Lee Feagin

Religion is a hard topic for me. Mostly because I don’t believe in it. It’s not my cup of tea. It doesn’t obey any of my “tests” for what is logical and correct and right. In my view, it’s poisonous. And has brought nothing but harm and (literally) bloodshed for thousand of years.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

No, seriously.

A topic piqued my interest recently in the news. It was about a Texas School Board meeting earlier this month where the main agenda centered around a proposal to include a reading list with Biblical stories in the state’s K-12 curriculum. You’ll get the gist from this quote found in the CBS News article:

“Our children need truth,” said Nathan Irving, a pastor and father of eight from Myrtle Springs, Texas. “Truth is the only currency that never devalues. Investing truth into our children is the most loving thing that we can do for them. This is the truth. This country and this state were founded upon a Christian worldview. Like it or not, it is true.”

Based on that statement alone, this gentleman is not necessarily wrong. Even saying that, though, the Constitutional bells started ringing loudly in my head. Research was needed. And off I went. Turns out (and I would even say to their credit), the Board allowed several speakers (such as that gentleman) to voice their views and opinions on the proposal, including speakers from several different religions. They even allowed an atheist speaker to share.

The central issue seemed to be the inclusion of Bible stories into the reading list. Which is interesting, because the Bible is one book. Yet, they mention multiple stories in the speakers’ statements and news article. I guess they’re teaching at the story level, just from different volumes.

Anyway, I’d like to start the atheist speaker. I found a clip on Instagram here (from what I can find, I think the speaker was Matilda Miller, but I can’t say for sure):

Your religion is not special. And you are not special for believing it. Your book has no authority over anyone except yourself. Between this mandatory reading list and the bills passed last year like SB-965, which would allow a teacher to preach these stories as if they were fact, it is clear that a special level of arrogance is in infesting the Texas government. Because it does take a truly special level of self delusion to think that you are so star-spangled special that your preferred interpretation of your preferred translation of your preferred unsubstantiated, unproven, un-falsifiable claim is correct to the point that you think you have the right to indoctrinate the next generation with it.

This is clearly a Christian supremacist agenda, if not evidenced enough by the fact that no other religions are on this list, then by the fact that you’ve had a parade of Christian supremacists at this podium openly stating that they believe their faith system is superior, supporting this list. This is not providing historical and cultural context. And to act like it is insulting to the intelligence of everyone here. Especially considering we’re talking about a religion that has done its best to erase history and wipe out other cultures in the places that they’ve colonized. And in a day when Texas government has removed restrictions on teaching these stories as if they were fact, we had a whole series of Supreme Court cases on teaching your religion’s objectively wrong claims as if they were equal to empirically verified facts and not once could Bible-thumpers provide any evidence better than magic.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000. Humans are not descended from a dirt man and a rib. There was never a global flood. And a person cannot survive in the belly of a whale for three days. I know that some of y’all are desperate to pull fact down to the level of religion by pretending evidence-based science is a religious idea. But like it or not, these are things that we can actually study and test and provide evidence for. Critical thinking, investigation, and the scientific method, encourage curiosity and learning. Whereas the Christian religion is happy to end any investigation with “accept God did it or burn for eternity”. This dogmatic sinking has led to centuries of hatred, genocide, and support for slavery. And to indoctrinate children into it is a direct harm.

What was even more interesting to me, though, is that a female Baptist pastor (Rev. Mara Bim) from Dallas also stood up and excoriated the Board:

After repeatedly speaking before you all in opposition to the Bluebonnet curriculum almost 2 years ago, I know too well some of y’all‘s really bad theology. I don’t trust any of you with my child’s religious education any more than some of you would trust me with yours because I’m a female pastor, and you are part of a faith community that says women should be silent in church.

Public schools are not Sunday schools. I do not want my child learning Bible stories from her teachers…Stop trying to force this warped un-Biblical version of Christianity on captive school children.

Now, my bias is showing here. I agree with these two people. I think it’s gross and arrogant to teach the Bible as if it’s fact (it’s not) and teach the lessons from Bible as if they are the only sense of moral judgment in the world.

Several days later, I heard David Plotz on April 9th’s episode of Slate’s Political Gabfest, where he said this on the matter:

So obviously, it is the other complaints are that there are no books from other religious traditions. Also, this curriculum would diminish the number of black and Hispanic writers. And also very much lean heavily into a kind of patriotic and uncritical view of American history. All the things that you’ve heard coming out of the Trump administration broadly and out of conservatives.

I think liberals become deeply annoying when they make a big deal out of this. The Bible is the most foundational work of literature for this country and ironically, even though because it wasn’t written in English, it is the most foundational work of English language literature. And the stories that would be taught in Texas are profoundly important as literature and morality. And when you act like America doesn’t have like this incredibly strong Christian tradition that shapes, yes, it is a religious tradition, but is a tradition that entirely shapes how the nation comes to be, exists, thrives, like what it is that that almost everyone has experienced in their lives. You sound kind of loo-loo.

It doesn’t mean that there aren’t key elements of other traditions in American culture, like (Emily, you and I) we are Jewish, there’s a stream of Jewish culture in America, and Islam, and Buddhism. But it is just a fact the overwhelming majority of Americans, for almost all of American history, have come out of a Christian tradition guided by the stories, language and stories, of the Bible as the foundational text. And of course kids should know what’s in it. And of course it should be taught. And of course we should talk about the moral lessons. I completely agree with the Christian conservatives on this. This is cultural literacy in America. And to discount it, and kind of to keep kids away from it, I think it’s stupid.

And I understand there will be an evangelical element to this. I absolutely understand that an evangelical element of the Bible is gonna be shoved down the throats of a lot of kids in Texas who are not Christian or who do not subscribe to it, I get that. That is gonna be an element. But I also think it is really important for the cultural literacy of everyone in this country to understand what the Bible is, what is has contributed, and how those stories (in fact) shape the thinking of the people who made the country and the thinking of the people who lead the country today. And I just don’t have any problem with it at all.

My jaw had dropped listening to that. To hear a Jewish man say that was…surprising. Now, later you learn that David was also schooled in a Christian-focused primary school. And let’s face it, Judaism and Christianity are not that far apart. But let’s imagine he was a Buddhist? Mormon? Hindu? Would he say the same thing? I don’t know.

The point is it made me zoom out a bit and think about what I think on this topic. And what I think is actually fairly simple in the context of the current structure of schools and their curriculum. Why can’t we just have a religious studies class?

Think about it. This class would involve teaching the modern (major) religions. It would incorporate their history, their values, what countries and cultures it has inspired, and give each of them a place in the world as compared to the other religions. When Christianity is taught, the “cultural literacy” aspect that David spoke about is ready and waiting. It will even allow the teaching of the Bible itself (in its proper context).

And with that class in place, history and social studies classes could be focused on, oh I don’t know, facts.

I still believe that the teaching of, and kids learning about, Christianity is perfectly fine and valid, if not needed. What I want is for it to be taught in the context of other religions. To say that these other religions are also valid and that Christianity is not the answer to the world’s political and moral problems. They may be for you, but you are not the only person in this world. My viewpoint matters, too. As does your neighbor’s. As does my neighbors’.

Rabbi Josh Fixler was also at the school board meeting (again, from the CBS News article), and said this:

There is a difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion, and this list will force teachers to cross that line.

Perfectly stated.

When the word inclusion is thrown around (more in the negative light these days), this is an example of that. Include the rest of these religions. Don’t sideline them or put them down. Don’t teach kids “Hinduism is not the way because it’s not Christianity”. Let kids (they are people, after all) decide what’s right for them. Let families raise their kids in whatever religion they see fit. It should never be the school’s (or the state’s) mandate that this religion is any better or worse than that religion.

(Look at me, the atheist, advocating for the teaching of more religion. How inclusive of me!)

Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, in a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, said the following:

I’m opposed to abortion. But I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life, that’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of what pro-life is.

I couldn’t agree with this more. Very well said.

Found this reel this evening. Here’s what the guy says:

You get the classic line “do your own research”. No, you didn’t do research. You watched content that agreed with you and ignored everything that didn’t. That’s not research. That’s the definition of confirmation bias. Real research is slow. It’s boring. It involves reading things that you don’t fully understand and taking the time to learn them. It involves questioning your own conclusions.

Not to sound too much like Aaron Sorkin speaking through the character of Will McAvoy, but it sure would be nice if we had a news source we could trust to do said research and present the facts that we are too busy or too ignorant (not in a bad way, just in a matter of fact way) to find on our own.

That’s what the news was for. It wasn’t for entertainment. It was to inform the public.

But no, ratings need to win. The almighty dollar needed to win. So now we are stuck in this never-ending everyone-argue-and-yell-about-every-single-point toxic cycle of crap. Where no facts exist. Only viewpoints.

And yes, I ultimately blame CNN (and their 24-hour “news” programming) for this. Because they felt the need to “fill air”, which led to Fox News, which led to everything that has been spawned since.

Sigh.

I was listening to the latest (4/8) Windows Weekly podcast this morning, and Paul (Thurrott) started describing a recent (October 2025) change to Microsoft’s Copilot Terms of Service. I’m glad someone reads these things. I certainly don’t. But what he was describing was so hilarious that I thought he was making it up. So, I went to research.

Microsoft Copilot Terms of Use

Yeah, it’s real. Here are some of my favorite nuggets:

• Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.
• Copilot tries to give you good answers, but it can make mistakes. Sometimes, the sources Copilot uses may not be reliable, relevant, or accurate, and sometimes, Copilot may give you wrong information. When responding, Copilot may use information it finds on the internet, and we don’t control that content. You might see Responses that seem convincing but are incomplete, inaccurate, or inappropriate.
• We plan to continue to develop and improve Copilot, but we make no guarantees or promises about how Copilot will operate or that it will operate as intended.
• You agree to indemnify us and hold us harmless (including our affiliates, employees and any other agents) from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising from or relating to your use of Copilot, including without limitation your use, sharing, or publication of any Prompt, Responses, or Creations, or your breach of these Terms or violation of applicable law.

Really? So, what I’m gathering is that you don’t stand behind what this produces, I shouldn’t trust it because it’s only for entertainment, and when it does produce utterly inaccurate information, you’re totally not liable for it.

Cool.

Look, I grant you that these are the terms of use for individuals. And every other AI company is going to say the same thing. But come on. Every fucking news story I see has something to do with AI and its grandiose (false) promises. It just makes me angry to see all of the marketing (dollars and mindshare) and “see how magical this is” messaging to the unwashed (i.e. the non-technical public) that I want to rip my arm off just so I have something to throw at them.

I was scrolling through Instagram reels (as I do…also, I should probably stop, but that’s a topic for a different day). I came across a clip from a podcast that I had never heard of before. It’s called Macrodosing (from Barstool Sports). I don’t quite know what kind of show it actually is because this is the only clip I’ve ever seen or heard.

Regardless, in the April 9th episode, the host (who seems to go by Big T (or Big Tennessee) is speaking with Tim Miller (of The Bulwark) about politics and voting. Uh oh.

Yeah, uh oh.

Let me first set the scene with a screen cap. This is from the YouTube episode, so I’m not exaggerating anything.

Yes, over his left shoulder is a big University of Tennessee flag on the wall. To his right is a John Rocker Braves jersey. Yes, that John Rocker.

This is what we’re dealing with.

Back to Instagram clips. Like most clips, it starts with a spicy hot take. This one, from Big T:

Now the Dems could never get me, Tim. No matter what happens, they’ll never get me…lots of other speaking that doesn’t amount to much…I don’t feel there is any common ground anymore between myself and anyone running on a Democratic platform.

Ok, I have no issue with that, actually. People have different beliefs. Different viewpoints. Different outlooks. Cool.

After that nugget, though, Miller attempts to ask him “why?” He wants Big T to articulate why he believes he could never vote for a Democrat (seemingly over a Republican, if not Trump himself). After endless hemming and hawing, he finally drops the old familiar line:

But as an evangelical Christian, I find the current state of the Democratic Party just totally opposed to everything I believe.

Really? Is that right, Big T? The big, bad Democrats and their heathen ways. No self-respecting God-fearing boy would ever vote for no godless Democrat, right?

I just want someone, ANYONE, to follow-up a statement like that with the following:

“And what about the current Republican Party gives you those good vibes about being an evangelical Christian? Is it that bastion of Christian ethics and stewardship, Donald Trump? What teachings of Jesus, who you so longingly cling to as the right way, does a the current Republican Party adhere to? Please, give us some examples. I’ll wait.”

Why can’t anyone ask these people those (seemingly) simple follow-up questions?

It’s just angers me to no end.

Here’s a situation where I don’t think plugging this into any of the LLMs is going to help.

We are exploring moving away from Great Plains to Microsoft’s online platform Business Central. In our current workflows, we utilize both GP web services and eConnect API calls. Custom-written middleware, to be sure. Yet, BC doesn’t have the same API calls. Not only that, some of the API calls don’t exist in BC at all. Meaning we have to lean on 3rd party solutions. The one we’re talking with now is very new. And even with them, there will need to be some custom development done to accommodate .

I don’t think AI (I hate that term now) is going to help here. Real engineers and real software developers will be needed to find a solution. So, please, spare me the “we don’t ever need developers again” thought leader rhetoric.