“Religious Liberty”

BillDo is upset over the upcoming vote on legalizing gay marriage in New York state:

The New York State legislature is one vote away from passing a gay marriage bill. What is holding it up is pressure from Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others: they want to insulate religious institutions from state encroachment. That they have to fight for their First Amendment rights shows how threatening gay-marriage legislation really is.

The threats to religious liberty are not hypothetical. …

Well, thanks for clarifying that opposition to marriage equality comes from religious quarters. This confirms what I and others have been saying for a while.

But wait, what’s this? Threats to first-amendment rights? And non-hypothetical ones? As a properly sensitive liberal guy, I’m certainly all for protecting everyone’s freedom, to the extent required by the first amendment and the Kumbaya Act of 1993. So do tell, Bill: what exactly are these real, non-hypothetical threats?

The threats to religious liberty are not hypothetical. A New Mexico photographer who refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony was forced to pay the couple’s attorney’s fees; Christians in New Jersey who objected to allowing a gay union ceremony in their privately owned facility have had their tax-exempt status stripped; a psychologist from Georgia was fired after she declined to counsel a lesbian about her relationship. And so on.

In other words, there are real concerns that if gay marriage passes in New York, religious liberty will be jeopardized.

First of all, there’s nothing in there about marriage. All of the above can already happen; extending marriage rights to gay couples wouldn’t change anything.

For another, I fail to see words like “church”, “synagogue” or “mosque” in those examples, so it’s not clear which religious rights are being trampled.

But most importantly, what I see is three examples of people being bigots and getting slapped for it.

In other words, the “religious freedom” BillDo is crusading for is the right to hang a “no faggots” sign on the door of one’s business. Because hey, that’s what Jesus would want.

Here’s a hint, Billy-boy: if you’re beating someone over the head with a stick, and someone takes away your stick, your rights aren’t being trampled, and you don’t get to play the victim.

Atheist Language

It occurs to me that it doesn’t make sense for an atheist to say “sure as hell”. I mean, you wouldn’t say “I’m as sure that Mordor exists that I ain’t volunteering for this assignment” (note to self: try using the phrase “sure as Mordor” and see how it goes over).

From a purely factual standpoint, it’s much better to say “sure as shit”, since shit is known to exist. Unfortunately, the use of that phrase isn’t always appropriate. The best I’ve been able to come up with so far is “sure as Shinola“, but I’m sure you can do better. Discuss in the comments.

Fitna in Arkansas

Fitna is an Arabic word meaning something like “disorder” or “unrest”. It’s often used as a justification for women covering themselves up, by not tempting men into lustful thoughts and the depravity and civil unrest that are sure to follow.

Now, I’ve always found this argument rather insulting: it basically says that men are weak-willed, that the moment we see an exposed elbow, we’ll go into some testosterone-fueled frenzy, unable to think straight, stopping at nothing in our craving for sex.

In other contexts, this is not considered a virtue. If I walk past you with my new iPad 2 or whatever the hot toy du jour is, and you like it so much that you steal it from me, that makes you a thief who needs to learn some self-control.

Now, obviously it’s polite to refrain from drinking in front of an alcoholic, or smoking in front of someone who’s trying to quit, but as a rule, people should be expected to control their antisocial emotions (although there’s an interesting exception, that I keep hoping to write about).

So anyway, the reason I bring this up is because of the bus ads in Arkansas, which you’ve probably heard of by now: in brief, the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason wanted to put some billboards on buses, saying “Are you good without God? Millions are.” The Central Arkansas Transit Authority had a fit, but decided that it couldn’t legally stop them. So instead, they demanded that the CoR pay a $36,000 deposit to insure against vandalism. As a person at the company that handles advertising put it,

β€œin reality, Arkansas is the buckle of the Bible Belt and I can easily envision zealots or upstanding citizens with a strong faith acting out.”

In other words, fitna. The transit authority and its advertising agency are afraid that the good people of Arkansas, once they see an atheist ad, will fly into a fury of vandalism and won’t be able to help themselves from keying the bus or slashing its tires.

Arkansans, is that really how you want to be seen? Unable to control your temper or play nice with others? Because if so, you may want to get a nice, modest gingham burqa to cover up your wimminfolk. I’m sure there’s someone out there who’ll be happy to sell you one.

Update Fri Jun 17 12:50 2011: Fixed broken HTML. HT alert reader Fez.

Faith and Confidence

The other week, J. and I were talking about Harold Camping and his amusing predictions of imminent doom, and she said that while he is, of course, a loon, she admires his faith and how it allows him to persist in the face of adversity and ridicule. This isn’t the first time I’ve run across this sentiment, so I thought it might be worth addressing.

While it’s nice to be able to overcome obstacles, that’s only half the story. If I may use an extended (and therefore ultimately friable) analogy, as is my wont, confidence is like the engine in a car: the more powerful it is, the faster you’ll get where you’re going, and the fewer potholes will stop you.

But that’s no good unless you’re going someplace worth going. A powerful engine can get you to Fort Lauderdale for spring break, but it can also send you flying through the front window of a Wendy’s. That is to say, if you have full faith and confidence in a wrong idea, it can allow you to ignore obstacles like valid criticism and do something damnfoolish or worse (9/11 springs to mind).

To a great extent, confidence is a good thing. But this has to be tempered with reason. Sometimes, when people tell you you’re an idiot for pursuing your dream, it’s because they’re jealous or don’t realize the brilliance of your idea. But a lot of times, it’s because you’re an idiot. Remember that dotcom you worked for in the nineties, when you though that if you could just convince enough people to subscribe to your kielbasa-review site, that network effects would kick in and you’d make enough money to topple Wal-Mart? Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. You were an idiot.

Now personally, I find that what helps my confidence is knowing what the hell I’m doing. Granted, not knowing what you’re doing can mean that you don’t know the conventional wisdom that says that what you’re doing is impossible, and can therefore surprise people when you do it and demonstrate that the conventional wisdom was wrong. But usually, the conventional wisdom is right.

But the better you know your subject, and the better your critical thinking skills, the better you’re able to judge the merits of the conventional wisdom. You’re in a better position to figure out whether your idea is feasible or just a pipe dream. To figure out whether the obstacles and arguments against you are real or just illusory.

And, of course, there’s a lot to be said for plain old getting pumped up about something. But I’m the wrong person to ask about that. You may want to take a look at how it’s done at churches, concerts, and so on.

Your Friday Morning Gah

Because I hate all of you and want you to suffer as much as I have, you get a double helping of Christian glurgey WTF.

The first part is The Monkey Song, perhaps the catchiest expression of anti-evolutionary ignorance and superstition that I’ve heard.

But stick around, because then they sing The Ecumenical Movement, an ode to tribalism and dogma. The core message is “those people (both non-Christians and non-right-kind-of-Christians) don’t believe the same things I do, so I’m not even going to talk to them.”

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/NKwlUmoiPVY?version=3&hl=en_US

The 70s flavor of the recording provides a retro flavor, like bell bottoms on a Sunday-best pantsuit.

(HT J)

Isn’t this Backward Logic?

The Post writes in an article about the release of Manal al-Sherif, who dared to commit the crime of Driving While Female in Saudi Arabia:

There is no written Saudi law banning women from driving β€” only fatwas, or religious edicts, by senior clerics. They claim it protects against the spread of vice and temptation because women drivers would be free to leave home alone and interact with male strangers. The prohibition forces families to hire live-in drivers or rely on male relatives to drive.

Except, I thought it was Saudi men who are so weak-willed that if they so much as glimpse a female ankle, they’ll lose all control and go on a rampage. So shouldn’t they be the ones forbidden from driving or leaving the house until they learn some impulse control?

And Now, the Backpedaling

(Alternate title: Invisible Rapture.)

Harold Camping, who got his fifteen minutes of fame predicting the end of the world this past Saturday, has started the backpedaling.

In a rambling discourse to reporters outside his Family Radio International office, Camping, an 89-year-old retired civil engineer, indicated he had misread the signs in predicting that the faithful would be lifted up to Heaven Saturday, leaving sinners to suffer through five months of disasters until the Earth was consumed in a fireball on the End of Days.

God did “bring judgment on the world,” on Saturday, he said, but there will not be any terrible buildup to the end. When it comes, it will happen quickly, he said.

Funny how a “spiritual” apocalypse looks exactly like an apocalypse that isn’t there. I guess he doesn’t want to consider the alternate possibility: that he’s a superstitious fool who thinks that a many-times translated mishmash of writings from the bronze age has any bearing on the modern world. That would be too simple.

Last time he predicted the end of the world, his excuse was that he’d forgot to carry a two or something. This time, it’s that something happened, but we didn’t see it because it was invisible. I’m disappointed. Both of those are tired old excuses that have been used time and time again by previous prophets of armageddon. Would it have been too much to expect him to spend some time coming up with something new? I suppose it was.

Derp

Maggie Gallagher writes at NOM:

The tiny number of liberal northeastern states that have embraced gay marriage tend to have high per capita incomes, because they are much older, supporting fewer children, and much whiter, and better educated than average. They are older in part because with so little job growth, young adults with families move elsewhere, most likely to a southern state with a marriage amendment that enjoys more robust economic growth.

So, um, yeah. Apparently marriage equality kills jobs, resulting in higher per-capita income and better education. And also somehow whiteness and olditude.

I’d like to say the homophobes are scraping the bottom of the barrel, but as with creationists, every time I’ve thought that, I’ve been proven wrong.

Not Impressed with Right-Wing “Scholarship”

I recently stumbled upon a preview of a video purporting to teach children about the 1980s.

Given that the site is endorsed by Mike Huckabee, who once said that every American should be forced at gunpoint to watch David Barton, and since Barton belongs to the “make stuff up” school of historical research, you can understand why I was a bit suspicious. Read More

A Couple of Shell Quickies

Since I got asked several sh-related questions, I might as well get a post out of them.

One person asks:

I’m writing a portable shell script to download a file from the web, and then compare it to a locally-stored version of the same file, using diff.

My first version of the script used mktemp to download the web-file to temporary file, run the diff command, and then delete the temporary file afterwards. e.g.

TEMPFILE=$(mktemp)
wget -q $ONLINEFILEURL -O $TEMPFILE
diff $TEMPFILE $LOCALFILE
rm $TEMPFILE

However I later discovered that the BSD version of mktemp has an incompatible syntax to the GNU version of mktemp. So then I got rid of the usage of temporary files completely, by using input-redirection, e.g.

diff <(wget -q $ONLINEFILEURL -O -) $LOCALFILE

However while this works fine under bash and ksh, it fails under ash and sh with

Syntax error: "(" unexpected

to which I replied:

The first obvious problem here is that “(wget -q $ONLINEFILEURL -O -)” isn’t a filename, it’s a subprocess. So the shell sees “<” and expects a filename, but finds “(” instead.

It looks as though the way to get diff to read from stdin is the standard way: specify “-” as the filename, and give it input on stdin. Since you’re feeding it the output from a process, you want to use a pipe:

wget -q $ONLINEFILEURL -O - | diff - $LOCALFILE

I also suggested that he could try to figure out which version of mkfile he was using:

# Wrapper function for GNU mktemp
gnu_mktemp() {
	mktemp /tmp/tmpfile.XXXXXX "$@"
}

# Wrapper function for BSD mktemp
bsd_mktemp() {
	mktemp -t /tmp/tmpfile.XXXXXX "$@"
}

# Try to figure out which wrapper to use
if mktemp -V | grep version >/dev/null 2>&1; then
	MKTEMP=gnu_mktemp
else
	MKTEMP=bsd_mktemp
fi

mytmpfile=`$MKTEMP`

And, of course, if race conditions and security aren’t a big concern, there’s always

mytmpfile=/tmp/myprogramname.$$

Another person wanted to write a bash script that would do one thing when run by him or root, and another thing if run by anyone else (basically, die with an error message about insufficient privileges and/or grooviness).

He asked whether the following two expressions were equivalent:

  • if [[ ( `whoami` != "root" ) || ( `whoami` != "coolguy" ) ]]
  • if [[ ! ( `whoami` = "root" ) || ( `whoami` = "coolguy" ) ]]

They’re not, but maybe not for obvious reasons, because propositional logic is a harsh mistress.

In the first expression,

if [[ ( `whoami` != "root" ) || ( `whoami` != "coolguy" ) ]]

let’s say that the user is joeblow. In this case, “`whoami` != "root"” is true, and so the shell can short-circuit the rest of the “||“, because the entire expression is true.

If the user is root, then the first part, “( `whoami` != "root" )” is false. However, the second part, “( `whoami` != "coolguy" )” is true (because rootcoolguy), and so the entire expression is “false || true”, which is true.

The second expression,

if [[ ! ( `whoami` = "root" ) || ( `whoami` = "coolguy" ) ]]

is closer to what he wanted, but doesn’t work because of operator precedence: “!” binds more tightly than “||“, so the expression is equivalen tto “(whoami ≠ root) || (whoami = coolguy)”.

In this case, if the user is joeblow, the first clause, “whoami ≠ root“, is true, and so the entire expression is true.

Worse yet, if the user is root, then neither the first nor second clause is true, so the entire clause is false.

What he really wanted was something like:

if [[ ( `whoami` = "root" ) || ( `whoami` = "coolguy" ) ]]; then
	# Do nothing
	:
else
	# Do something
	echo "Go away"
	exit 1
fi

Except, of course, that since the if-clause is empty, it can be cut out entirely. Then all we need to do is to negate the condition and only keep the code in the else-clause:

if [[ ! ((`whoami` = "root" ) || ( `whoami` = "coolguy" )) ]]

Note the extra pair of parentheses, to make sure that the “!” applies to the whole thing.

(Update, May 18: Fixed HTML entities.)