News of the Weird: Crime and Punishment

Florida Man Discovered With Butt Crack

Informants told police that 28-year-old Floridian Ramon Blair had approximately $300 worth of crack cocaine “on him.” Upon searching him, Marin County Sheriff deputies were unable to find the drugs, until an officer instructed Blair to “squat and cough.” 

This search method gave officers the vantage point they needed to observe a wad of paper, wedged between the suspect’s buttocks. Upon further investigation, the contents of the paper were revealed. Literally, the suspect was in possession of “crack” cocaine. 

The overwhelming ironic and literal nature of the charges filed against the suspect are considered unprecedented in the field of law enforcement.

Hateful Speech and Bigotry

Ladies and gentlemen, comrades, brothers and sisters... I write for a small but prestigious student newspaper at San Diego State University. I love journalism and appreciate opportunities to take advantage of my freedom of speech via the occasional opinion column. Recently (Really recently. Yesterday, in fact.), I was extremely proud to work on the student paper. Our Valentine's Day issue came out, and it was all about promoting equal rights for people in the LGBT community. I wrote a little essay about the AFA's attempt to get JC Penney to fire Ellen Degeneres. If you haven't heard the story, it's equally sad and inspirational. It's sad that a hate group like the AFA would attempt to impose it's religious agenda on our nation through attempts to bully or intimidate businesses who support LGBT rights, but the story was inspirational because JC Penney refused to be intimidated and stood by their decision to keep Degeneres as a spokesperson.

After the paper was published, this message was (anonymously) sent to the offices of the newspaper:

Hi,

I was just wondering where I could complain to about the Valentines day issue? I'm sure you get tons of bigots complaining, but if you could forward this to someone who cares, I'd appreciate it :)

Here are some responses to the bigoted, hateful attack on Christians and their beliefs:

"The greatest form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal" - Aristotle's Axiom

Calling sin "love" doesn't make it love. Nor does calling gay marriage a "basic human right" make it a basic human right. I'm an ISCOR major, I know human rights. Marriage isn't even a "human right" its a God-given right. And any deviation from the way God has set up marriage is not "marriage". Read Galatians 5.

"Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20

Why won't those bigoted, hyper-conservative, narrow minded, hateful Christians just stop hating on the "inevitable overturn of traditional marriage" and stop trying to push their religious beliefs on others and just realize that Jesus' message was one of love and we need to embrace the perversion of others (oops I mean "love") and support gay marriage?
Here's why. http://www.sdrock.com/messages/2008-02-10/

What's really sickening to me about the attack of the Daily Aztec is that its on Saint Valentine's day. If you know the history behind this day, you'll realize how ironic this attack on Christians is. Here's a summary of what happened to Bishop Valentine: "Valentinus was arrested again for continuing to serve Jesus and was sent to the prefect of Rome, to the emperor Claudius himself. Claudius took a liking to him until Valentinus tried to lead Claudius to Jesus, whereupon Claudius refused and condemned Valentinus to death. Commanding that Valentinus either renounce his faith or he would be beaten with clubs, and beheaded. Valentinus refused and Claudius' command was executed outside the Flaminian Gate on February 14, 269."

The legend goes that he married Christian couples, which was a crime to help any of those "insane" Christians who believed in such absurd things as absolute morality and that marriage is between one man and one woman only. Such absurd notions were not to be tolerated in the Roman empire, and many Christians died for their faith. That's where we get the modern holiday of Valentines day from.

Anybody else see the Ironic parallel? In these days in the Roman empire, marriage was under attack in the same way it is today. and Christians stood for "traditional" (which is another word for"biblical" in this case) marriage, and were persecuted for it. Christians in the Roman days refused to recognize homosexual marriage as well, and were attacked for it.

That's what I find disgusting about this issue. On the day named for Christians who died for their beliefs, the Daily Aztec has the bigoted ignorance to insult and degrade Christians for their beliefs. These kinds of people are the modern, civilized equivalent of the people who beat the early Christians to death for the exact same beliefs.
Nothings changed since the 4th century. Christians are still the only ones going against the grain and calling sin what it is- sin. And Christians are still persecuted and hated (which is ironic because that is exactly what they accuse Christians of doing) for it, only in a less violent way.

Thanks for reading,
A liberal SDSU student who doesn't buy into the stereotypical college ultra-liberal hate speech against Christians

Here is my response:

A response to a concerned reader…

I’m sorry that you were so offended by the Valentine’s Day issue. Perhaps you aren’t aware that the student body at SDSU is highly diverse, and that there are many people who do not share your Bible-based viewpoints.

First of all, your insistence that homosexuality is a “sin” and that sin doesn’t equal “love” is noted. Your Bible is absolutely clear on the topic of homosexuality, and condemns it repeatedly. Unfortunately, most human beings do not recognize the authority of your Bible, or the monopoly that you have on the correct interpretation of scripture. Your instruction to read Galatians 5 is going to seem pretty egocentric and ridiculous to students who don’t share your faith. Like I said, this is a diverse student body.

The gay community exists in contradiction to your assertion that sin doesn’t equal love. Maybe a quick look at the dictionary can give us a definition of love to work with:

love [luhv]: noun. A profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

You know, I think that I can safely say that there are a lot of gay people who fit this description.

As far as Aristotle’s axiom goes, I think we can assume that the inverse is also true. It’s a great injustice to attempt to make equal things unequal. I’m sure that you can agree. Basing the decision to deny marriage rights to citizens based on religious discrimination is not only immoral and unethical, but it’s illegal. You may have heard the wheels of progress rolling along in recent legal decisions regarding Prop 8. Marriage is a human-rights issue. It is an issue (Now pay attention here. I don’t want to lose you.) relating to the rights of humans. Hence, human-rights issue. I hope you followed me there. If not, re-read it a few times and we’ll be on the same page.

Here, I’ll wait while you re-read it.

All caught up? Okay, let’s continue.

It’s interesting that you insist that the writers and editors at The Daily Aztec are bigoted. Bigotry insinuates intolerance towards others and a stubborn adherence to one’s own prejudices. The staff of The Daily Aztec isn’t doing that. We are collectively celebrating the inherent beauty that is present in the multiplicity of ideas and practices related to the expression of love between human beings. You will not find anyone on the staff of The Daily Aztec who would attempt to take away another human being’s rights for any reason. You should be more aware of your word choices.

Nobody is saying that you, in your closed-minded religious fervor, have an obligation to embrace anyone’s lifestyle choices. All we are doing is exercising our right to celebrate what we see as a form of human solidarity and excellence.

It is highly ironic that you would bring up Saint Valentine, who allegedly died for his belief that people should be free to get married no matter what the current government might have to say about it.

You keep mentioning “biblical” or “traditional” marriage. I wrote a column about “traditional” values. You should read it. It’s brilliant and insightful. Also, Leonardo’s story was pretty fantastic. I digress. I thought that the following infograph might help to clarify any misconceptions about “biblical” marriage values.

Your inflammatory claim that the writers at The Daily Aztec are the “modern, civilized equivalent of the people who beat the early Christians to death” is frankly one of the stupidest things that I have ever read. You must be a special kind of simpleton to equate the publishing of a few articles and images you don’t like with being stoned to death. Fortunately, things have changed since the 4^th century. Nobody will stone you to death for making “heretical” claims, and journalists will defend your right to freedom of speech, enabling you to continue making idiotic, baseless claims against good and decent people.

In conclusion, the Valentine’s Day edition of The Daily Aztec did not oppress or persecute you in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, while you do have every right to express your indignation, it is important for you to recognize one important, indisputable truth: It is within our rights to offend you, and I am proud of my fellow writers, editors, photographers, and graphic designers for the fantastic work that they did on today’s paper.

Best,

Kenneth Leonard

Staff Writer (ultra-liberal, Bible-bashing, gay-loving bigot)

The Daily Aztec

No Laughing Matter

This morning, I overheard two grown men joking and laughing about child abuse. These guys were strangers, united in a waiting room at a doctor's office. One guy was white, and one was black. They appeared to dwell in different socio-economic worlds, as well. However, they were carrying on like old friends while recounting times when they physically abused their children.

The thing that caught my attention was when one of the gentlemen said, "My kid said one time that if I hit him, he would call the police and sue me. Can you believe that?" The second guy was shocked. The first man went on to say, "So I hit him in the mouth so he couldn't talk!" This statement was followed by both parties partaking in some gleeful laughter.

Folks, I joke about a lot of things. I think that things like necrophilia are funny. There are very few "off-limit" topics when it comes to my sense of humor.

Some shit just isn't funny, though.

It's pretty much common knowledge that it is morally reprehensible to hit children. It truly doesn't matter what the circumstance is. Any ethical or thinking person can arrive at this conclusion on their own. No reasonable person will say, "I want my child to grow up to be well-developed from an emotional, moral, and intellectual standpoint, so when they do stuff that I don't like I intend to beat the shit out of them."

Someone just read this statement and said to themselves, "I don't beat the shit out of my kids. I just hit 'em once in awhile to keep them in check." You're a morally bankrupt piece of shit if you think in this way. It is morally irresponsible to lash out at your children like a fucking ape and physically assault them if they don't do what you want.

Comedian and genius Louis C.K. has pointed out that it is not socially acceptable to behave in this manner towards anyone except children. If you hit a person (or even a dog) on the street, you're running the risk of going to prison. Somehow, inexplicably, children are the only people that you can physically assault - and it's somehow okay. The smallest, most vulnerable people in the world. The most defenseless people. The people who should be preserved and protected at any expense. These people are at the mercy of their oftentimes sadistic, selfish parents.

Here's a hypothetical dialogue, which should serve to illustrate what I'm talking about:

Asshole: "Yeah, so I just finished spanking my kid."
Me: "What? Why?"
Asshole: "Well, they hit a kid at school."
Me: "So, you hit them because...?"
Asshole: "Well, they need to learn that it isn't okay to use violence to solve problems."
Me: "Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. Where would they have gotten the idea that it was okay in the first place?"
Asshole: "I dunno."

Pictured: Jesus on a pogo stick. Some shit IS funny.

It's unacceptable. A big part of me wanted to just beat the living shit out of both of these assholes for the vile things that they were saying, but then I remembered that I'm not a fucking monkey. I'm capable of reason. So, I sat there and I pondered: I wonder how the world would be a different place if monstrous people who assault their children were made to spend time being assaulted by people like me? Maybe for every time someone hits a kid, they should be rendered helpless and have someone who is physically capable of harming them teach them a practical lesson about brutality. Of course, this "solution" is ridiculous and impractical, and it wouldn't solve anything. It would just be an exercise in sadism on my part, and that isn't good for anyone. There would still be helpless kids with abusive and demented parents who will abuse them.

So, what is the solution? Child psychology has proven the stupidity of the religious mandate to beat your children with a "rod"so that they don't stray from moral behavior. Maybe education is the key. Somehow, and I suspect that religious devotion dwells at the root of this problem, otherwise ethical people think that it's okay to hurt innocent people. It has to stop, dear readers.

Dances With Monks

Yesterday, on the campus of the prestigious university I attend, I was approached by two monks who wanted to discuss the possibility of achieving a deeper state of consciousness. I proceeded to talk with these guys about Krishna and past lives and how, through yoga and meditation, I could travel to other planets. at what point do religious beliefs cross the line from respectability to wacko, hide-your-kids, batshit crazy?

Neuroscientist Sam Harris has pointed out the discrepancies between the ways in which people view religious observances. If a guy ritualistically says a few words in latin over his Wheaties in the morning, and believes that this practice magically enables him to ceremonially eat the body of Elvis Pressley, I think we could all agree that this guy is certifiably nuts. However, if someone does the same thing, in a church, with a cracker, and believes that he's now eating the body of Jesus Christ, he's just a Catholic. Why is one considered more socially acceptable than another?

What is it that allows otherwise reasonable and intelligent human beings to engage in institutionalized cognitive dissonance, and for society to act like this is okay? Is it reasonable to say that it is somehow okay for people to believe that God felt like the best way to redeem humanity was to engineer a scenario involving a human sacrifice in bronze-age Palestine? Is it intelligent (or, in other words, does it reflect the best aspects of humanity) to believe that God would choose to reveal his message to an illiterate shepherd in Saudi Arabia? There is no major religion that holds up to even modest levels of scrutiny, or even plain ol' common sense.

At what point to thinking people say enough is enough? Everyone knows about the ongoing conflict in Israel. Two religious groups of roughly equal size want to occupy the same place. The painfully obvious solution is to set up two independent states, but this won't happen anytime soon, because both groups believe (without a shred of evidence to support this theory) that almighty God has a participatory interest in real estate disputes. As the incomparable Christopher Hitchens said: religion poisons everything.

Again, to paraphrase Hitchens (if I may stand on the shoulders of giants in an attempt to make my point), if mankind is ever to reach anything resembling the full realization of its potential, we must break away from these archaic institutions and means of thinking about the world.

Don't get me wrong - religion has served a valuable purpose. When humanity was ignorant to science and had limited faculties for reason, religion served a purpose. When we didn't know any better, religion provided the answers to hard questions. However, nowadays we are aware that sin and wickedness aren't the cause of disease. Microbes are. We know that the stars aren't just pinholes in the vast curtain of night. We know that (as Galileo asserted in his famous collision with the religious establishment) the earth is not the center of the universe. Somehow, in the face of overwhelming knowledge and evidence to the contrary, people resort to narcissism and wishful thinking to justify their faith in the existence of a higher power. We assume that, because we don't understand the mechanisms which led us here, there must be a power that exists beyond our capacity for understanding. It isn't enough for many people to simply say, "I don't know" ... (fill in the blank).

We are living in a dark age. Religious tolerance is at an all-time high in most of the developed world, and that's nice, but it isn't enough. Tolerance is, by definition, condescending, and it doesn't address the deeper issue at hand. The pursuit of truth is all that matters. We need to try to conclusively know things.

For example, Mormons have no evidence with which to support their religious beliefs. None. Now, is Mormonism harmless? Maybe. Many people look at it as an essentially silly group of simpletons, but it if helps people to live morally or to have some kind of hope for a higher power, it's somehow dismissed as a "good" institution. Does no one else see the terrible ethical implications that are present here? Is it okay for people to live in fantasy worlds if their fantasies give them a vague sense of hope? Or does the truth have intrinsic value? Even if the truth seems cold, or makes people uncomfortable, is it worth knowing? Is it worth embracing?

I would argue that it is.

Atheophobia

In 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that organized prayer had no place in public schools, in accordance with the Establishment Clause. In 1963, a seventh-grader in Rhode Island wrote a prayer, which was painted on the wall of the auditorium at Cranston High School. In August of 2010, high school junior Jessica Ahlquist began to protest the display of the prayer. By November of the same year, Ahlquist required a police escort when attending school counsel meetings regarding the display of the prayer, due to threats of violence against her person. The debate over the display of this prayer is a terrific microcosm of the greater relationship between atheists and theists in this country.

If there is one thing that all Americans should be able to agree on, it’s the principle that freedom of religion is essential to preserving the essence of liberty. Religion is a hot-button issue internationally, and the establishment of civil dialogues between various religious groups is of immediate importance. Reasonable concessions must be made in order to promote peace and understanding. This was what Ahlquist was hoping to achieve in her school. As an American, she recognized the fact that a mural of a prayer could be offensive to people. As an atheist, she recognized the exclusionary nature of the mural and understood that fellow nonbelievers would continue to be discriminated against as long as the prayer continued to be displayed.

Ahlquist did not ask for anyone’s rights to be taken away. Her protest was not against any specific religious group. She just didn’t want to have a very public display of religion to be in her face at school. Because of this, she was publicly vilified and threatened (by both her peers and by adults in the community). Once, after Ahlquist made a statement in a town hall meeting, an adult member of the community made the following statement, “If people want to be Atheist, it’s their choice and they can go to hell if they want.” Notice that this statement doesn’t address the legal or ethical implications of a prominently posted prayer in a public school. This statement was a personal attack, directed at Ahlquist, because of her religious beliefs. Rhode Island State Representative Peter Polombo  even went so far as to appear on talk radio so he could broadcast his opinions that Ahlquist was an “evil little thing” and that she is “being coerced by evil people.”

Unfortunately, this type of vitriol is commonly directed at atheists, who have become the last religious group to receive widespread social persecution. The continued prejudice against atheists is an obstacle to productive religious discourse.