So Brian Said

Fascinating. Take a 20-question quiz online and find out what you really believe. Even comes with zero stupid pictures to put on your blog!

My beliefs align with the following religions to the following extents:
1. Jainism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (98%)
3. Mahayana Buddhism (92%)
4. Sikhism (92%)
5. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
6. Bahá'í Faith (85%)
7. Hinduism (85%)
8. Reform Judaism (85%)
9. Theravada Buddhism (81%)
10. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (78%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (77%)
12. Neo-Pagan (76%)
13. Orthodox Judaism (74%)
14. Islam (71%)
15. New Age (64%)
16. Taoism (62%)
17. Seventh Day Adventist (56%)
18. Secular Humanism (55%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (48%)
20. Scientology (44%)
21. New Thought (43%)
22. Eastern Orthodox (39%)
23. Roman Catholic (39%)
24. Nontheist (38%)
25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (36%)
26. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (30%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (29%)

I think this quiz is especially interesting, because it asks fundamental questions about your religion, forcing you to figure out whether or not you believe that what you've been told for years and years is actual, historical fact, and then on top of that, it asks you how much you even care whether it's true or not.

Everyone follow-up and report back.

EDIT: Note that it mentions when you're finished that a 100 percent doesn't actually mean you agree with the religion on everything it asked, though I'm not sure why it marks it that way.
--McJangles 2:38 AM
|

This episode of sunburn shall hereafter be referred to as "The Time Brian Learned His Lesson."
--McJangles 2:27 AM
|

On second thought, the Supreme Court probably did the right thing.

As much as I would have loved to see "under God" stricken from the pledge, and as plain as it is that that would be the right decision, it probably is better for the court to avoid up-ending years-old, thoroughly ingrained laws and setting precedent that would reach far beyond the instant case.

The Constitution probably shouldn't be tinkered with, and laws shouldn't be tinkered with on Constitutional grounds, except when absolutely necessary.

Four justices wrote an opinion saying that they would keep "under God," as would Scalia, who recused himself. So if the other four would have taken the clause out — they made a point of not saying — it would have been a tie. I have to wonder if the justices who wanted it out agreed they could at least forestall a loss on the issue by agreeing that Newdow lacked standing.

Michael Newdow's story — making a climb to the Supreme Court, presenting excellent oral arguments pro se and then being thrown out because he didn't have some stupid minor crap taken care of properly reminds me of a certain someone's exploits at the Buchtelite, and my empathy goes out to him.

However, this case will be brought back, and can presumably skip right over the district and circuit court if the circumstances can be replicated closely enough by someone who has custody of his child.

As I said two years ago in my first post on the matter, yes, Newdow was nitpicking at something that probably wasn't really a problem. I have acknowledged that from the beginning, but it really doesn't matter.

In cases like these, where someone raises First Amendment challenges, the government will inevitably submit a brief or present an argument saying something like "The First Amendment was never meant to protect" whatever they're arguing against. That is a lie. I think that if you take a look at the Founding Fathers (notable exceptions including John Adams), you'll find plenty of things that are supposedly not meant to be protected speech, including offensive speech, indecency and even some libel.

The other default argument is that "The republic is in no grave danger from the law as it stands."

Yes, it's been 50 years, and yes America still has 50 states (We only had 48 then), but the country being intact doesn't mean that all of its laws are constitutional.

So when the case comes back, you and the Supreme Court should remember that the First Amendment is the reason that America isn't China, and anyone who ignores or works to undermine it is a treasonous dog.
--McJangles 8:45 PM
|

Worst Supreme Court ever.
--McJangles 1:04 PM
|

First of all, let me say this: I typically think that it is simply the height of vanity for a man to comment on feeling uncomfortable by being checked out by a purportedly gay person. It usually strikes me simply as the person wanting to stroke his own ego by saying that someone is checking him out while toning it down by acting like he couldn't be interested. These guys, on the other hand, wouldn't even bother to comment on being looked at by a woman whom they weren't interested in because she was ugly.

That said: This guy at Borders was creeping me the hell out. (Second note: this is not the guy who offered to get me a deal on the OED, who seems completely undangerous) He looked pretty gay to me, but may have just been well-groomed. For anyone from Akron, think of the guy from Greek Affairs if he kept in shape. For anyone else, think of an Abercrombie tool with a bad tan, a couple earrings and, I think, a little bit of eyeshadow.

Anyway, the occasions of creepiness are too numerous to mention, but here's a taste. I walk in, and there he is. I go to reference and he's in the row behind me. He leaves after I see him, and then I go to a computer to see when the new AP style guide comes out. I turn around and he's walking past. I return to reference and he passes in the row in front me. I head over to look at the music, and he passes by me. I go to look for hot chicks in the coffee shop, come out, and he's standing by the DVDs as I pass by. Then I go to the bargain books, and he's suddenly looking at the music on the first rack over. I set down my stack of books at the first bargain-book table I come to and continue looking through. I find something and am reading it as I make my way over to put it with the rest of my stuff. I look up for the first time since picking it up, and HE'S STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME! MAKING EYE CONTACT!

I about shat myself.

I quickly scurried off, trying my best to look straight, but he saw all my geek books and the classical CDs. I didn't think that would give him the message, but I think he sensed my aura turning a defensive color, and that was the last time he was creepily close to me. I managed to pick up the rest of my books and make it out of the store unmolested. I like to use that word in the context it's meant to be used, especially when it coincides with the more perverted meaning.

And there you have a decent post. Blammo!
--McJangles 1:31 AM
|

MEMO
To: Me
From: Me
RE: (no subject)

Hey, a little more getting-over-it and a little less being a loser. Thanks.
--McJangles 11:58 PM
|

For anybody who isn't as fervently supportive of a free press as I am, I give you... Pravda! (Make sure you check out the links on the side)
--McJangles 2:19 AM
|