betting against them, you’re still functionally profiting because someone else is making the wrong bet.
Poker’s the same way. There’s a certain amount of elementary skill to the game itself, but beyond that it’s just gambling, unless you know how good the other guy’s hand is, which is technically against the rules. So, if you’re making money at poker (discounting dumb luck) it’s either because you’re playing against those who lack even elementary skill (and should be aware of this fact) or because you’re cheating (and yes, “reading” your opponents is a form of cheating, even if it’s a time-honored and respected part of the game.) That seems pretty stupid to me, at least on the part of the losers without whom the game would be impossible to consistently profit from.
Of course, any of these games can be played without money, which would make them at worst a waste of time.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
[…] not sure who all is coming but I’m told that among those attending will be Blue Gal, DCup, Phil Plait, and PZ Myers. Wonder if I can finally convince DCup and Phil to host Carnival of the Liberals? In […]
November 7th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
> “QD, you may be politically confused”
Impossible because I don’t suffer from politics.
> “Noone seriously thinks humans are consistent enough to be placed into neat categories”
No, I’m afraid most people really are very simple.
And *I* don’t put them into categories. They put *themselves* into categories.
You savvy?
> “In the other kind of gambling, you essentially have to cheat to win.”
Whatever. (rolls eyes)
November 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
>”QD - I like the way you think, too.”
Careful. That might be heresy.
>”There are lots of us who don’t consider ourselves anywhere on the political spectrum. ”
Two quick hits from me if I were in charge:
- I’d eventually phase out the income tax. No, this is not impossible.
- Abortions would be available for free at kiosks in malls. No age limit.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
JediBear-
Your post makes clear that if you are incapable of playing poker. If you knew how to play at an elementary level, you would understand that it is not a game with a single, simple level, after which all is equal.
Furthermore, you clearly aren’t in a position to understand what skills the game helps develop for use outside of the poker table. I can say, with absolute honesty, that my time at the poker tables has made me a better businessman, a more social person, and even a better golfer. I’ve learned a lot about people while playing poker, because their true nature shows through, much as happens in most other competitive sports.
I don’t enjoy volleyball, mah-jong or gin, but I won’t go around insulting the intelligence of those who play it, nor pretending falsely to know what each person may get from their experience in the game.
PZ Myers was a bigger jerk than you, but is clear that you, too, lack understanding.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I am neither incapable of playing poker nor especially bad at it. I played with fair frequency as a child and have since moved on to more sophisticated games which better suit my personality.
The problem here is that you’re missing my point. The skills in the actual game (or games, more properly) of poker are actually quite elementary. There are a handful of valulable card combinations and a clear ranking of their value. Strategy in poker (as opposed to cheating-at-poker) merely consists of attempting to maximuze your chances of achieving the best possible card combination. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you have a pair of aces and a pair of eights that it’s a poor strategy to pull a full-hand turn-in trying to get a straight flush.
It’s the skill of cheating at, or stopping other people from cheating at, poker (as I mentioned, long an integral and irreplacable part of the game) is something else entirely, and this is the main skill people find in the game — perfecting their “poker face” or learning their opponents’ “tells,” for example.
Poker is a social experience, but hardly unique in that regard. There are numerous comparable experiences which will make you a better businessman, a more social person, and a better golfer. Poker differs from many of these other experiences only in that one or more people at the table may be actively enriched at the expense of others.
Unlike you, I enjoy Volleyball and gin, and would probably like mahjongg if I took the time to learn it. I also enjoy Poker, but find it idiotic to spend my money to enrich other people who either aren’t telling me that I suck or are actively cheating to win. Nor would I like to fall into the latter category.
A victorious gambler is either just plain lucky or actually a swindler. I would prefer to make money using my wits by legitimate means.