Though publicly most religions promote peace, love and harmony; they're actually rooted in fear and paranoia.
While we all have foibles, most people involved with organized religion would be much better individuals were their reaction to seeing a holy book, "What in the world is that?"
Fearing the unknown, they choose to believe a tale that eventually puts them in heaven for all of eternity. Because of this fear, they're forced to champion positions with which they would otherwise likely disagree.
Discrimination against gays is the best example. Were someone not telling you, "That same-sex couple is sinning" you wouldn't think an offense was in progress because their actions harm nary a sole.
When somebody else must tell you that a specific behavior is sinful, it means the fear has taken control of your life. When your judgments are not your own, something is wrong. Ask yourself, what other non-harmful behavior could the elders convince you to believe is a sin?
If you witnessed a thief ruthlessly bash an elderly man about the head with a brick, rob him and then leave him for dead, a rush of adrenaline would shoot through your entire body. You would be sickened to your very core. You would instinctively have the desire to enact immediate revenge.
If you saw two men walking down the street hand-in-hand, you would feel no rush of adrenaline. As your instincts would not alert you there is a problem, you would be forced to remind yourself that the men in your presence are committing a horrible crime against humanity just as you would be forced to remind yourself that your "lovely" wife had asked you to pick up a carton of milk after passing by the refrigerated section of the supermarket on your way to select a six-pack of something that would ease the pain associated with the fact that heterosexual marriage was legal when you tied the knot.
It's a shame too, because, and trust me, I know; a life without fear of the irrational is a life worth living, whereas, a life wasted worrying about what could possibly be on the other side is, well, just that: wasted.
The fear also forces you to credit your good deeds to a higher power. Would you not act nobly, an overwhelming majority of the time, had you never even heard of the religion your mom and/or dad told you was the one true god-based non-profit organization?
In other words, you treat people with respect because you're a good person, not because you're afraid you'll eventually be punished for your earthly transgressions. After all, were you to carefully read the Old Testament, you'd discover that you’re either committing loads of victimless crimes, or allowing others to get away with them. Unless, that is, you’ve recently slain a person or persons entering an establishment filled with readers of tarot cards.
Let me ask you... Since you're likely ignorant of some Biblical crimes you either commit, or allow be committed in your presence, are you a sinner of epic proportion? Or, in instances where you assume your Bible doesn't offer an opinion, are you simply choosing right over wrong and therefore choosing correctly?
I have a feeling it's the latter, for when watching a fictional program or a very real newscast, that either dramatizes, or shows the aftermath of, a morally questionable act, you likely never say to your loved one, "I am unable to pass judgment without guidance from my creator."
I bet you were convinced most atheists vehemently dislike all followers of organized religion, and here I go telling the world that most of you are good and would be even better were you to think for yourselves!
Look at me bridging the gap!
So stop living in fear and listen to your gut. Your gut wouldn't tell you that homosexuality is a sin.
But it would tell you that the persecution of a same-sex couple is an act most vile.
The bottom line is: had you never opened your holy book of choice, you would be far more moral than you are today, and, unlike your holy book, would likely be correct in your interpretation of right versus wrong.
Are You Certain Atheists are to the Extreme?
Like most atheists, I'm a very rational person. I don't have a conniption fit every time I see a Nativity scene displayed on public property. Though I would prefer it be absent, upon returning home I don't get out my laptop and begin a thorough letter writing campaign using words like, "disgusted" "outraged" and “had to pull over and upchuck the bean & cheese burrito I consumed for lunch!" (Aren't my columns ladylike!?)
Instead I prefer to target my rage at store clerks who respond to my after-purchase thank you with, "You're welcome," instead of, "No, thank you for your business." Makes me so mad!
But I digress...
Again, while I personally don't object to Nativity scenes on public grounds, me thinks you Christians have used your overwhelming majority to portray those who do protest such displays as kooks.
But why is someone insisting public property be free of Nativity scenes labeled "irrational," while a person demanding Nativity scenes be all over public property labeled "normal."
Because in America there are many more Christians than members of other religions and atheists combined, if half of you displayed a Nativity scene on your front lawn you could prevent someone like me from driving more than 50 feet without seeing yet another oversized PVC version of Saint Joseph the Carpenter!
But no, that's not enough! You can't be satisfied with 50% of the homes in America being adorned with Nativity scenes; each one must be in the exact location you deem appropriate. It's just like how you freak out when a store greeter says, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". "Happy Holidays" covers more people and still expresses cheer and goodwill, but it's not enough. It must be the exact two words you've selected. It doesn't matter that you don't own the store and aren't forced to shop there. Yet you claim atheists are psychopathic for declaring a "war on Christmas"?
I understand many Christians don't care if store greeters say, "Happy Holidays" or "Satan is instructing me to remind you that apples are priced so low he needn't tempt anyone," just like I don't care if I'm blindsided with "Merry Christmas" a dozen times in a single Wal-Mart. There are sensitive Christians who only visit courthouses to make sure the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, just like there are sensitive atheists who dedicate a majority of their time to ridding all public land of anything remotely religious.
Yet sensitive atheists alone are fanatical despite the fact that their desire is for everyone to follow the law!?
I know, you claim the Constitution doesn't specifically call for the separation of church and state; only declaring that the government cannot establish an official religion.
But if you declared that the members of your household would not establish support for a particular NFL team, then placed banners on which were printed the red and gold logo of the squad that plays weekly in San Francisco, everyone entering would be pretty certain they're in 49er country and therefore be mighty uncomfortable showing support for the Dallas Cowboys.
So stop saying people who don't agree with you are fanatical simply because anyone with a differing opinion must be nuts. "How crazy are they for failing to just shut up while we erect displays that violate the Constitution."
I know it's a little premature for a column related to holiday controversies, but I'm trying to get my Christmas writing done early.
Instead I prefer to target my rage at store clerks who respond to my after-purchase thank you with, "You're welcome," instead of, "No, thank you for your business." Makes me so mad!
But I digress...
Again, while I personally don't object to Nativity scenes on public grounds, me thinks you Christians have used your overwhelming majority to portray those who do protest such displays as kooks.
But why is someone insisting public property be free of Nativity scenes labeled "irrational," while a person demanding Nativity scenes be all over public property labeled "normal."
Because in America there are many more Christians than members of other religions and atheists combined, if half of you displayed a Nativity scene on your front lawn you could prevent someone like me from driving more than 50 feet without seeing yet another oversized PVC version of Saint Joseph the Carpenter!
But no, that's not enough! You can't be satisfied with 50% of the homes in America being adorned with Nativity scenes; each one must be in the exact location you deem appropriate. It's just like how you freak out when a store greeter says, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". "Happy Holidays" covers more people and still expresses cheer and goodwill, but it's not enough. It must be the exact two words you've selected. It doesn't matter that you don't own the store and aren't forced to shop there. Yet you claim atheists are psychopathic for declaring a "war on Christmas"?
I understand many Christians don't care if store greeters say, "Happy Holidays" or "Satan is instructing me to remind you that apples are priced so low he needn't tempt anyone," just like I don't care if I'm blindsided with "Merry Christmas" a dozen times in a single Wal-Mart. There are sensitive Christians who only visit courthouses to make sure the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, just like there are sensitive atheists who dedicate a majority of their time to ridding all public land of anything remotely religious.
Yet sensitive atheists alone are fanatical despite the fact that their desire is for everyone to follow the law!?
I know, you claim the Constitution doesn't specifically call for the separation of church and state; only declaring that the government cannot establish an official religion.
But if you declared that the members of your household would not establish support for a particular NFL team, then placed banners on which were printed the red and gold logo of the squad that plays weekly in San Francisco, everyone entering would be pretty certain they're in 49er country and therefore be mighty uncomfortable showing support for the Dallas Cowboys.
So stop saying people who don't agree with you are fanatical simply because anyone with a differing opinion must be nuts. "How crazy are they for failing to just shut up while we erect displays that violate the Constitution."
I know it's a little premature for a column related to holiday controversies, but I'm trying to get my Christmas writing done early.
Why is Choosing One Religion Slamming the Others?
I view any follower of organized religion, who claims the existence of god is certain, who claims to know exactly who god speaks to or has spoken to, and claims to know how God feels about victimless acts such as homosexuality, the same. For peace of mind, they've all chosen to find comfort in stories that don't logically add up.
From conversations I've had with religious people, they view followers of other religions the same way I view followers of any religion.
In other words, I'm saying, "You're all gullible for believing such farfetched tales," whereas you're saying, "I'm willing to spend thousands of hard earned dollars furthering a story common sense says is bogus, but the crazy scenario you've chosen to believe is ridiculous! Seriously, I own a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell ya on the cheap."
It'd be like saying, "You actually believe Santa Claus visits the home of every single boy and girl in the world on Christmas Eve. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard! Now, if you'll excuse me, I just lost a tooth and therefore must get to sleep in anticipation of a visit from the esteemed Tooth Fairy. I have a hunch her majesty is going to be very good to me!"
Christians say, "Jews are nuts for not believing Christ is the son of God." Muslims say, "Those poor Christians and their false prophet... what are they thinking!" They all believe the other is insane despite the fact that they likely came to their conclusions for the exact same reasons.
You guys sure aren't very tolerant, though you all claim your god is perfect. I suppose you view tolerance as less than ideal. And why aren't you people on the same side? I'll make up a parable that relates to your situation: There are two groups of people fighting for the right to marry animals. They constantly butt heads because one group wants to marry their tigers while the other group wants to marry their lions. "Why in the world would anyone want to marry a lion!? Lion marriage is against nature, while tiger love is as pure as the driven snow," the leader of the first group asks the leader of the second group. Then they each realize bestiality is wrong, and, in their case, very dangerous, and live happily ever after.
Okay, the ending needs work but you get the idea.
It's clear why you have a burning desire to silence me, but why each other!? "I chose my religion because my parents told me it is correct, but nevertheless condemn you for choosing your religion for the exact same reason."
Seriously, if you are a follower of organized religion, you must realize that you only believe because you were taught to believe. Can you Christians say with certainty that you would still accept Christ had your parents taught you that Islam was the path to salvation? Can you Jews say that you would have chosen Judaism had your parents taught you the New Testament was fact?
Of course not.
All followers of organized religion believe because otherwise would mean fearing an afterlife in hell... Because otherwise would mean ridicule from your parents, peers, and siblings... Because otherwise would mean spending time alone in your room just thinking about how horrible a person you are for not blindly following the teachings of the church elders.
Face it, anything could have been written on the pages of the book you were taught is holy. Your teacher could have erased everything and started over and you'd still accept every word.
So whether you're a Christian, a Muslim or a follower of Judaism, why not embrace your differences and give your fellow religious man or woman the freedom to believe as they see fit, because they basically followed your path.
Had religious people throughout history taken this stance, scores would have been spared. If all religious people currently in the world would acknowledge everyone has an equal right to believe as they choose, we could keep our shoes on from the time we enter the airport from the time we exit the airport!
From conversations I've had with religious people, they view followers of other religions the same way I view followers of any religion.
In other words, I'm saying, "You're all gullible for believing such farfetched tales," whereas you're saying, "I'm willing to spend thousands of hard earned dollars furthering a story common sense says is bogus, but the crazy scenario you've chosen to believe is ridiculous! Seriously, I own a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell ya on the cheap."
It'd be like saying, "You actually believe Santa Claus visits the home of every single boy and girl in the world on Christmas Eve. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard! Now, if you'll excuse me, I just lost a tooth and therefore must get to sleep in anticipation of a visit from the esteemed Tooth Fairy. I have a hunch her majesty is going to be very good to me!"
Christians say, "Jews are nuts for not believing Christ is the son of God." Muslims say, "Those poor Christians and their false prophet... what are they thinking!" They all believe the other is insane despite the fact that they likely came to their conclusions for the exact same reasons.
You guys sure aren't very tolerant, though you all claim your god is perfect. I suppose you view tolerance as less than ideal. And why aren't you people on the same side? I'll make up a parable that relates to your situation: There are two groups of people fighting for the right to marry animals. They constantly butt heads because one group wants to marry their tigers while the other group wants to marry their lions. "Why in the world would anyone want to marry a lion!? Lion marriage is against nature, while tiger love is as pure as the driven snow," the leader of the first group asks the leader of the second group. Then they each realize bestiality is wrong, and, in their case, very dangerous, and live happily ever after.
Okay, the ending needs work but you get the idea.
It's clear why you have a burning desire to silence me, but why each other!? "I chose my religion because my parents told me it is correct, but nevertheless condemn you for choosing your religion for the exact same reason."
Seriously, if you are a follower of organized religion, you must realize that you only believe because you were taught to believe. Can you Christians say with certainty that you would still accept Christ had your parents taught you that Islam was the path to salvation? Can you Jews say that you would have chosen Judaism had your parents taught you the New Testament was fact?
Of course not.
All followers of organized religion believe because otherwise would mean fearing an afterlife in hell... Because otherwise would mean ridicule from your parents, peers, and siblings... Because otherwise would mean spending time alone in your room just thinking about how horrible a person you are for not blindly following the teachings of the church elders.
Face it, anything could have been written on the pages of the book you were taught is holy. Your teacher could have erased everything and started over and you'd still accept every word.
So whether you're a Christian, a Muslim or a follower of Judaism, why not embrace your differences and give your fellow religious man or woman the freedom to believe as they see fit, because they basically followed your path.
Had religious people throughout history taken this stance, scores would have been spared. If all religious people currently in the world would acknowledge everyone has an equal right to believe as they choose, we could keep our shoes on from the time we enter the airport from the time we exit the airport!
What Is Your Obsession with the Unknown?
One of the biggest questions facing the United States today is whether Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian.
Thankfully most Americans take him at his word and recognize he is a follower of the Christian faith. Sadly, however, many think he's not telling the truth about the story he chooses to believe regarding the origin of man and what is needed to experience perfection in the afterlife.
What's even sadder is the obsession everyone has with the unknown.
I hate to break it to you, but you don't know with certainty that anybody believes what they claim.
Maybe Barack Obama isn't a Christian. Maybe he says he's a believer simply because he wouldn't otherwise be electable. I wouldn't really blame Mr. Obama if that were the case; I would instead fault the millions of citizens who refuse to elect a qualified candidate simply because he or she chooses rationality over a far-fetched tale that, "feels true."
Despite words to the contrary, perhaps your loving spouse doesn't share your religious views. Perhaps he or she joined a church because it was a good place to meet members of the opposite sex. And, after building a romantic relationship with roots in the church, it's not easy to all of sudden admit you're a fraud.
"Please bow your heads and let us thank God for this meal."
"Yeah, about that..."
Every regular on your pew could be living a lie. Someone could be using the church as a fraternity for adults, someone may love to sing but has grown tired of the local karaoke scene, and someone could be in desperate need of a stellar day care center. (Okay, I got that from an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, but life imitates art!)
Organized religion has corrupted society so much that it becomes a scandal when a person believes, but can't prove, another person doesn't believe what they claim to believe but can't prove. The future of our county rides on information nobody will ever know for certain is true and doesn't really matter anyway.
Why not make life about what we do know. We do know we're here. We do know the legislative habits of most major candidates. I say we leave it at that.
Thankfully most Americans take him at his word and recognize he is a follower of the Christian faith. Sadly, however, many think he's not telling the truth about the story he chooses to believe regarding the origin of man and what is needed to experience perfection in the afterlife.
What's even sadder is the obsession everyone has with the unknown.
I hate to break it to you, but you don't know with certainty that anybody believes what they claim.
Maybe Barack Obama isn't a Christian. Maybe he says he's a believer simply because he wouldn't otherwise be electable. I wouldn't really blame Mr. Obama if that were the case; I would instead fault the millions of citizens who refuse to elect a qualified candidate simply because he or she chooses rationality over a far-fetched tale that, "feels true."
Despite words to the contrary, perhaps your loving spouse doesn't share your religious views. Perhaps he or she joined a church because it was a good place to meet members of the opposite sex. And, after building a romantic relationship with roots in the church, it's not easy to all of sudden admit you're a fraud.
"Please bow your heads and let us thank God for this meal."
"Yeah, about that..."
Every regular on your pew could be living a lie. Someone could be using the church as a fraternity for adults, someone may love to sing but has grown tired of the local karaoke scene, and someone could be in desperate need of a stellar day care center. (Okay, I got that from an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, but life imitates art!)
Organized religion has corrupted society so much that it becomes a scandal when a person believes, but can't prove, another person doesn't believe what they claim to believe but can't prove. The future of our county rides on information nobody will ever know for certain is true and doesn't really matter anyway.
Why not make life about what we do know. We do know we're here. We do know the legislative habits of most major candidates. I say we leave it at that.
Maybe Your Bases Aren't Covered
Religious people enjoy telling atheists, "If I'm wrong and you're right, it's really no big deal because our fates will be identical. If you're wrong and I'm right, it's an enormous deal because I'll be in heaven for all of eternity while you'll be experiencing pain of the worst kind."
But what if we're both wrong? What if there is a god, but every single religion in the world is way off regarding the specifics?
And what if the creator of the galaxy is extremely upset so many people buy into unsubstantiated rumors that he's in favor of stoning homosexuals?
About atheists, what if he says, "Big deal if they don't believe in me; at least they think logically."
About those involved in organized religion, what if he says, "They believe I did what!? I'd rather them not believe in me at all than believe I have no moral compass."
What if it irks him to no end that so many people constantly ask for small favors? Or what if he's actually quite humble and therefore annoyed with all the worship? "Stop making such a fuss over me and get on with your life!" After all, had you created an entire civilization, would you want your minions running around asking for things unworthy of your time? Do parents appreciate it? "Can I get a new skateboard, can my tax refund be large enough for a trip to Disney World, can I get enough votes to be named captain of the cheerleading squad, etc."
If there is a creator, and he isn't exactly like the being described in your holy book, chances are he's nothing like the being described in your holy book, and may even get a little offended at how he's portrayed. Say your parents never told you which religion was correct, but, on your own, you deduced a deity created the universe. Would you automatically assume he despises the behavior of individuals who simply act on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Or would you assume he'd say, "As long as they're not harming anyone, what's the big deal?"
But only religious beliefs taught to you by family elders, or individuals clad in decorative robes surrounded by stained glass, bring the peace of mind you seek, and I'm sure the comfort level that accompanies thinking your bases are covered for all of eternity is off the charts! The fear of the unknown is the reason organized religion has spread like wildfire. It's the reason so many otherwise rational individuals are willing to believe irrational tales originating eons ago as passed down by individuals whose sanity can't be verified. "There's no way I can know what the afterlife holds, so I'll convince myself that those who dreamed up a perfect, albeit far-fetched, scenario are correct!"
Peace of mind is important. You sleep better knowing with certainty you closed the garage door. It's something you can't control. "Just go to sleep, you know you pushed the button," you tell yourself. Then you hear a noise. Probably just the wind, but you convince yourself it's a gang of unruly teenagers that consider a wide open garage, "the motherload." So much irrational doubt simply because you lack peace of mind...
Because peace of mind is so vital when pertaining to the mundane, when it comes to matters of great significance, such as where you'll be spending eternity, peace of mind becomes more valuable than gold.
It's a shame that the comfort peace of mind brings cripples the ability of many to arrive at rational conclusions.
But what if we're both wrong? What if there is a god, but every single religion in the world is way off regarding the specifics?
And what if the creator of the galaxy is extremely upset so many people buy into unsubstantiated rumors that he's in favor of stoning homosexuals?
About atheists, what if he says, "Big deal if they don't believe in me; at least they think logically."
About those involved in organized religion, what if he says, "They believe I did what!? I'd rather them not believe in me at all than believe I have no moral compass."
What if it irks him to no end that so many people constantly ask for small favors? Or what if he's actually quite humble and therefore annoyed with all the worship? "Stop making such a fuss over me and get on with your life!" After all, had you created an entire civilization, would you want your minions running around asking for things unworthy of your time? Do parents appreciate it? "Can I get a new skateboard, can my tax refund be large enough for a trip to Disney World, can I get enough votes to be named captain of the cheerleading squad, etc."
If there is a creator, and he isn't exactly like the being described in your holy book, chances are he's nothing like the being described in your holy book, and may even get a little offended at how he's portrayed. Say your parents never told you which religion was correct, but, on your own, you deduced a deity created the universe. Would you automatically assume he despises the behavior of individuals who simply act on their inherent attraction to members of the same sex? Or would you assume he'd say, "As long as they're not harming anyone, what's the big deal?"
But only religious beliefs taught to you by family elders, or individuals clad in decorative robes surrounded by stained glass, bring the peace of mind you seek, and I'm sure the comfort level that accompanies thinking your bases are covered for all of eternity is off the charts! The fear of the unknown is the reason organized religion has spread like wildfire. It's the reason so many otherwise rational individuals are willing to believe irrational tales originating eons ago as passed down by individuals whose sanity can't be verified. "There's no way I can know what the afterlife holds, so I'll convince myself that those who dreamed up a perfect, albeit far-fetched, scenario are correct!"
Peace of mind is important. You sleep better knowing with certainty you closed the garage door. It's something you can't control. "Just go to sleep, you know you pushed the button," you tell yourself. Then you hear a noise. Probably just the wind, but you convince yourself it's a gang of unruly teenagers that consider a wide open garage, "the motherload." So much irrational doubt simply because you lack peace of mind...
Because peace of mind is so vital when pertaining to the mundane, when it comes to matters of great significance, such as where you'll be spending eternity, peace of mind becomes more valuable than gold.
It's a shame that the comfort peace of mind brings cripples the ability of many to arrive at rational conclusions.
For Pennies a Day, You Can Help a Child
Your heart aches when you think of their tiny impoverished faces. Their blank stares cause you to wonder if the surrounding circumstances have warped their fragile little minds. The rumbling of hungry stomachs is nearly deafening. A fly lands on the head of a child who got so little sleep that he doesn't even have the energy to shoo it away... He looks up at his father, wondering from where their next meal will come.
The hunger finally overwhelming the tyke, he tearfully grasps the hand of his father and bellows, "Daddy, are we going to Denny's or IHOP? And when, I'm starving!?"
"Right after church. I told you to eat a bowl of Golden Grahams before we left."
Millions of similar heartbreaking tales occur around the world each week.
Throughout history, many children, just like the one in the above story, grow up to perpetrate violence in the name of their religion.
The aggressive religion often changes, as if there is an invisible, yet deadly, baton they pass back and forth, but most have been guilty at one time or another; and even religions that currently promote peace could take a brutal turn for the worse at any moment, for their books all contain passages that call for the brutal termination of "sinners."
Join me in stopping the violence.
For pennies a day you could keep these people occupied with secular outings.
People like coffee in the a.m.
Bowling alleys are relatively empty on Sunday mornings.
10K run, anyone?
Most fishermen I know catch their biggest prizes before noon.
If we each get one person to refrain from participating in organized religion, we could save lives.
You don't need to convert the believer, just keep him or her away from large groups of likeminded people to ensure they don't develop a plan to carry out their god's wishes as revealed in Chapter the Seventh, Verse Five Plus Twenty of their holy book, which states, without room for misinterpretation, "Off with the head of the non-believer!"
Just think of how much bloodshed could have been prevented had people in ancient cultures distracted those who began seeking guidance from tablets others claimed were the word of a higher power?
It's never too late.
Please, won't you help me end the misery?
The hunger finally overwhelming the tyke, he tearfully grasps the hand of his father and bellows, "Daddy, are we going to Denny's or IHOP? And when, I'm starving!?"
"Right after church. I told you to eat a bowl of Golden Grahams before we left."
Millions of similar heartbreaking tales occur around the world each week.
Throughout history, many children, just like the one in the above story, grow up to perpetrate violence in the name of their religion.
The aggressive religion often changes, as if there is an invisible, yet deadly, baton they pass back and forth, but most have been guilty at one time or another; and even religions that currently promote peace could take a brutal turn for the worse at any moment, for their books all contain passages that call for the brutal termination of "sinners."
Join me in stopping the violence.
For pennies a day you could keep these people occupied with secular outings.
People like coffee in the a.m.
Bowling alleys are relatively empty on Sunday mornings.
10K run, anyone?
Most fishermen I know catch their biggest prizes before noon.
If we each get one person to refrain from participating in organized religion, we could save lives.
You don't need to convert the believer, just keep him or her away from large groups of likeminded people to ensure they don't develop a plan to carry out their god's wishes as revealed in Chapter the Seventh, Verse Five Plus Twenty of their holy book, which states, without room for misinterpretation, "Off with the head of the non-believer!"
Just think of how much bloodshed could have been prevented had people in ancient cultures distracted those who began seeking guidance from tablets others claimed were the word of a higher power?
It's never too late.
Please, won't you help me end the misery?
Glenn Beck Should Open Up About Organized Religion
I recently wrote a piece about the reluctance of religious leaders to talk about controversial beliefs held by their followers. Basically I was wondering why, since he's so gung-ho to promote Scientology, Mr. Tom Cruise isn't out there happily telling anyone and everyone the story of Xenu. According to Scientologists, Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy", 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.
Obviously the reason Mr. Cruise isn't regularly on Good Morning America talking about such things is because everyone would recognize the fact that he, and his fellow followers of Scientology, are a tad loco.
The fact that Scientologists have a few loose screws is not exactly breaking news.
And besides, Mr. Cruise isn't out there slamming people for their unwillingness to discuss uncomfortable topics.
Glenn Beck is.
"All I want is for the White House to tell America why they hired admitted communist Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar," Mr. Beck told his audience.
Because he claims to only desire openness, why isn't he in favor of controversial portions of his own religion being widely discussed with great regularity?
Like most followers of organized religion, Mr. Beck will only talk about the good parts. Don’t harm your fellow man, reject vices, if you believe, you are looking at an eternity of perfection, etc.
Though Mr. Beck never claimed President Obama is a Muslim, during his discussion of the topic, he played a clip of Mr. Obama saying, about the Bible, "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"
While the clip was being played, Mr. Beck only shook his head in disgust. He was absolutely sickened by the fact that President Obama would point out such disturbing truths.
But Mr. Beck never explained why such passages should be so easily dismissed.
Was Mr. Beck implying that Jesus came in and rectified all the really bad stuff in the Old Testament - that, because of Jesus, every evil act supported in the Old Testament should be forgotten? Instead of shaking your head because the topic was discussed, why not further the discussion, Mr. Beck?
Were I considering a conversion to Christianity, I would want to know how the church justified the stoning of a child. What, did Jesus change god's mind? Hasn't god always been perfect - how could he go from suggesting such a thing to condemning the act?
But Mr. Beck left the uncomfortable topic untouched, just as he criticizes the Obama Administration for doing when matters such as communists in the White House arise.
Mr. Beck, who is calling for the entire country to return to god, is a Mormon. I would love to get his take on Kolob, which Mormons believe is the star closest to god.
What rational reason does he have for believing an angel visited Latter Day Saint movement founder Joseph Smith in the 1820's and delivered, in an unknown language, what would later become the Book of Mormon?
Why doesn't Mr. Beck reject the claims of Mr. Smith as he likely rejected the claims of former Waco cult leader David Koresh? What about Joseph Smith makes his very unusual story believable? Mr. Smith also claimed god and Jesus paid him a visit. Why does Mr. Beck believe the claim of Mr. Smith over the claim of every other person over the past 200-years who has told a similar story?
I'm not talking about discussing these topics with Glenn Beck while making faces that suggest he's crazy. Regardless of what you think about Mr. Beck, you must admit that his IQ is rather high. And, as an atheist, I find it enjoyable attempting to understand why intelligent individuals believe so deeply in books I consider far-fetched, written by prophets I don't consider trustworthy.
I assume Mr. Beck doesn't discuss such topics because, like Mr. Obama (and every other politician) has a difficult time convincing America that all decisions made within the walls of his domain are spot-on, Mr. Beck would be unable to simultaneously sound rational and reasonable while explaining the controversial topics pertaining to Mormonism and Christianity.
So, to keep the conversion rate high, he chooses to ignore beliefs about which he doesn't want you to know specifics; which is the exact reason he so often criticizes the Obama Administration.
Obviously the reason Mr. Cruise isn't regularly on Good Morning America talking about such things is because everyone would recognize the fact that he, and his fellow followers of Scientology, are a tad loco.
The fact that Scientologists have a few loose screws is not exactly breaking news.
And besides, Mr. Cruise isn't out there slamming people for their unwillingness to discuss uncomfortable topics.
Glenn Beck is.
"All I want is for the White House to tell America why they hired admitted communist Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar," Mr. Beck told his audience.
Because he claims to only desire openness, why isn't he in favor of controversial portions of his own religion being widely discussed with great regularity?
Like most followers of organized religion, Mr. Beck will only talk about the good parts. Don’t harm your fellow man, reject vices, if you believe, you are looking at an eternity of perfection, etc.
Though Mr. Beck never claimed President Obama is a Muslim, during his discussion of the topic, he played a clip of Mr. Obama saying, about the Bible, "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"
While the clip was being played, Mr. Beck only shook his head in disgust. He was absolutely sickened by the fact that President Obama would point out such disturbing truths.
But Mr. Beck never explained why such passages should be so easily dismissed.
Was Mr. Beck implying that Jesus came in and rectified all the really bad stuff in the Old Testament - that, because of Jesus, every evil act supported in the Old Testament should be forgotten? Instead of shaking your head because the topic was discussed, why not further the discussion, Mr. Beck?
Were I considering a conversion to Christianity, I would want to know how the church justified the stoning of a child. What, did Jesus change god's mind? Hasn't god always been perfect - how could he go from suggesting such a thing to condemning the act?
But Mr. Beck left the uncomfortable topic untouched, just as he criticizes the Obama Administration for doing when matters such as communists in the White House arise.
Mr. Beck, who is calling for the entire country to return to god, is a Mormon. I would love to get his take on Kolob, which Mormons believe is the star closest to god.
What rational reason does he have for believing an angel visited Latter Day Saint movement founder Joseph Smith in the 1820's and delivered, in an unknown language, what would later become the Book of Mormon?
Why doesn't Mr. Beck reject the claims of Mr. Smith as he likely rejected the claims of former Waco cult leader David Koresh? What about Joseph Smith makes his very unusual story believable? Mr. Smith also claimed god and Jesus paid him a visit. Why does Mr. Beck believe the claim of Mr. Smith over the claim of every other person over the past 200-years who has told a similar story?
I'm not talking about discussing these topics with Glenn Beck while making faces that suggest he's crazy. Regardless of what you think about Mr. Beck, you must admit that his IQ is rather high. And, as an atheist, I find it enjoyable attempting to understand why intelligent individuals believe so deeply in books I consider far-fetched, written by prophets I don't consider trustworthy.
I assume Mr. Beck doesn't discuss such topics because, like Mr. Obama (and every other politician) has a difficult time convincing America that all decisions made within the walls of his domain are spot-on, Mr. Beck would be unable to simultaneously sound rational and reasonable while explaining the controversial topics pertaining to Mormonism and Christianity.
So, to keep the conversion rate high, he chooses to ignore beliefs about which he doesn't want you to know specifics; which is the exact reason he so often criticizes the Obama Administration.
The Ground Zero Shrine to Atheism
There has been much talk about the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. Those against the mosque say, while legal, the erection of a Muslim place of worship so close to the place where the World Trade Center once stood is highly inappropriate.
Those in favor of the mosque say it will show New York and the rest of the world that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.
But you know who are really peaceful - Atheists!
So how about we scrap plans for a mosque and build a shrine to a group of people who have always retained the ability to refrain from slaughtering thousands of people for any reason whatsoever! And do you know how frustrating it is dealing with fanatics trying to convert you!? Yet not one Mormon missionary has been found dead in the living room of an atheist. What amazing restraint we have! Perhaps extreme atheists are occasionally cited for protesting inappropriately, but again, you'll notice history books completely lack sections about atheist uprisings in which thousands of believers were slaughtered in the name of nothingness. Atheist martyrs aren't willing to blow themselves up so that people will stop believing.
Despite backing up our non-violent rhetoric with non-violent action, we've never been honored. We're known as the freaks. "They relentlessly protest having our version of god shoved down their throats," the religious fanatics say. Religious folks feel confident their beliefs are correct simply because they have many fellow followers at home and abroad.
But despite the fact that atheists are the minority in every corner of the world, we've never violently lashed out. No atheist in a Muslim country dares to speak out for fear of being stoned to death for the horrific sin of not strictly following the tenants of Islam. Atheists in Christian countries, such as America, are considered outcasts, because, as the Christians say, "America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy."
People belonging to organized religions have always used oppression of their people in certain parts of the world as justification to kill. Atheists, oppressed in every part of the world, have never needed to justify violence, because we've never mastered the art, or had a desire to master the art, of mass killing.
Yet we atheists are the epitome of freakishness because we don't enjoy seeing overtly religious displays on public property.
I suppose I shouldn't condemn the weak masses, who only lash out because they're not mature enough to handle the unknown. Their desire to pretend that every unanswerable question is answerable by humans is so overwhelming that they must either kill, or justify the killing, of those who point out the fact that some mysteries will forever remain.
Since I have no chance of successfully completing my mission, I won't start a Facebook page attempting to garner support for my Ground Zero shrine to atheism. Doesn't matter really, the majority of my life is not spent trying to please what may or may not be above the clouds based on the writings of people who lived centuries ago. It's amazing how saneness is so prevalent in a group of people who start with a rational premise.
Those in favor of the mosque say it will show New York and the rest of the world that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.
But you know who are really peaceful - Atheists!
So how about we scrap plans for a mosque and build a shrine to a group of people who have always retained the ability to refrain from slaughtering thousands of people for any reason whatsoever! And do you know how frustrating it is dealing with fanatics trying to convert you!? Yet not one Mormon missionary has been found dead in the living room of an atheist. What amazing restraint we have! Perhaps extreme atheists are occasionally cited for protesting inappropriately, but again, you'll notice history books completely lack sections about atheist uprisings in which thousands of believers were slaughtered in the name of nothingness. Atheist martyrs aren't willing to blow themselves up so that people will stop believing.
Despite backing up our non-violent rhetoric with non-violent action, we've never been honored. We're known as the freaks. "They relentlessly protest having our version of god shoved down their throats," the religious fanatics say. Religious folks feel confident their beliefs are correct simply because they have many fellow followers at home and abroad.
But despite the fact that atheists are the minority in every corner of the world, we've never violently lashed out. No atheist in a Muslim country dares to speak out for fear of being stoned to death for the horrific sin of not strictly following the tenants of Islam. Atheists in Christian countries, such as America, are considered outcasts, because, as the Christians say, "America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy."
People belonging to organized religions have always used oppression of their people in certain parts of the world as justification to kill. Atheists, oppressed in every part of the world, have never needed to justify violence, because we've never mastered the art, or had a desire to master the art, of mass killing.
Yet we atheists are the epitome of freakishness because we don't enjoy seeing overtly religious displays on public property.
I suppose I shouldn't condemn the weak masses, who only lash out because they're not mature enough to handle the unknown. Their desire to pretend that every unanswerable question is answerable by humans is so overwhelming that they must either kill, or justify the killing, of those who point out the fact that some mysteries will forever remain.
Since I have no chance of successfully completing my mission, I won't start a Facebook page attempting to garner support for my Ground Zero shrine to atheism. Doesn't matter really, the majority of my life is not spent trying to please what may or may not be above the clouds based on the writings of people who lived centuries ago. It's amazing how saneness is so prevalent in a group of people who start with a rational premise.
Not Talking About It Doesn't Make It True
Certainly I lean one way politically, but have never considered myself uber-partisan simply because I believe the majority of politicians are buffoons. One of my favorite habits of elected officials on both sides of the political aisle is refusing to discuss topics about which they're clearly wrong.
"Did I pardon that criminal because his wife was one of the biggest donors to my campaign!? That is a ridiculous question and I refuse to dignify it with a response. Next unrelated question!"
It's as if some people believe that preventing the discussion of a certain topic means they're in the right.
Ever try and have a rational discussion regarding the alien/outer space beliefs of Mormons with a Mormon? To some followers of Mormonism, the proposition, "Let's discuss Kolob, which you believe is the star closest to the throne of god," are fightin' words.
Why are people so adamant they hang onto religions when the mere mention of a specific belief held by followers of the religion is cause for massive tension?
That's the beauty of atheism; you're only required to believe what you actually believe!
What a concept, huh?
It never gives religious people pause that they have been taught stories so outlandish that the mere mention of them puts followers on the defensive!?
Back to the political analogy for a second... Religious people refusing to discuss specific beliefs are akin to candidates in the midst of debates answering questions posed by moderators with completely unrelated information. It's misleading when they do it, yet I'm sure those who follow a specific religion mention all the controversial topics right away while trying to convert the lost. "So you're thinking about becoming a Mormon! I'll explain the, 'love thy neighbor' stuff later, but first I want to tell you about all the creature-inhabiting planets god created besides ours, because we can't be alone in the universe... Am I right!?"
Religious folks are of the opinion that you're required to meet certain belief-criteria or else you'll be denied entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For those who don't believe 100% of the words written in your holy book should be taken literally, what makes you so certain the authors were completely accurate while writing the verses explaining what you're required to believe in order to secure an eternity of perfection?
"Sure, some of those parables weren't based in reality, and I don't believe they actually meant I should execute that homosexual who tried to sell me hand cream in the mall, but they absolutely nailed the part about me needing to believe such-and-such in order to achieve eternal salvation!"
Just think; if they left out important details, or couldn't read their own penmanship after taking notes from god as he informed them exactly what everyone needed to believe, you could be royally screwed.
"What do you mean I can't pass through the pearly gates, I believe everything the Bible taught me," a religious person complains after receiving a notice of rejection on really nice letterhead.
"Yeah, but there was a typo in your Bible which instructed you to believe something you weren't supposed to believe. Therefore, you, and all other humans who purchased a 2008 Zondervan Bible, will not be spending the afterlife in heaven. Who would have thought the omittance of the simple word, 'don't' in Ecclesiastics would have such disastrous consequences" St. Peter replies.
"But that's not my fault!"
"You're right, it was the fault of typesetter J. Randolph Kendrick, who ironically purchased his Bible in 2000 and is therefore currently enjoying a juicy steak that will not add an inch to his svelte waistline... He is in heaven after all."
"Did I pardon that criminal because his wife was one of the biggest donors to my campaign!? That is a ridiculous question and I refuse to dignify it with a response. Next unrelated question!"
It's as if some people believe that preventing the discussion of a certain topic means they're in the right.
Ever try and have a rational discussion regarding the alien/outer space beliefs of Mormons with a Mormon? To some followers of Mormonism, the proposition, "Let's discuss Kolob, which you believe is the star closest to the throne of god," are fightin' words.
Why are people so adamant they hang onto religions when the mere mention of a specific belief held by followers of the religion is cause for massive tension?
That's the beauty of atheism; you're only required to believe what you actually believe!
What a concept, huh?
It never gives religious people pause that they have been taught stories so outlandish that the mere mention of them puts followers on the defensive!?
Back to the political analogy for a second... Religious people refusing to discuss specific beliefs are akin to candidates in the midst of debates answering questions posed by moderators with completely unrelated information. It's misleading when they do it, yet I'm sure those who follow a specific religion mention all the controversial topics right away while trying to convert the lost. "So you're thinking about becoming a Mormon! I'll explain the, 'love thy neighbor' stuff later, but first I want to tell you about all the creature-inhabiting planets god created besides ours, because we can't be alone in the universe... Am I right!?"
Religious folks are of the opinion that you're required to meet certain belief-criteria or else you'll be denied entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For those who don't believe 100% of the words written in your holy book should be taken literally, what makes you so certain the authors were completely accurate while writing the verses explaining what you're required to believe in order to secure an eternity of perfection?
"Sure, some of those parables weren't based in reality, and I don't believe they actually meant I should execute that homosexual who tried to sell me hand cream in the mall, but they absolutely nailed the part about me needing to believe such-and-such in order to achieve eternal salvation!"
Just think; if they left out important details, or couldn't read their own penmanship after taking notes from god as he informed them exactly what everyone needed to believe, you could be royally screwed.
"What do you mean I can't pass through the pearly gates, I believe everything the Bible taught me," a religious person complains after receiving a notice of rejection on really nice letterhead.
"Yeah, but there was a typo in your Bible which instructed you to believe something you weren't supposed to believe. Therefore, you, and all other humans who purchased a 2008 Zondervan Bible, will not be spending the afterlife in heaven. Who would have thought the omittance of the simple word, 'don't' in Ecclesiastics would have such disastrous consequences" St. Peter replies.
"But that's not my fault!"
"You're right, it was the fault of typesetter J. Randolph Kendrick, who ironically purchased his Bible in 2000 and is therefore currently enjoying a juicy steak that will not add an inch to his svelte waistline... He is in heaven after all."
Coming Out of the non-Gay Closet
I've never understood why it's impolite to talk about religion. Of course it's folks who strictly follow a specific religion that make the topic taboo.
If you tell me that atheism is a bunch of hooey, I get excited because it means a lively debate is forthcoming.
If I tell a religious person that they're full of hooey, they start foaming at the mouth and then string together a bunch of euphemisms for parts of the female anatomy before perfectly segueing into descriptions of unladylike sexual acts they'd like to see me perform on myself.
True, throwing a temper tantrum at the declaration their religious beliefs are not universally held is much better than brutally murdering those with whom they disagree, but still does not excuse exhibiting child-like behavior due to the opinion of a fellow human being.
There should be no topic rational adults must refrain from discussing for fear fists will fly.
And it's not just fear of a violent response that prevents many atheists from bringing up the origin of man...
Organized religion has done such a stellar job of making it seem as if non-believers will suffer an eternity of horror that the prospect of revealing oneself to people about whom they care deeply is extremely nerve-wracking.
It's about a thousand times worse than saying you're too busy to come home for Thanksgiving dinner.
The following sentence is likely what Christian family members hear while a loved one is announcing they've taken to atheism, "You know what, I don't believe in a word of the Bible; so, instead of us being together for an eternity of perfection, I'm just going to hang out in hell where I will exist in agony. Since your time in heaven will be perfect, I suppose they'll somehow wipe me out of your memory so you won't be forced to imagine the desperation emanating from my tortured screams."
Obviously one of the reasons organized religion is so popular is because they enjoy pretending that they're absolutely certain the reward for believing is perfection while the punishment for not believing is absolutely horrendous.
Not only does extreme punishment for non-followers influence individuals to believe, it also discourages debate. If I genuinely believed members of my family would suffer in the afterlife simply because they made a rational conclusion after the gathering of facts, I would do everything in my power to convince them of their error. I would be so adamant they change their opinion they'd probably take a, "It's best not to bring it up," attitude toward the topic of religion while speaking with me.
I suspect it's not only fear that a horrific fate will come to those who do not accept a traditional religion... Perhaps holy people have a problem with the discussion of religion because their argument is based solely on ancient people telling other ancient people stories about how god spoke to them. For us non-believers, the follower of a traditional religion is equivalent to someone who wholeheartedly accepts the word of a nut who approached them on the sidewalk and said, "If you don't believe my pants are the creator of the universe, you will rot for all of eternity!" I suspect religious folks don't much like to hear that kind of talk; especially considering the fact that a good comeback doesn't exist.
Or perhaps religious folks are afraid of actually changing their opinion after hearing ironclad facts backed up by science.
Because religion is spread by fear, I suppose it's only natural that those who follow a specific denomination are afraid to speak about their beliefs and mask said fear with anger when the subject is broached.
It's a shame organized religion uses scare tactics so harsh that families cannot openly debate the existence of god when one member is not of the same belief as the rest, but then again, if there were no consequence for failing to attend church, them pews would be some kind of empty.
If you tell me that atheism is a bunch of hooey, I get excited because it means a lively debate is forthcoming.
If I tell a religious person that they're full of hooey, they start foaming at the mouth and then string together a bunch of euphemisms for parts of the female anatomy before perfectly segueing into descriptions of unladylike sexual acts they'd like to see me perform on myself.
True, throwing a temper tantrum at the declaration their religious beliefs are not universally held is much better than brutally murdering those with whom they disagree, but still does not excuse exhibiting child-like behavior due to the opinion of a fellow human being.
There should be no topic rational adults must refrain from discussing for fear fists will fly.
And it's not just fear of a violent response that prevents many atheists from bringing up the origin of man...
Organized religion has done such a stellar job of making it seem as if non-believers will suffer an eternity of horror that the prospect of revealing oneself to people about whom they care deeply is extremely nerve-wracking.
It's about a thousand times worse than saying you're too busy to come home for Thanksgiving dinner.
The following sentence is likely what Christian family members hear while a loved one is announcing they've taken to atheism, "You know what, I don't believe in a word of the Bible; so, instead of us being together for an eternity of perfection, I'm just going to hang out in hell where I will exist in agony. Since your time in heaven will be perfect, I suppose they'll somehow wipe me out of your memory so you won't be forced to imagine the desperation emanating from my tortured screams."
Obviously one of the reasons organized religion is so popular is because they enjoy pretending that they're absolutely certain the reward for believing is perfection while the punishment for not believing is absolutely horrendous.
Not only does extreme punishment for non-followers influence individuals to believe, it also discourages debate. If I genuinely believed members of my family would suffer in the afterlife simply because they made a rational conclusion after the gathering of facts, I would do everything in my power to convince them of their error. I would be so adamant they change their opinion they'd probably take a, "It's best not to bring it up," attitude toward the topic of religion while speaking with me.
I suspect it's not only fear that a horrific fate will come to those who do not accept a traditional religion... Perhaps holy people have a problem with the discussion of religion because their argument is based solely on ancient people telling other ancient people stories about how god spoke to them. For us non-believers, the follower of a traditional religion is equivalent to someone who wholeheartedly accepts the word of a nut who approached them on the sidewalk and said, "If you don't believe my pants are the creator of the universe, you will rot for all of eternity!" I suspect religious folks don't much like to hear that kind of talk; especially considering the fact that a good comeback doesn't exist.
Or perhaps religious folks are afraid of actually changing their opinion after hearing ironclad facts backed up by science.
Because religion is spread by fear, I suppose it's only natural that those who follow a specific denomination are afraid to speak about their beliefs and mask said fear with anger when the subject is broached.
It's a shame organized religion uses scare tactics so harsh that families cannot openly debate the existence of god when one member is not of the same belief as the rest, but then again, if there were no consequence for failing to attend church, them pews would be some kind of empty.
God Told Me to Tell You to Stop Using Drugs
There are more than a few so-called arguments against the legalization of drugs that tug at the heartstrings.
"I work with special needs children whose mothers abused drugs. If you could spend a day in my shoes, you would applaud the illegality of drugs."
While I have great admiration for anyone who dedicates their life to helping those unable to live independently, the above argument doesn't hold water.
Do you think good parents would all of sudden say, if drugs were legalized, "Put me down for five pounds of your finest cocaine!"
If murder were made legal, would normally good-natured individuals suddenly transform into killing machines?
And obviously the person working with special needs children of mothers who've abused drugs understands that there's a great demand for their services despite the fact that drugs are currently illegal?
The key is harsh punishment. We simply make drugs legal while severely punishing those who use them in ways that harm children. If a woman bears a child with disabilities directly resulting from her abuse of drugs, we throw her in jail for the remainder of her life. If a man played a part in said abuse, he goes in too. Maximum penalties for dealers caught selling to minors. Through negligence, if children gain access to drugs owned by their parents, we throw the parents in jail for eons. If someone is caught driving under the influence of drugs, we forever revoke their license on the off-chance they're still able to drive after being released from a maximum security pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Those who steal money, or physical possessions, with a plan to exchange said valuables for drugs, should also be punished harshly.
The reason the war on drugs has been so horrendously unsuccessful is because we do everything half-assed. Most junkies, drug dealers and impaired drivers get multiple opportunities to commit crimes. Their final offense usually has catastrophic consequences.
With harsh punishments, we could seriously reduce instances of expectant mothers abusing harsh drugs, dealers selling to children, and impaired drivers flying down the freeway.
If we were to legalize drugs, while throwing the book at those whose drug related actions led to the harming of innocence; the innocent would be protected, and those with a desire to destroy their own bodies would be free to do so.
As usual, it all comes down to religion. "God doesn't want us harming our bodies by using illegal drugs. Though not everybody shares my religious beliefs, I will nonetheless force them to abide by the same rules set forth by the unproven deity I choose to follow."
It's the same with prostitution. The only reason you can't legally pay fifty bucks for a quicky is because it goes against the teachings of a certain religion.
"But prostitution leads to disease and the abuse of women."
Only those willing to take the risk while not using every precaution made available by the fine folks at Trojan are likely to catch a disease. And, just as with my drug legalization proposal, if those convicted of abusing women or children faced serious consequences, offenders would not have multiple opportunities to commit crimes and the overall number of abuse cases would decline.
Despite disastrous consequences resulting from the illegality of certain behaviors, which are illegal solely based on their religious beliefs, opponents of drug and prostitution legalization refuse to even consider reversing their position.
They refuse to budge simply because being "anti-drug" makes them feel good. "Sure more people die thanks to my rigid stupidity, but I'm doing god's work!" they say while dreaming about the day they'll proudly saunter through the pearly gates still bloated from a life full of good intentions.
"I work with special needs children whose mothers abused drugs. If you could spend a day in my shoes, you would applaud the illegality of drugs."
While I have great admiration for anyone who dedicates their life to helping those unable to live independently, the above argument doesn't hold water.
Do you think good parents would all of sudden say, if drugs were legalized, "Put me down for five pounds of your finest cocaine!"
If murder were made legal, would normally good-natured individuals suddenly transform into killing machines?
And obviously the person working with special needs children of mothers who've abused drugs understands that there's a great demand for their services despite the fact that drugs are currently illegal?
The key is harsh punishment. We simply make drugs legal while severely punishing those who use them in ways that harm children. If a woman bears a child with disabilities directly resulting from her abuse of drugs, we throw her in jail for the remainder of her life. If a man played a part in said abuse, he goes in too. Maximum penalties for dealers caught selling to minors. Through negligence, if children gain access to drugs owned by their parents, we throw the parents in jail for eons. If someone is caught driving under the influence of drugs, we forever revoke their license on the off-chance they're still able to drive after being released from a maximum security pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Those who steal money, or physical possessions, with a plan to exchange said valuables for drugs, should also be punished harshly.
The reason the war on drugs has been so horrendously unsuccessful is because we do everything half-assed. Most junkies, drug dealers and impaired drivers get multiple opportunities to commit crimes. Their final offense usually has catastrophic consequences.
With harsh punishments, we could seriously reduce instances of expectant mothers abusing harsh drugs, dealers selling to children, and impaired drivers flying down the freeway.
If we were to legalize drugs, while throwing the book at those whose drug related actions led to the harming of innocence; the innocent would be protected, and those with a desire to destroy their own bodies would be free to do so.
As usual, it all comes down to religion. "God doesn't want us harming our bodies by using illegal drugs. Though not everybody shares my religious beliefs, I will nonetheless force them to abide by the same rules set forth by the unproven deity I choose to follow."
It's the same with prostitution. The only reason you can't legally pay fifty bucks for a quicky is because it goes against the teachings of a certain religion.
"But prostitution leads to disease and the abuse of women."
Only those willing to take the risk while not using every precaution made available by the fine folks at Trojan are likely to catch a disease. And, just as with my drug legalization proposal, if those convicted of abusing women or children faced serious consequences, offenders would not have multiple opportunities to commit crimes and the overall number of abuse cases would decline.
Despite disastrous consequences resulting from the illegality of certain behaviors, which are illegal solely based on their religious beliefs, opponents of drug and prostitution legalization refuse to even consider reversing their position.
They refuse to budge simply because being "anti-drug" makes them feel good. "Sure more people die thanks to my rigid stupidity, but I'm doing god's work!" they say while dreaming about the day they'll proudly saunter through the pearly gates still bloated from a life full of good intentions.
Preaching for Power
Not a whole lot of people truly live for others.
But the majority of preachers; their only reason for existing is to serve their congregation, right?
Or are preachers like politicians, who, regardless of whether there is an "R", "D", "I", "G" or "L" beside their name, only crave money and power. They want you to give them money in exchange for advice on how you should live.
Here's a bit of advice I'll offer absolutely free of charge: work hard and be decent in your relations with others. Beneath my poignant, yet simple, guide to living a life of fulfillment and happiness, please notice the complete absence of PayPal links, which, if clicked, would take you to a page providing detailed instructions on how to deposit funds directly into my account. And please don't email me asking for my routing number, because I will not divulge such information! And that's not just because I have trouble differentiating it from my account number on the bottom of my checks, a problem from which I doubt a single preacher suffers.
Preachers differ from politicians in that they can't pass laws forcing you to fork over a large portion of your paycheck. However they can control you with threats.
And it doesn't matter what church you enter, the man or woman at the pulpit is usually similar to their peers in more ways than not. Do you really think President Obama's controversial preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, had different goals for the Trinity United Christian Church than the "aww shucks" Methodist preacher has for the unassuming church former President George W. Bush visits while vacationing at his small town ranch? Do you think they have different goals for their own careers?
They both want power. They both want their name on buildings. They both want to increase attendance so the collection plate will be overflowing by the time it reaches their office. That's why they want your butt in that pew.
Like any working relationship, I'm sure preachers care about a few of their parishioners while remaining apathetic toward others. I'm sure preachers enjoy the company of some of their parishioners while finding it difficult to be in the same room as others.
Church is big business, and despite their tax status, if you think your preacher has any goal that trumps improving the bottom line, you're sadly mistaken.
Sure, things have improved in that religious organizations of yore tried to establish dominance by committing mass murder, while most modern day American institutions of religion attempt to financially better neighboring churches by printing more colorful fliers or implementing a stricter age limit on female members of the choir; but the ultimate goal is the same.
Though they seek far less than those who walk the halls of Congress, you're still being led by people who have chosen to follow fame, money and power. How many people who crave fame, money and power are truly wholesome, upstanding individuals?
By the admission of your own religion, human beings are imperfect; yet you choose to elevate scores simply because they've attended seminary.
Because there are exceptions to every rule, I'm sure there are a few preachers who abide by the teachings of the Bible, and, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise, get by on just enough money to pay for food, a decent education for their children, and to put aside a tiny bit for retirement. "To the layman, it may seem as if I deserve a raise, but because an increase in funds is not necessary for my survival, I will not take money away from those who desperately need it for theirs," are words that must have been uttered by a few preachers, don't you think?
Neither do I.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are decent preachers all over this fine country of ours; I just hate to see people follow a fellow human being just because others have elevated him or her to the position of pastor.
Hopefully, due to the Catholic Church scandal, religious leaders are at least somewhat scrutinized. Not necessarily because everyone is afraid they're committing unspeakable acts, just to make sure they're trustworthy. Because, if, when conversing with your preacher, you get the feeling an 800-number should periodically be displayed below his or her chin, you may not be dealing with someone who is making your needs the number one priority.
So please proceed with caution when getting close to church royalty, because they have similar characteristics to cult leaders who deviously convince thousands of people that it's in their best interest to participate in insanely self-destructive activities. And because their subtlety may cause a delay in the arrival of an illuminated light bulb over your head, you may want to be extra careful.
But the majority of preachers; their only reason for existing is to serve their congregation, right?
Or are preachers like politicians, who, regardless of whether there is an "R", "D", "I", "G" or "L" beside their name, only crave money and power. They want you to give them money in exchange for advice on how you should live.
Here's a bit of advice I'll offer absolutely free of charge: work hard and be decent in your relations with others. Beneath my poignant, yet simple, guide to living a life of fulfillment and happiness, please notice the complete absence of PayPal links, which, if clicked, would take you to a page providing detailed instructions on how to deposit funds directly into my account. And please don't email me asking for my routing number, because I will not divulge such information! And that's not just because I have trouble differentiating it from my account number on the bottom of my checks, a problem from which I doubt a single preacher suffers.
Preachers differ from politicians in that they can't pass laws forcing you to fork over a large portion of your paycheck. However they can control you with threats.
And it doesn't matter what church you enter, the man or woman at the pulpit is usually similar to their peers in more ways than not. Do you really think President Obama's controversial preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, had different goals for the Trinity United Christian Church than the "aww shucks" Methodist preacher has for the unassuming church former President George W. Bush visits while vacationing at his small town ranch? Do you think they have different goals for their own careers?
They both want power. They both want their name on buildings. They both want to increase attendance so the collection plate will be overflowing by the time it reaches their office. That's why they want your butt in that pew.
Like any working relationship, I'm sure preachers care about a few of their parishioners while remaining apathetic toward others. I'm sure preachers enjoy the company of some of their parishioners while finding it difficult to be in the same room as others.
Church is big business, and despite their tax status, if you think your preacher has any goal that trumps improving the bottom line, you're sadly mistaken.
Sure, things have improved in that religious organizations of yore tried to establish dominance by committing mass murder, while most modern day American institutions of religion attempt to financially better neighboring churches by printing more colorful fliers or implementing a stricter age limit on female members of the choir; but the ultimate goal is the same.
Though they seek far less than those who walk the halls of Congress, you're still being led by people who have chosen to follow fame, money and power. How many people who crave fame, money and power are truly wholesome, upstanding individuals?
By the admission of your own religion, human beings are imperfect; yet you choose to elevate scores simply because they've attended seminary.
Because there are exceptions to every rule, I'm sure there are a few preachers who abide by the teachings of the Bible, and, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise, get by on just enough money to pay for food, a decent education for their children, and to put aside a tiny bit for retirement. "To the layman, it may seem as if I deserve a raise, but because an increase in funds is not necessary for my survival, I will not take money away from those who desperately need it for theirs," are words that must have been uttered by a few preachers, don't you think?
Neither do I.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are decent preachers all over this fine country of ours; I just hate to see people follow a fellow human being just because others have elevated him or her to the position of pastor.
Hopefully, due to the Catholic Church scandal, religious leaders are at least somewhat scrutinized. Not necessarily because everyone is afraid they're committing unspeakable acts, just to make sure they're trustworthy. Because, if, when conversing with your preacher, you get the feeling an 800-number should periodically be displayed below his or her chin, you may not be dealing with someone who is making your needs the number one priority.
So please proceed with caution when getting close to church royalty, because they have similar characteristics to cult leaders who deviously convince thousands of people that it's in their best interest to participate in insanely self-destructive activities. And because their subtlety may cause a delay in the arrival of an illuminated light bulb over your head, you may want to be extra careful.
I Worship Monica from "Friends"
There has been much controversy lately about the depiction of gods and prophets for comedic purposes on television.
Comedy Central censored cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammad a few weeks ago because the people who drew him received what basically amounted to death threats.
That very same network recently announced they will consider airing a comedy show that depicts Jesus and god in less than flattering ways. Christian groups are naturally beside themselves with grief over this decision.
Of course followers of Islam and Christianity have the option of not watching any show that doesn't meet their requirements for viewing, but they would rather issue death threats and call press conferences.
Hating to be left out, I have decided to worship Monica from Friends and will now protest any network that airs re-runs of the once popular situation comedy because it depicts my god as being a once-overweight, maniacally controlling, neat-freak.
More on my new religion later...
We can't take away the freedom of people to air programming they deem likely profitable in order to appease people with whom they disagree.
Why should religious people be allowed to stifle liberty by preventing me from creating a program that targets my fellow atheists when religious people have the age-old option of not watching? And there are thousands of religious programs on television every Sunday morning. I save time by not watching and not protesting these shows, while religious folks waste time by watching and protesting the programs they oppose.
I have been accused of focusing my criticism primarily on Christianity. The reason I tend to do this is because I've spent my life in a country that claims to value the separation of church and state yet does not back up her words with action.
But Christians have been granted a grand opportunity to separate themselves, which they could easily do by releasing a statement that says, "While we obviously won't endorse the proposed comedy about Jesus moving to New York to escape the shadow of god, we do realize that America and the world cannot be run solely according to our beliefs and will therefore organize no protests, plan no boycotts, and write not a single nasty letter of opposition to the show."
To non-believers around the world, people who worship one of the traditional higher-powers are akin to me and my fellow devotees of the great and powerful Monica Geller. Such belief makes no sense. Such belief is irrational. Yet religious people want those who don't share their views to nevertheless alter their behavior so those who do believe in a higher-power can go through life without being offended or, worse yet, be forced to change the station despite not having the energy to get up and fetch the remote!
And you followers of the traditional deities feel justified in doing so only because you are large in number. With ice cream and a bottle of vodka respectively, I could probably only convince the four-year-old daughter of my friend and the homeless guy to whom I occasionally give a few dollars to join me in believing that Mrs. Chandler Bing is divine. You laugh at my demand Friends be removed from the airwaves, but I should be deprived freedom because there are millions of you?
Comedy Central censored cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammad a few weeks ago because the people who drew him received what basically amounted to death threats.
That very same network recently announced they will consider airing a comedy show that depicts Jesus and god in less than flattering ways. Christian groups are naturally beside themselves with grief over this decision.
Of course followers of Islam and Christianity have the option of not watching any show that doesn't meet their requirements for viewing, but they would rather issue death threats and call press conferences.
Hating to be left out, I have decided to worship Monica from Friends and will now protest any network that airs re-runs of the once popular situation comedy because it depicts my god as being a once-overweight, maniacally controlling, neat-freak.
More on my new religion later...
We can't take away the freedom of people to air programming they deem likely profitable in order to appease people with whom they disagree.
Why should religious people be allowed to stifle liberty by preventing me from creating a program that targets my fellow atheists when religious people have the age-old option of not watching? And there are thousands of religious programs on television every Sunday morning. I save time by not watching and not protesting these shows, while religious folks waste time by watching and protesting the programs they oppose.
I have been accused of focusing my criticism primarily on Christianity. The reason I tend to do this is because I've spent my life in a country that claims to value the separation of church and state yet does not back up her words with action.
But Christians have been granted a grand opportunity to separate themselves, which they could easily do by releasing a statement that says, "While we obviously won't endorse the proposed comedy about Jesus moving to New York to escape the shadow of god, we do realize that America and the world cannot be run solely according to our beliefs and will therefore organize no protests, plan no boycotts, and write not a single nasty letter of opposition to the show."
To non-believers around the world, people who worship one of the traditional higher-powers are akin to me and my fellow devotees of the great and powerful Monica Geller. Such belief makes no sense. Such belief is irrational. Yet religious people want those who don't share their views to nevertheless alter their behavior so those who do believe in a higher-power can go through life without being offended or, worse yet, be forced to change the station despite not having the energy to get up and fetch the remote!
And you followers of the traditional deities feel justified in doing so only because you are large in number. With ice cream and a bottle of vodka respectively, I could probably only convince the four-year-old daughter of my friend and the homeless guy to whom I occasionally give a few dollars to join me in believing that Mrs. Chandler Bing is divine. You laugh at my demand Friends be removed from the airwaves, but I should be deprived freedom because there are millions of you?
I Always Feel like Somebody's Watching Me
How different would your life be if someone were constantly standing in front of you? They weren't saying anything. They were just watching your every move, silently judging.
My guess is that your day-to-day existence would not only be very different; it would lack any semblance of pleasure.
Horrifying novels have been written about governmental big brothers overseeing our every action; yet religious people are extremely comfortable in being watched constantly by a higher power that rules dictatorially! If you've ever read the Bible, you know that god handed out some pretty harsh punishments. And Biblical "criminals" had absolutely no right to an appeals court. Had the Ninth Circuit existed back in the day, perhaps Lot's wife would have hired attorneys so adroit at wordplay that the pillar of salt punishment would have been reduced to community service.
Policies the U.S. Government would be overthrown for implementing are praised when god is in charge.
"Watch and judge our every action and then punish us accordingly should we not behave admirably all day, every day."
I can't imagine the pressure you poor people are under. You're constantly being judged by a perfect deity that never takes his eyes off your person, or his, whatever he uses to read your mind, off your thought-waves.
But, when alone, do you behave as if a noticeable physical presence is actually in the room with you?
My guess is that you don't.
And because you relax while in solitude, does that mean you doubt the very existence of a higher power?
Even if every human being, who witnessed your strange, yet non-criminal, behavior, decided you should be harshly judged, would it really matter? According to you, they lack the power to allocate one-way tickets to hell.
And even if your private behavior fails to reach hell-worthy status; wouldn't god be the one being you'd want to impress? Wouldn't you spend your days staring into space, desperately attempting to keep out thoughts of dirty acts you'd like to perform on that flight attendant who worked the redeye you took from Logan to DFW - had you been lucky enough to convince her to join you in a sleazy motel room...? Things Don Draper likely does to his Mad Men mistresses, yet AMC is unable to lawfully depict?
So, if you're so certain god is watching your every move, I seriously doubt you'd do the things you've been doing while in the presence of no one. And I'm not even talking about things that would shame your family were they revealed to the world. I'm simply referring to actions you're too polite to carry out while in the presence of others.
I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I know that, when alone, I occasionally act in ways even Courtney Love would deem, "unladylike."
If religious folks are correct and he exists, just ask god.
Or my cat.
My guess is that your day-to-day existence would not only be very different; it would lack any semblance of pleasure.
Horrifying novels have been written about governmental big brothers overseeing our every action; yet religious people are extremely comfortable in being watched constantly by a higher power that rules dictatorially! If you've ever read the Bible, you know that god handed out some pretty harsh punishments. And Biblical "criminals" had absolutely no right to an appeals court. Had the Ninth Circuit existed back in the day, perhaps Lot's wife would have hired attorneys so adroit at wordplay that the pillar of salt punishment would have been reduced to community service.
Policies the U.S. Government would be overthrown for implementing are praised when god is in charge.
"Watch and judge our every action and then punish us accordingly should we not behave admirably all day, every day."
I can't imagine the pressure you poor people are under. You're constantly being judged by a perfect deity that never takes his eyes off your person, or his, whatever he uses to read your mind, off your thought-waves.
But, when alone, do you behave as if a noticeable physical presence is actually in the room with you?
My guess is that you don't.
And because you relax while in solitude, does that mean you doubt the very existence of a higher power?
Even if every human being, who witnessed your strange, yet non-criminal, behavior, decided you should be harshly judged, would it really matter? According to you, they lack the power to allocate one-way tickets to hell.
And even if your private behavior fails to reach hell-worthy status; wouldn't god be the one being you'd want to impress? Wouldn't you spend your days staring into space, desperately attempting to keep out thoughts of dirty acts you'd like to perform on that flight attendant who worked the redeye you took from Logan to DFW - had you been lucky enough to convince her to join you in a sleazy motel room...? Things Don Draper likely does to his Mad Men mistresses, yet AMC is unable to lawfully depict?
So, if you're so certain god is watching your every move, I seriously doubt you'd do the things you've been doing while in the presence of no one. And I'm not even talking about things that would shame your family were they revealed to the world. I'm simply referring to actions you're too polite to carry out while in the presence of others.
I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I know that, when alone, I occasionally act in ways even Courtney Love would deem, "unladylike."
If religious folks are correct and he exists, just ask god.
Or my cat.
I Don't Know; I Just Live Here
Some of the most magical moments in life are watching children discover new things. The look on a youngster's face as the first butterfly lands on their arm is simply priceless.
But such joy at discovery doesn't have to cease once we reach a certain age.
Those of us with freewill often discover new things about ourselves. We discover that our view of the world is constantly changing.
I can't imagine walking around with a manual I was forced to consult whenever I witnessed questionable behavior. Once you learned all the rules and regulations contained in said manual; there wouldn't be much living left to do.
"How do you feel about the current case being argued in front of the Supreme Court?"
"It doesn't matter what I think - I am required by my pastor to consult a book which informs me of my feelings regarding such matters. Of course I hope I agree with the side I end up taking, but my opinions were formed centuries ago and completely out of my hands."
What kind of being would lovingly put you on this earth with freewill, yet tell you exactly how to view each and every issue?
And that's not even mentioning the fact that all of your actions are closely scrutinized.
"Do not partake in desirable behavior that harms no one," doesn't sound very loving to me. Especially when the alternative instruction, "Be a good person," was available.
It's like telling a child not to eat bacon, and then putting a crispy piece in front of his or her door just so you can vent some pent-up frustration once they succumb to the intoxicating aroma only cured pork products can provide.
According to you, god would like everyone to take on the role of an apathetic K-Mart employee.
"What do you mean your company's manual instructs you not to give me a refund; you clearly sold me a defective product!?"
"I don't know; I just work here."
"What do you mean your holy book declares my action a sin; I'm not hurting a single person!?"
"I don't know; I just live here."
The reason people are so willing to give up thought is because they fear the unknown. They've been told the consequences of failing to fall in line are so dire and long-lasting that compliance is by far the safest bet.
The believer in a specific religion says...
"If I'm wrong: so what?"
"If I'm right: eternity of perfection."
"If thinking for myself is wrong: afterlife of hurt."
Should I, Sarah Laimbeer, end up in said afterlife of hurt; at least I'll have the comfort in knowing that I had the figurative gonads to do it my way.
And let's face it; were you not afraid of spending eternity in hell, you wouldn't dream of disregarding your own opinion when making judgments.
But such joy at discovery doesn't have to cease once we reach a certain age.
Those of us with freewill often discover new things about ourselves. We discover that our view of the world is constantly changing.
I can't imagine walking around with a manual I was forced to consult whenever I witnessed questionable behavior. Once you learned all the rules and regulations contained in said manual; there wouldn't be much living left to do.
"How do you feel about the current case being argued in front of the Supreme Court?"
"It doesn't matter what I think - I am required by my pastor to consult a book which informs me of my feelings regarding such matters. Of course I hope I agree with the side I end up taking, but my opinions were formed centuries ago and completely out of my hands."
What kind of being would lovingly put you on this earth with freewill, yet tell you exactly how to view each and every issue?
And that's not even mentioning the fact that all of your actions are closely scrutinized.
"Do not partake in desirable behavior that harms no one," doesn't sound very loving to me. Especially when the alternative instruction, "Be a good person," was available.
It's like telling a child not to eat bacon, and then putting a crispy piece in front of his or her door just so you can vent some pent-up frustration once they succumb to the intoxicating aroma only cured pork products can provide.
According to you, god would like everyone to take on the role of an apathetic K-Mart employee.
"What do you mean your company's manual instructs you not to give me a refund; you clearly sold me a defective product!?"
"I don't know; I just work here."
"What do you mean your holy book declares my action a sin; I'm not hurting a single person!?"
"I don't know; I just live here."
The reason people are so willing to give up thought is because they fear the unknown. They've been told the consequences of failing to fall in line are so dire and long-lasting that compliance is by far the safest bet.
The believer in a specific religion says...
"If I'm wrong: so what?"
"If I'm right: eternity of perfection."
"If thinking for myself is wrong: afterlife of hurt."
Should I, Sarah Laimbeer, end up in said afterlife of hurt; at least I'll have the comfort in knowing that I had the figurative gonads to do it my way.
And let's face it; were you not afraid of spending eternity in hell, you wouldn't dream of disregarding your own opinion when making judgments.
The Pope Said What!?
The Pope recently said that gay marriage is, "an insidious and dangerous threat to the common good."
Seriously?
I'm tempted to bring up the fact that the Pope continues to judge others when he can't prevent his own employees from abusing children in the most vile of manners.
Not; he can't prevent his employees from stealing paper clips from the supply room, rather he can't prevent his employees from abusing children in the most vile of manners.
Look, if you want to make the argument that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman, I will respectfully listen to your reasoning and then present my own brilliant contradictory point of view. I'll fully detail the flaws in your argument, but it's a debate worth having.
But, saying gay marriage is a, "dangerous threat to the common good," basically claims that an inherent attraction is evil. So the Catholic Church would like all homosexuals to know that their feelings, which, when acted upon, don't harm a single soul, are equivalent to constantly having the desire to spill the warm blood of stranger.
Would god really want you to deny feelings he gave you?
And the basis the Catholic Church uses to convince homosexuals to repress their feelings is an ancient book written by someone who supposedly had a direct pathway to god. "I read that someone who was really close to god, a few thousand years ago, said that god told him he wasn't a fan of homosexuality, so don't be gay, and if you are, don't get married. Seriously, live a life of misery in case the Bible happens to be factually accurate."
True, some inherent instincts shouldn't be acted upon, but only those that lead to action which results in harmed souls.
Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense to deny your desires.
The following is the conclusion to which the Vatican would like skeptical homosexuals to come... "Maybe the authors of the Bible were correct in saying that god declared homosexuality a sin. It's impossible to say for certain and makes no logical sense that following my desire to spend my life with a member of the same sex is morally unjust. But, I suppose I should go with what my forefathers claimed to be the word of god, based on a claim by their forefathers, based on a claim by their forefathers, based on a claim by their forefathers, etc,."
Discipline can be a very good thing, but only when the result of exhibiting discipline is positive. If you don't eat that extra piece of cake you'll have a wardrobe full of pants you can button without breaking a sweat. Don't purchase that $500 pair of shoes and you'll have enough money to pay the phone bill. Don't have a lasting relationship with a member of the same sex and... um, well...
Though heterosexual sex can also lead to disease, many Christians claim AIDS was god's way of proving that he despises homosexuality.
But what if AIDS was god's way of pointing out the bad Christians?
Of course I believe there is no god, but for the sake of this piece, I will take on the point of view of a deist.
If there were a single god, he or she would not be the god of a specific religion and therefore choose to honor only those who abided by the common sense version of good versus evil, as opposed to a (man-written) holy book version of good versus evil.
He would favor those who couldn't fathom a horrible disease being punishment for following ones inherent desires.
Those who said, "Yes, that homosexual died a horrible death as a result of acting upon the true love he felt for a member of the same sex," would be judged as the worst of the worst.
Let's discuss the three types of people listed below...
Tier One: People who don't believe in god and therefore claim any activity that does not harm a fellow human being is acceptable.
Tier Two: People who believe in god but don't argue that he or she would punish homosexuals in such a way, or that god would ever declare spending a lifetime with a person to whom you're attracted, regardless of sex, to be a sin.
Tier Three: People who believe god would punish homosexuals with horrendous deaths simply due to the fact that they acted upon attractions to members of the same sex.
The tier three individual spends a lifetime thinking the tier one and two people are in trouble, when, in reality, the tier three person's intolerance would cause a truly just god to frown down upon them with great vengeance.
Being an atheist, I think no one will suffer a horrible fate. That's both comforting and sad. To the disappointment of Christians; a homosexual will not burn in hell for his or her supposed sins. To the disappointment of me; Adolf Hitler is not burning in hell for his egregious sins.
But that's the beauty of the earth. Humanity is given the chance to prevent madmen like Hitler from achieving their goals. We must stand up for each other in the name of universal good, because every religion waiting for their god to make things right hasn't exactly been working out.
The truth is; homosexuality is not an insidious and dangerous threat to the common good.
People who believe in god are not insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.
Organized religion on the other hand...
Seriously?
I'm tempted to bring up the fact that the Pope continues to judge others when he can't prevent his own employees from abusing children in the most vile of manners.
Not; he can't prevent his employees from stealing paper clips from the supply room, rather he can't prevent his employees from abusing children in the most vile of manners.
Look, if you want to make the argument that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman, I will respectfully listen to your reasoning and then present my own brilliant contradictory point of view. I'll fully detail the flaws in your argument, but it's a debate worth having.
But, saying gay marriage is a, "dangerous threat to the common good," basically claims that an inherent attraction is evil. So the Catholic Church would like all homosexuals to know that their feelings, which, when acted upon, don't harm a single soul, are equivalent to constantly having the desire to spill the warm blood of stranger.
Would god really want you to deny feelings he gave you?
And the basis the Catholic Church uses to convince homosexuals to repress their feelings is an ancient book written by someone who supposedly had a direct pathway to god. "I read that someone who was really close to god, a few thousand years ago, said that god told him he wasn't a fan of homosexuality, so don't be gay, and if you are, don't get married. Seriously, live a life of misery in case the Bible happens to be factually accurate."
True, some inherent instincts shouldn't be acted upon, but only those that lead to action which results in harmed souls.
Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense to deny your desires.
The following is the conclusion to which the Vatican would like skeptical homosexuals to come... "Maybe the authors of the Bible were correct in saying that god declared homosexuality a sin. It's impossible to say for certain and makes no logical sense that following my desire to spend my life with a member of the same sex is morally unjust. But, I suppose I should go with what my forefathers claimed to be the word of god, based on a claim by their forefathers, based on a claim by their forefathers, based on a claim by their forefathers, etc,."
Discipline can be a very good thing, but only when the result of exhibiting discipline is positive. If you don't eat that extra piece of cake you'll have a wardrobe full of pants you can button without breaking a sweat. Don't purchase that $500 pair of shoes and you'll have enough money to pay the phone bill. Don't have a lasting relationship with a member of the same sex and... um, well...
Though heterosexual sex can also lead to disease, many Christians claim AIDS was god's way of proving that he despises homosexuality.
But what if AIDS was god's way of pointing out the bad Christians?
Of course I believe there is no god, but for the sake of this piece, I will take on the point of view of a deist.
If there were a single god, he or she would not be the god of a specific religion and therefore choose to honor only those who abided by the common sense version of good versus evil, as opposed to a (man-written) holy book version of good versus evil.
He would favor those who couldn't fathom a horrible disease being punishment for following ones inherent desires.
Those who said, "Yes, that homosexual died a horrible death as a result of acting upon the true love he felt for a member of the same sex," would be judged as the worst of the worst.
Let's discuss the three types of people listed below...
Tier One: People who don't believe in god and therefore claim any activity that does not harm a fellow human being is acceptable.
Tier Two: People who believe in god but don't argue that he or she would punish homosexuals in such a way, or that god would ever declare spending a lifetime with a person to whom you're attracted, regardless of sex, to be a sin.
Tier Three: People who believe god would punish homosexuals with horrendous deaths simply due to the fact that they acted upon attractions to members of the same sex.
The tier three individual spends a lifetime thinking the tier one and two people are in trouble, when, in reality, the tier three person's intolerance would cause a truly just god to frown down upon them with great vengeance.
Being an atheist, I think no one will suffer a horrible fate. That's both comforting and sad. To the disappointment of Christians; a homosexual will not burn in hell for his or her supposed sins. To the disappointment of me; Adolf Hitler is not burning in hell for his egregious sins.
But that's the beauty of the earth. Humanity is given the chance to prevent madmen like Hitler from achieving their goals. We must stand up for each other in the name of universal good, because every religion waiting for their god to make things right hasn't exactly been working out.
The truth is; homosexuality is not an insidious and dangerous threat to the common good.
People who believe in god are not insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.
Organized religion on the other hand...
The Constitution Says Nothing About Manipulation
I enjoy hearing from Christians who claim that encouraging public school students to stand up, place their hand over their heart, and pledge allegiance to America, "under god" does not constitute the establishment of a national religion.
The preceding is not the start of a rant calling for the removal of "under god" from the Pledge. However, I do find it funny that, according to Christians, anything short of President Obama signing into law a bill that specifically names Christianity as the official religion of the United States does not fall under the category of "establishing."
What would happen if a high-school basketball coach said to his or her players... "I'd like you all to wear Air Jordan shoes. Of course I'm not forcing you to purchase a pair of the awesome sneakers that will undoubtedly improve your game. But, if you go sans Air Jordan shoes, you're going to stick out like a sore thumb and not truly be a part of the squad."? If those were the words used by the coach, parents would throw a fit, as any rational human being understands that he or she has just established a team shoe.
Using the fact that a majority of American children come from Christian households to manipulate other children into pledging their allegiance to god is perhaps not technically establishing a religion, but it is purposeful manipulation. It's skirting the intention of our Founding Fathers via a technicality.
Most conservatives claim, "The Constitution is not a living and breathing document that needs to be reexamined as the times change; rather it should be taken literally even though its drafters could not have fathomed what kind of country America would be two-hundred years after its founding."
In order to live by the above, conservatives are forced to plot and scheme due to the fact that certain portions of the Constitution don't fit their worldview.
In other words, by their actions, conservatives say, "Since I agree with most of the Constitution, I will fight relentlessly to ensure that America doesn't stray. The parts I disagree with, however, I will fight relentlessly to pretend mean something other than what the drafters intended them to mean."
In words other than that, by their actions, conservatives say, "I choose not to focus on the actual words in the Constitution and will instead interpret any portion I reject to make it seem as if the drafter of said portion wanted exactly what I want."
If conservatives truly desired to abide by the wishes of the Founding Fathers, they would enthusiastically call for the removal of all references to god on anything produced by the United States government.
They enjoy residing in a country that doesn't force them to believe in anything specific, but because they do believe in something specific, choose to manipulate non-believers into following the same book using government run institutions.
Atheists have the reputation of being militant. In the Bible Belt; you'll hear reports of a single non-believer forcing an entire community to refrain from reciting the Lord's Prayer before football games.
Yet atheists aren't calling for children to stand up and pledge their loyalty to the belief that there is no god. Instead we simply desire, in accordance with the Constitution, that all mention of specifics be removed. Such removal would satisfy Christians, Muslims, Jews, Deists, Atheists, Mormons, Buddhists... basically the removal of specifics would cover everyone under the sun, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.
"You believe that the cricket chirping by your foot is god... You believe your favorite internet blogger is god... You believe Jesus is god... You believe there is no god... You believe there is one god, but you're not sure if he or she would reveal himself or herself to earthlings... Whichever of the above scenarios you believe to be correct; you're welcome to build a church in America," the Founding Fathers declared.
Too bad Christians can't live in accordance with the wishes of the aforementioned Founding Fathers; men for whom they often profess their love. Too bad Christians purposely misinterpret the words of the Founding Fathers to make it seem as if said Founding Fathers really wanted America to be a Christian nation, only a tad less militant than the Motherland.
According to modern day Christians; the Founding Fathers wanted a country where religious leaders had the freedom to preach the gospel a bit less literally than the religious leaders in England. Perhaps they wanted to reside in a country where sneaking out of a sermon two minutes before its conclusion, so they could secure a good table at the Denny's of yore, wasn't punishable by decapitation.
According to modern day Christians; the Founding Fathers had no desire for Americans to maintain the freedom to reject a higher power altogether. Modern day Christians say, "Of course public school children can choose atheism - as long as they do so while sitting in the corner as the rest of their class joyfully praises America and the Christian God that made such a glorious nation possible."
The preceding is not the start of a rant calling for the removal of "under god" from the Pledge. However, I do find it funny that, according to Christians, anything short of President Obama signing into law a bill that specifically names Christianity as the official religion of the United States does not fall under the category of "establishing."
What would happen if a high-school basketball coach said to his or her players... "I'd like you all to wear Air Jordan shoes. Of course I'm not forcing you to purchase a pair of the awesome sneakers that will undoubtedly improve your game. But, if you go sans Air Jordan shoes, you're going to stick out like a sore thumb and not truly be a part of the squad."? If those were the words used by the coach, parents would throw a fit, as any rational human being understands that he or she has just established a team shoe.
Using the fact that a majority of American children come from Christian households to manipulate other children into pledging their allegiance to god is perhaps not technically establishing a religion, but it is purposeful manipulation. It's skirting the intention of our Founding Fathers via a technicality.
Most conservatives claim, "The Constitution is not a living and breathing document that needs to be reexamined as the times change; rather it should be taken literally even though its drafters could not have fathomed what kind of country America would be two-hundred years after its founding."
In order to live by the above, conservatives are forced to plot and scheme due to the fact that certain portions of the Constitution don't fit their worldview.
In other words, by their actions, conservatives say, "Since I agree with most of the Constitution, I will fight relentlessly to ensure that America doesn't stray. The parts I disagree with, however, I will fight relentlessly to pretend mean something other than what the drafters intended them to mean."
In words other than that, by their actions, conservatives say, "I choose not to focus on the actual words in the Constitution and will instead interpret any portion I reject to make it seem as if the drafter of said portion wanted exactly what I want."
If conservatives truly desired to abide by the wishes of the Founding Fathers, they would enthusiastically call for the removal of all references to god on anything produced by the United States government.
They enjoy residing in a country that doesn't force them to believe in anything specific, but because they do believe in something specific, choose to manipulate non-believers into following the same book using government run institutions.
Atheists have the reputation of being militant. In the Bible Belt; you'll hear reports of a single non-believer forcing an entire community to refrain from reciting the Lord's Prayer before football games.
Yet atheists aren't calling for children to stand up and pledge their loyalty to the belief that there is no god. Instead we simply desire, in accordance with the Constitution, that all mention of specifics be removed. Such removal would satisfy Christians, Muslims, Jews, Deists, Atheists, Mormons, Buddhists... basically the removal of specifics would cover everyone under the sun, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.
"You believe that the cricket chirping by your foot is god... You believe your favorite internet blogger is god... You believe Jesus is god... You believe there is no god... You believe there is one god, but you're not sure if he or she would reveal himself or herself to earthlings... Whichever of the above scenarios you believe to be correct; you're welcome to build a church in America," the Founding Fathers declared.
Too bad Christians can't live in accordance with the wishes of the aforementioned Founding Fathers; men for whom they often profess their love. Too bad Christians purposely misinterpret the words of the Founding Fathers to make it seem as if said Founding Fathers really wanted America to be a Christian nation, only a tad less militant than the Motherland.
According to modern day Christians; the Founding Fathers wanted a country where religious leaders had the freedom to preach the gospel a bit less literally than the religious leaders in England. Perhaps they wanted to reside in a country where sneaking out of a sermon two minutes before its conclusion, so they could secure a good table at the Denny's of yore, wasn't punishable by decapitation.
According to modern day Christians; the Founding Fathers had no desire for Americans to maintain the freedom to reject a higher power altogether. Modern day Christians say, "Of course public school children can choose atheism - as long as they do so while sitting in the corner as the rest of their class joyfully praises America and the Christian God that made such a glorious nation possible."
A Country Founded on Judeo-Christian-Atheist Principles
According to Wikipedia, "Judeo-Christian" refers to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity. America was of course founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
In other words; the really good stuff contained in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were used as the basis of America's founding.
But I opine that America would be an even better country if we began including atheistic principles in America's general philosophy.
First of all, because atheists don't believe in god, we can take, "In God We Trust," off our money and remove all crosses from public land.
Wow, that wasn't so bad. I doubt anyone will be too traumatized by the above actions; even Christians and Jews who enjoying curling up in bed with a wallet full of cash to read before sleepy time. (I'll try not to give away what's on the back of the twenty-dollar bill, but, SPOILER ALERT, it has something to do with a pale mansion...)
The Ten Commandments are always a thorny issue, so why don't we just stick with displaying on public property the specific ones on which we can all agree...
May I now present to America, the Four Commandments:
Drum roll please...
Do not commit murder
Do not steal
Do not covet your neighbor's wife
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor
I think the commandment about coveting your neighbor's wife covers the adultery commandment, and we certainly don't want to be redundant. Plus, maybe you're cheating on your ratfink husband, as opposed to divorcing him, for the sake of your precious children, or vice-versa. I mean vice-versa in that maybe you're cheating on your ratfink wife for the sake of your precious children, not; maybe you're cheating on your precious husband for the sake of your ratfink children.
While honoring your father and mother is generally a good thing; if I were a Simpson offspring I doubt I would have much inclination to visit Papa OJ in the graybar hotel. And if I did, our conservations would consist of nothing but me asking, "Why didn't getting away with a brutal double homicide satisfy your lust for felonious behavior?" which I don't think anyone would consider, "honoring".
But I digress.
Now that the commandments have been condensed, public lands stripped of all religious symbols, and our money made free of god promoting phrases, we can begin the process of changing the region of the country known as the "Bible belt".
In many parts of the south and Utah you're not allowed to purchase alcohol at certain times of day. In some areas, the sale of alcohol is forbidden altogether. Perhaps a few of these laws were genuinely constructed with public safety in mind, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous in claiming that the majority of these ordinances were passed with the express purpose of discouraging the consumption of alcohol for the simple fact that it's considered a sin.
If religion played no part in drafting alcohol related statutes and individuals were free to purchase adult beverages whenever and wherever they pleased, abstaining religious folks could simply refrain from buying liquor.
If we took off the books all laws only in existence for religious regions, everyone would have more freedom and individuals wouldn't be subjected to senselessly living in accordance with religions they don't follow.
Christian conservatives constantly speak of freedom. They claim the Obama Administration is hindering our ability to live as we choose. However, in my estimation, conservatives are the number one culprit when it comes to limiting liberty.
They say, "Obama is going to prevent us from selecting our own doctor. Obama is going to prevent us from consuming the amount of energy we deem sufficient to live in comfort," and, "Obama is going to prevent companies from paying CEOs an amount they consider fair."
But when conservatives are asked, "Should people be free to buy and sell libations whenever they please, should people be free to marry the companion of their choice," or, "should people be free to walk public lands without subjection to religious spamming," they emphatically answer, "no!"
But it's clear to me that, if we were to include atheistic principles in our philosophy, Americans would have even more freedom and therefore receive greater enjoyment from life.
The problem, of course, is that the people of America will reject my proposal without consideration because the mere mention of an atheist conjures up images of Satan worshippers and Nazi skinheads. The religious majority's PR machine has been so successful in portraying individuals who reject a supreme being as whining degenerates that a feeling of disgust washes over the average American at the sight of an atheist that's so prevalent each time it occurs Pavlov nods his head and says, "Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about!"
So, religious fanatics; keep touting freedom through Judeo-Christian principles when you know full well that true freedom would only exist were America founded on Judeo-Christian-Atheist principles.
Actually, you could take Judeo-Christian out of the mix and things would be darn near perfect.
In other words; the really good stuff contained in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were used as the basis of America's founding.
But I opine that America would be an even better country if we began including atheistic principles in America's general philosophy.
First of all, because atheists don't believe in god, we can take, "In God We Trust," off our money and remove all crosses from public land.
Wow, that wasn't so bad. I doubt anyone will be too traumatized by the above actions; even Christians and Jews who enjoying curling up in bed with a wallet full of cash to read before sleepy time. (I'll try not to give away what's on the back of the twenty-dollar bill, but, SPOILER ALERT, it has something to do with a pale mansion...)
The Ten Commandments are always a thorny issue, so why don't we just stick with displaying on public property the specific ones on which we can all agree...
May I now present to America, the Four Commandments:
Drum roll please...
Do not commit murder
Do not steal
Do not covet your neighbor's wife
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor
I think the commandment about coveting your neighbor's wife covers the adultery commandment, and we certainly don't want to be redundant. Plus, maybe you're cheating on your ratfink husband, as opposed to divorcing him, for the sake of your precious children, or vice-versa. I mean vice-versa in that maybe you're cheating on your ratfink wife for the sake of your precious children, not; maybe you're cheating on your precious husband for the sake of your ratfink children.
While honoring your father and mother is generally a good thing; if I were a Simpson offspring I doubt I would have much inclination to visit Papa OJ in the graybar hotel. And if I did, our conservations would consist of nothing but me asking, "Why didn't getting away with a brutal double homicide satisfy your lust for felonious behavior?" which I don't think anyone would consider, "honoring".
But I digress.
Now that the commandments have been condensed, public lands stripped of all religious symbols, and our money made free of god promoting phrases, we can begin the process of changing the region of the country known as the "Bible belt".
In many parts of the south and Utah you're not allowed to purchase alcohol at certain times of day. In some areas, the sale of alcohol is forbidden altogether. Perhaps a few of these laws were genuinely constructed with public safety in mind, but I don't think I'm being disingenuous in claiming that the majority of these ordinances were passed with the express purpose of discouraging the consumption of alcohol for the simple fact that it's considered a sin.
If religion played no part in drafting alcohol related statutes and individuals were free to purchase adult beverages whenever and wherever they pleased, abstaining religious folks could simply refrain from buying liquor.
If we took off the books all laws only in existence for religious regions, everyone would have more freedom and individuals wouldn't be subjected to senselessly living in accordance with religions they don't follow.
Christian conservatives constantly speak of freedom. They claim the Obama Administration is hindering our ability to live as we choose. However, in my estimation, conservatives are the number one culprit when it comes to limiting liberty.
They say, "Obama is going to prevent us from selecting our own doctor. Obama is going to prevent us from consuming the amount of energy we deem sufficient to live in comfort," and, "Obama is going to prevent companies from paying CEOs an amount they consider fair."
But when conservatives are asked, "Should people be free to buy and sell libations whenever they please, should people be free to marry the companion of their choice," or, "should people be free to walk public lands without subjection to religious spamming," they emphatically answer, "no!"
But it's clear to me that, if we were to include atheistic principles in our philosophy, Americans would have even more freedom and therefore receive greater enjoyment from life.
The problem, of course, is that the people of America will reject my proposal without consideration because the mere mention of an atheist conjures up images of Satan worshippers and Nazi skinheads. The religious majority's PR machine has been so successful in portraying individuals who reject a supreme being as whining degenerates that a feeling of disgust washes over the average American at the sight of an atheist that's so prevalent each time it occurs Pavlov nods his head and says, "Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about!"
So, religious fanatics; keep touting freedom through Judeo-Christian principles when you know full well that true freedom would only exist were America founded on Judeo-Christian-Atheist principles.
Actually, you could take Judeo-Christian out of the mix and things would be darn near perfect.
Is Church a One-Way Ticket to Sinville?
I would strongly argue that a pew cushion is the last place under which you should look if you're seeking a well-adjusted member of society.
While I'm sure they're a great place at which to mingle, regularly scheduled church services give religious folks an excuse to sin, as well as a comforting feeling that they will one day soon turn their life around.
In other words; church is an enabler of sinful behavior because it causes the delay of reform.
In words other than that; simply by sitting in church, religious folks believe they are actively combating their vices.
Despite these frequent visits to church, when religious people egregiously sin, they always claim to have somehow forgotten the words written on the pages of their holy book; words on which the sermons are based.
Really?
You forget things you're reminded of on a weekly basis? The sermons don't help at all? If, every Sunday morning, I was reminded that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, I don't think I'd ever forget that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States.
The downside to needing help from outside influences in order to solve your problems is that many individuals wait for said outside influences to miraculously take effect.
It's as if people are saying, "I've been going to church for years, I don't know why I continue robbing the local convenience store, cheating on my spouse, burning down libraries, etc..."
If people took it upon themselves to improve their own situation, they might have some success.
Because all church does is remind you that others are negatively judging your behavior.
And let's talk about people who sit through church listening to sermons about how they should struggle to alter their sinful ways despite the fact that they feel not a tinge of guilt.
When you attempt to improve your situation because another human being, or higher power via ancient writings, tells you that your life is off course, the attempt will usually fail. When the goal is improving your situation because you think you've strayed, the attempt usually has a fighting chance.
Because it's all about your version of right and wrong.
Por Ejemplo; if an Amish person tells you that, simply by turning on a television set or desk lamp, you're no better than Jeffrey Dahmer; you're not likely to decrease your electricity consumption because you'd view such criticism as loco.
The above scenario is akin to church elders informing you that you're living a life of unacceptable sin. If you agree, you already knew this. If you disagree, then no amount of reminders regarding the dreadfulness of your behavior will make you alter your lifestyle because you believe your lifestyle is perfectly fine.
So if you want to change your life, use as motivation the thought of how much gratification you'll receive from future looks in the mirror, because you'll most likely find nods of approval from nicely-dressed people who feel it's their primary duty to judge your every action to be a major disappointment.
If outside influences are pressuring you to make unneeded changes, let your conscience be your guide.
Now tell me quickly - who was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States?
While I'm sure they're a great place at which to mingle, regularly scheduled church services give religious folks an excuse to sin, as well as a comforting feeling that they will one day soon turn their life around.
In other words; church is an enabler of sinful behavior because it causes the delay of reform.
In words other than that; simply by sitting in church, religious folks believe they are actively combating their vices.
Despite these frequent visits to church, when religious people egregiously sin, they always claim to have somehow forgotten the words written on the pages of their holy book; words on which the sermons are based.
Really?
You forget things you're reminded of on a weekly basis? The sermons don't help at all? If, every Sunday morning, I was reminded that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, I don't think I'd ever forget that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States.
The downside to needing help from outside influences in order to solve your problems is that many individuals wait for said outside influences to miraculously take effect.
It's as if people are saying, "I've been going to church for years, I don't know why I continue robbing the local convenience store, cheating on my spouse, burning down libraries, etc..."
If people took it upon themselves to improve their own situation, they might have some success.
Because all church does is remind you that others are negatively judging your behavior.
And let's talk about people who sit through church listening to sermons about how they should struggle to alter their sinful ways despite the fact that they feel not a tinge of guilt.
When you attempt to improve your situation because another human being, or higher power via ancient writings, tells you that your life is off course, the attempt will usually fail. When the goal is improving your situation because you think you've strayed, the attempt usually has a fighting chance.
Because it's all about your version of right and wrong.
Por Ejemplo; if an Amish person tells you that, simply by turning on a television set or desk lamp, you're no better than Jeffrey Dahmer; you're not likely to decrease your electricity consumption because you'd view such criticism as loco.
The above scenario is akin to church elders informing you that you're living a life of unacceptable sin. If you agree, you already knew this. If you disagree, then no amount of reminders regarding the dreadfulness of your behavior will make you alter your lifestyle because you believe your lifestyle is perfectly fine.
So if you want to change your life, use as motivation the thought of how much gratification you'll receive from future looks in the mirror, because you'll most likely find nods of approval from nicely-dressed people who feel it's their primary duty to judge your every action to be a major disappointment.
If outside influences are pressuring you to make unneeded changes, let your conscience be your guide.
Now tell me quickly - who was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States?
You Could Be a Member of the Westboro Baptist Church
For those of you not familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church; they're the people who make asses of themselves at funerals of slain military personnel. They proudly hold up signs that state god strongly dislikes homosexuals. They claim god is punishing all citizens of America because our government allows gays to roam as free as the African Wildebeest.
You too could be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
I'm sure you think of yourself as a strong minded individual who only reaches conclusions based on sound reasoning.
I hate to burst your bubble, but if your parents - the people that fed you, that nursed you back to health and tucked you into bed every night - had repeatedly informed a youthful you that god would send to hell anyone who engages in homosexual activity, you may have started to believe it.
You may even have started to believe that god would punish entire nations for the crime of failing to execute homosexuals based solely on their inherent preference of bedmate.
The above is not meant to equate all organized religions with the vile Westboro Baptist Church; it's meant to illustrate the potential harm in refusing to allow children to make their own decisions.
Footage of entire families holding up signs reading, "God Hate Fags," at the funeral of an American serviceperson causes my blood to boil. Then I realize the children will one day take on the role of the parent and therefore receive rightful scorn from every rational human being on earth.
But he or she never had a chance.
I suppose it's difficult to excuse this kind of behavior, but what option do the kids have that will spare them from a life of pretending to know full well exactly how vigorously god hates homosexuals and eventually bearing children they will brainwash into believing they have the same connection to the thoughts of the almighty?
Do we expect their underdeveloped minds to grasp exactly how much evil their parents possess, and, because of this advanced comprehension, run away from home and live out their youth in multiple foster homes? Or, due to the fact that no legal basis for a separation from their parents exits, perhaps they'll be forcibly returned to their hate-filled home. I can't imagine guardians who loathe homosexuals with such passion are tolerant when it comes to offspring covertly abandoning the nest.
I want to reiterate the fact that I am not calling all religious parents modern day versions of Adolf Hitler.
I just want to make sure every parent fully comprehends the amount of power they hold over the growing minds of their children.
Please don't tell your lads that opinions are facts. On their own, let them develop theories about life's unanswerable questions.
Don't give them a Bible and say, "You must believe every word printed on these pages or be subjected to an afterlife of misery."
Instead, hand them a Bible and say, "Please read this and then we'll compare notes."
If I had a child who approached me with a yearning to visit a Mormon temple or Catholic church, I would happily escort them and afterward discuss, in a non-bias way, what we witnessed.
If your children make a similar request, please don't act like you're disappointed. Don't act as if they said the equivalent of, "I have chosen hardcore pornography as my vocation."
Don't only announce, "I'm very proud of you," after occasions in which you learn the conclusions of your children coincide exactly with yours. Declare your pride after instances in which they think for themselves.
Tell them you're beaming with pride even if they have recently informed you that they completely reject the notion of a higher power.
Yes, you'll worry about their souls, but just think how much more secure you'll be regarding their long-term faith if, on their own, they decide to join you at church every Sunday morning.
And if they choose not to believe, do you really think - if there is a god, he or she will punish your kindhearted child for making an informed decision after thoughtfully considering every piece of evidence?
You too could be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
I'm sure you think of yourself as a strong minded individual who only reaches conclusions based on sound reasoning.
I hate to burst your bubble, but if your parents - the people that fed you, that nursed you back to health and tucked you into bed every night - had repeatedly informed a youthful you that god would send to hell anyone who engages in homosexual activity, you may have started to believe it.
You may even have started to believe that god would punish entire nations for the crime of failing to execute homosexuals based solely on their inherent preference of bedmate.
The above is not meant to equate all organized religions with the vile Westboro Baptist Church; it's meant to illustrate the potential harm in refusing to allow children to make their own decisions.
Footage of entire families holding up signs reading, "God Hate Fags," at the funeral of an American serviceperson causes my blood to boil. Then I realize the children will one day take on the role of the parent and therefore receive rightful scorn from every rational human being on earth.
But he or she never had a chance.
I suppose it's difficult to excuse this kind of behavior, but what option do the kids have that will spare them from a life of pretending to know full well exactly how vigorously god hates homosexuals and eventually bearing children they will brainwash into believing they have the same connection to the thoughts of the almighty?
Do we expect their underdeveloped minds to grasp exactly how much evil their parents possess, and, because of this advanced comprehension, run away from home and live out their youth in multiple foster homes? Or, due to the fact that no legal basis for a separation from their parents exits, perhaps they'll be forcibly returned to their hate-filled home. I can't imagine guardians who loathe homosexuals with such passion are tolerant when it comes to offspring covertly abandoning the nest.
I want to reiterate the fact that I am not calling all religious parents modern day versions of Adolf Hitler.
I just want to make sure every parent fully comprehends the amount of power they hold over the growing minds of their children.
Please don't tell your lads that opinions are facts. On their own, let them develop theories about life's unanswerable questions.
Don't give them a Bible and say, "You must believe every word printed on these pages or be subjected to an afterlife of misery."
Instead, hand them a Bible and say, "Please read this and then we'll compare notes."
If I had a child who approached me with a yearning to visit a Mormon temple or Catholic church, I would happily escort them and afterward discuss, in a non-bias way, what we witnessed.
If your children make a similar request, please don't act like you're disappointed. Don't act as if they said the equivalent of, "I have chosen hardcore pornography as my vocation."
Don't only announce, "I'm very proud of you," after occasions in which you learn the conclusions of your children coincide exactly with yours. Declare your pride after instances in which they think for themselves.
Tell them you're beaming with pride even if they have recently informed you that they completely reject the notion of a higher power.
Yes, you'll worry about their souls, but just think how much more secure you'll be regarding their long-term faith if, on their own, they decide to join you at church every Sunday morning.
And if they choose not to believe, do you really think - if there is a god, he or she will punish your kindhearted child for making an informed decision after thoughtfully considering every piece of evidence?
When Do the Ten Commandments XP Arrive?
In biblical times, God had many ways to get his message across.
Not so much anymore.
Perhaps he's cut ties with earthlings and is devoting his attention to a newly developed planet in a galaxy far, far away. Sort of like when a sitcom producer leaves an establish hit like The Office to work on an up-and-coming program like How I Met Your Two Dads.
But don't you believers need god to tweak his rules a little bit?
It worries those of us who live our life in accordance with the norms of the society in which we reside that you religious folks are living by a set of principles written centuries ago.
I'm not going to send my children to a school that is still enforcing a code of conduct written before the Axis Powers were defeated. "So my child is required to alert school officials should they see a Japanese American student roaming the halls. Is there a specific number they can text with that information?"
We see how living by ancient rules impacts other societies and I for one have no interest in witnessing American girls stoned to death for fraternizing with members of the opposite sex.
And yes, a father living in America recently murdered his own daughters for being too "modern."
Because persons of all religions are following extremely old instructions, why not just follow the ones that are truly timeless until an update is provided by a trustworthy conduit to god?
I know some religions do an overall better job of conforming to modern times, but since there are extremists in all religions, everyone belonging to the big three should take the advice I humbly offer.
Do not commit murder is the perfect example of a timeless classic. You should definitely not commit murder. And it would be fantastic if you extremists could pay close attention to this one and stop killing people based on their religion or race.
So actually the anti-murdering instruction could use an update to read, "Do not murder anyone for any reason, whatsoever. Even if you read something else in your holy book that makes it seem like murdering someone is serving god, it's not."
Wow, you wouldn't think such a simple command would need revising.
Imagine the atrocities that could have been avoided if this update were provided a few hundred years ago.
Let's move on.
Do not commit adultery.
You should definitely not cheat on your spouse.
Wait a second.
When I say, "adultery" I don't include persons who married an individual they truly loved, but, despite the best efforts of both partners, could not make it work and later on in life found another. I mean, that, if married, you shouldn't have physically arousing contact with a person other than your spouse.
Okay, we need an update on this one as well because we want to make sure people don't get stuck in potentially destructive marriages that could negatively impact children.
I know a lot of religious people will say that you should either abide by the brutal and arcane laws written in your holy books or get it out of the religion, but I don't see these people ruthlessly slaying professional readers of tarot cards. (Look it up.)
So regardless of your religion, perhaps everyone should take it upon themselves to update the commandants to fit their own view of the world. While these updates sort of make the original rules irrelevant, it's important we're not living by outdated instructions.
After all, if the rules of the Old Testament were strictly followed, America would be a more oppressive country than Taliban-led Afghanistan. That's the reason our Founding Fathers were so insistent we separate church and state.
And if people of the same religion can read the same book and come to such drastically different conclusions, it's not vitally important that you stick with the rules by which you've attempted to abide your entire life.
When basic rules that ban murder and adultery need qualifiers, it's time you get an update so us non-believers can welcome people of all religions into our civilized world.
Religious people are fond of saying that it would be impossible to differentiate moral behavior from non-moral behavior had as sense of right and wrong not been instilled in each of us by a deity. But if that were the case, the most oppressive countries in the word would not be theocracies.
So perhaps don't ask for updates, because they may contain more brutality than the originals.
Instead, please vow to harm no one and don't judge your fellow man, as long as your fellow man is abiding by the first rule.
Now those are timeless classics.
Yes, I realize many people do a good job in self-updating the laws they follow, which is why church busses don't go through West Hollywood mowing down homosexuals Grand Theft Auto style. But just imagine how peaceful the entire world would be if you all took it a step further.
Not so much anymore.
Perhaps he's cut ties with earthlings and is devoting his attention to a newly developed planet in a galaxy far, far away. Sort of like when a sitcom producer leaves an establish hit like The Office to work on an up-and-coming program like How I Met Your Two Dads.
But don't you believers need god to tweak his rules a little bit?
It worries those of us who live our life in accordance with the norms of the society in which we reside that you religious folks are living by a set of principles written centuries ago.
I'm not going to send my children to a school that is still enforcing a code of conduct written before the Axis Powers were defeated. "So my child is required to alert school officials should they see a Japanese American student roaming the halls. Is there a specific number they can text with that information?"
We see how living by ancient rules impacts other societies and I for one have no interest in witnessing American girls stoned to death for fraternizing with members of the opposite sex.
And yes, a father living in America recently murdered his own daughters for being too "modern."
Because persons of all religions are following extremely old instructions, why not just follow the ones that are truly timeless until an update is provided by a trustworthy conduit to god?
I know some religions do an overall better job of conforming to modern times, but since there are extremists in all religions, everyone belonging to the big three should take the advice I humbly offer.
Do not commit murder is the perfect example of a timeless classic. You should definitely not commit murder. And it would be fantastic if you extremists could pay close attention to this one and stop killing people based on their religion or race.
So actually the anti-murdering instruction could use an update to read, "Do not murder anyone for any reason, whatsoever. Even if you read something else in your holy book that makes it seem like murdering someone is serving god, it's not."
Wow, you wouldn't think such a simple command would need revising.
Imagine the atrocities that could have been avoided if this update were provided a few hundred years ago.
Let's move on.
Do not commit adultery.
You should definitely not cheat on your spouse.
Wait a second.
When I say, "adultery" I don't include persons who married an individual they truly loved, but, despite the best efforts of both partners, could not make it work and later on in life found another. I mean, that, if married, you shouldn't have physically arousing contact with a person other than your spouse.
Okay, we need an update on this one as well because we want to make sure people don't get stuck in potentially destructive marriages that could negatively impact children.
I know a lot of religious people will say that you should either abide by the brutal and arcane laws written in your holy books or get it out of the religion, but I don't see these people ruthlessly slaying professional readers of tarot cards. (Look it up.)
So regardless of your religion, perhaps everyone should take it upon themselves to update the commandants to fit their own view of the world. While these updates sort of make the original rules irrelevant, it's important we're not living by outdated instructions.
After all, if the rules of the Old Testament were strictly followed, America would be a more oppressive country than Taliban-led Afghanistan. That's the reason our Founding Fathers were so insistent we separate church and state.
And if people of the same religion can read the same book and come to such drastically different conclusions, it's not vitally important that you stick with the rules by which you've attempted to abide your entire life.
When basic rules that ban murder and adultery need qualifiers, it's time you get an update so us non-believers can welcome people of all religions into our civilized world.
Religious people are fond of saying that it would be impossible to differentiate moral behavior from non-moral behavior had as sense of right and wrong not been instilled in each of us by a deity. But if that were the case, the most oppressive countries in the word would not be theocracies.
So perhaps don't ask for updates, because they may contain more brutality than the originals.
Instead, please vow to harm no one and don't judge your fellow man, as long as your fellow man is abiding by the first rule.
Now those are timeless classics.
Yes, I realize many people do a good job in self-updating the laws they follow, which is why church busses don't go through West Hollywood mowing down homosexuals Grand Theft Auto style. But just imagine how peaceful the entire world would be if you all took it a step further.
No Threat Equals No Religion
I often wonder what it would be like to have a conversation with a person I feared would be sentenced to an eternity of horror.
Such a conversation would make me sad. It'd be like talking to a wrongly convicted death row inmate.
I'd ask them, "If your existence will be one of misery for thousands and thousands of years, why don't you take this short opportunity we call life to go crazy. Eat all you want, drink all you want - just go nuts, 24/7. Since things will be a lot better for me after I die, I'm going to rest up in preparation for all the good times and frivolity the afterlife will provide, so thankfully I don't have to live the rest of my life as if it were akin to a last meal."
I can't emphasize how pleasurable it is to talk to an individual about religion without fear that, if I don't convince him or her that my beliefs are correct, they'll forever rot in hell despite the fact that they're a person filled with decency and morality.
So let's examine what life would be like if religious people didn't believe in different outcomes for different faiths.
I think it's safe to say that church parking lots wouldn't be overflowing on Sunday mornings if nobody feared what's on the other side. Perhaps there would be no churches.
If only religious people claimed, "We think our god is the only true god. In fact, our god is so cool that if you don't believe he's the one true god, he'll still allow you to stay with him after your time on earth is through because he loves everybody. Not, 'loves everybody, but if you don't believe in him, will send you to hell, loves everybody,' rather, 'loves everybody, will let all humane persons bunk with him in the afterlife, loves everybody.'"
If that were the case, there would be no big three religions.
A few lost souls would still cling onto to Jim Jones type individuals promising a heaven beyond their wildest expectations, but the people content with life would make the decision to only concentrate on the things over which they have control.
They would focus on enjoying life, helping others, and studying historically accurate facts.
They would think, "If none of the proposed gods give a flying whit whether or not I believe in him, yet one of them is actually the true god, it means he probably wants me to focus on how I can benefit humanity instead of racking my brain in search of answers to questions I can't comprehend."
From the beginning it was never about the truth; it's always been about control.
Throughout history, the church elders have never really cared what you believed; they only cared that you followed their life instructions to a tee. I'm sure a few higher-ups were believers, but regardless of their thoughts on god and his teachings, their main objective was to control your life.
Unless you were convinced at young age to believe such a tale was factual, wouldn't you consider fishy a story about a man saying to another man, "Should you choose not to believe in the god I insist is the only real god, and should you choose not to live exactly as I say, based on said god's specific instructions as previously relayed to me, he will not welcome you into his kingdom of perfection."?
If that wasn't fishy enough, the stranger would then list contradictory rules with seemingly no standards.
But in simpler times such stories must have seemed plausible, because religion grew and grew.
Had ancient people enough sense to reject these so-called human conduits to god, millions of people who devoted their lives to destroying other religions could have focused on the betterment of all mankind, leading to a superior world.
Such a conversation would make me sad. It'd be like talking to a wrongly convicted death row inmate.
I'd ask them, "If your existence will be one of misery for thousands and thousands of years, why don't you take this short opportunity we call life to go crazy. Eat all you want, drink all you want - just go nuts, 24/7. Since things will be a lot better for me after I die, I'm going to rest up in preparation for all the good times and frivolity the afterlife will provide, so thankfully I don't have to live the rest of my life as if it were akin to a last meal."
I can't emphasize how pleasurable it is to talk to an individual about religion without fear that, if I don't convince him or her that my beliefs are correct, they'll forever rot in hell despite the fact that they're a person filled with decency and morality.
So let's examine what life would be like if religious people didn't believe in different outcomes for different faiths.
I think it's safe to say that church parking lots wouldn't be overflowing on Sunday mornings if nobody feared what's on the other side. Perhaps there would be no churches.
If only religious people claimed, "We think our god is the only true god. In fact, our god is so cool that if you don't believe he's the one true god, he'll still allow you to stay with him after your time on earth is through because he loves everybody. Not, 'loves everybody, but if you don't believe in him, will send you to hell, loves everybody,' rather, 'loves everybody, will let all humane persons bunk with him in the afterlife, loves everybody.'"
If that were the case, there would be no big three religions.
A few lost souls would still cling onto to Jim Jones type individuals promising a heaven beyond their wildest expectations, but the people content with life would make the decision to only concentrate on the things over which they have control.
They would focus on enjoying life, helping others, and studying historically accurate facts.
They would think, "If none of the proposed gods give a flying whit whether or not I believe in him, yet one of them is actually the true god, it means he probably wants me to focus on how I can benefit humanity instead of racking my brain in search of answers to questions I can't comprehend."
From the beginning it was never about the truth; it's always been about control.
Throughout history, the church elders have never really cared what you believed; they only cared that you followed their life instructions to a tee. I'm sure a few higher-ups were believers, but regardless of their thoughts on god and his teachings, their main objective was to control your life.
Unless you were convinced at young age to believe such a tale was factual, wouldn't you consider fishy a story about a man saying to another man, "Should you choose not to believe in the god I insist is the only real god, and should you choose not to live exactly as I say, based on said god's specific instructions as previously relayed to me, he will not welcome you into his kingdom of perfection."?
If that wasn't fishy enough, the stranger would then list contradictory rules with seemingly no standards.
But in simpler times such stories must have seemed plausible, because religion grew and grew.
Had ancient people enough sense to reject these so-called human conduits to god, millions of people who devoted their lives to destroying other religions could have focused on the betterment of all mankind, leading to a superior world.
Hitler Taught Me Right from Wrong
Much is made by atheists about the amount of violence in the Bible; punitive violence directed at people undeserving of scorn. Undeserving of scorn unless you think having a keen sense of fashion and maintaining a healthy physique deserves a few stones to the upper torso and head.
This violence wouldn't be so bothersome if Christians didn't constantly ask us non-believers, "How would human beings know right from wrong if no higher power existed to instill morality in us?"
They're basically saying, "An entity responsible for horrific violence is the same entity that tells me it's not okay to punch an old lady in the mouth and take her purse."
How can you say a deity, who called for the execution of homosexuals, is responsible for instilling in modern day humans a sense that harming homosexuals is immoral?
I understand the Bible goes on to preach against adultery and other deplorable behaviors, but it makes no mention of the violence in the Old Testament being a mistake, because God is perfect.
That would be akin to telling others they should admire an unrepentant Hitler because he once wrote that future generations should go easy on the Jew-killing.
I understand the faith angle. You assume God wouldn't want to make it obvious He existed and therefore decided to give a few contradictory messages and perform a few contradictory deeds.
But to disregard the most extreme acts in order to pretend He is the one teaching you right from wrong is simply ludicrous.
You're basically saying that anything modern day society considers to be, "good," God taught you to do. In the year 1800 God told people it was perfectly fine to enslave certain members of the human race. Now that most non-Neo-Nazis living in America frown on discrimination, He teaches you to view everyone as equal.
But maybe you are correct. Maybe if God didn't go out of His way to instill in all of us an inherent sense of right and wrong we'd all resemble the Seinfeld character George Costanza, who, after being accused of sleeping with the office cleaning lady, said to his boss, "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon..."
This violence wouldn't be so bothersome if Christians didn't constantly ask us non-believers, "How would human beings know right from wrong if no higher power existed to instill morality in us?"
They're basically saying, "An entity responsible for horrific violence is the same entity that tells me it's not okay to punch an old lady in the mouth and take her purse."
How can you say a deity, who called for the execution of homosexuals, is responsible for instilling in modern day humans a sense that harming homosexuals is immoral?
I understand the Bible goes on to preach against adultery and other deplorable behaviors, but it makes no mention of the violence in the Old Testament being a mistake, because God is perfect.
That would be akin to telling others they should admire an unrepentant Hitler because he once wrote that future generations should go easy on the Jew-killing.
I understand the faith angle. You assume God wouldn't want to make it obvious He existed and therefore decided to give a few contradictory messages and perform a few contradictory deeds.
But to disregard the most extreme acts in order to pretend He is the one teaching you right from wrong is simply ludicrous.
You're basically saying that anything modern day society considers to be, "good," God taught you to do. In the year 1800 God told people it was perfectly fine to enslave certain members of the human race. Now that most non-Neo-Nazis living in America frown on discrimination, He teaches you to view everyone as equal.
But maybe you are correct. Maybe if God didn't go out of His way to instill in all of us an inherent sense of right and wrong we'd all resemble the Seinfeld character George Costanza, who, after being accused of sleeping with the office cleaning lady, said to his boss, "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon..."
I'm a Proud American Atheist
The world was made for freedom. Nature gave human beings the ability to run free. Any reduction in liberty is manmade and should be rejected by persons of all religions, but especially by those who don't believe a deity was responsible for the formation of the universe.
Despite the immense trouble America has had in properly separating church and state, the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world for those who seek liberty.
I have as much trouble with governments who don't allow citizens to worship a god as I do with governments who force citizens to live their lives in strict accordance with an ancient book written by human beings who claimed a direct pathway to the heavens.
I cherish the fact that I can convert to Judaism on Monday, Christianity on Tuesday, Islam on Wednesday, Buddhism on Thursday, and be back to my old atheist self by the weekend.
I am not a Republican and I am not a Democrat because I inherently distrust those who actively seek control over others.
I would encourage those who reject the notion of a higher power to also reject government officials who do anything other than quietly protect your family and construct the roads on which you drive. Those enthusiastic about governing usually believe they are better at making decisions best left up to the individual.
Much like those high-up in organized religion, politicians thrive on instructing others how to live. Religious leaders pretend to use a holy book as the guide by which they teach, but in reality they encourage you to live what they consider an optimum lifestyle. This is similar to how politicians pretend their proposed rules are constitutional, while the rules proposed by their opponents go against everything our founding fathers had intended by drafting that sacred document.
These politicians use the Constitution to manipulate their constituents as David Koresh used the Bible to control the minds of those who believed in his righteousness. It never matters what the document says; it only matters what those in power say it says.
In other words, human beings that seek control will twist any popular writing to make it seem as if they are not telling you how to live based on their own personal beliefs and prejudices; rather they are simply correctly interpreting the words of a wise man or deity.
So cherish your freedom and be weary of anyone seeking power over others, because they rarely have anything on their mind other than career advancement or manipulation for the sake of twisted pleasure.
Despite the immense trouble America has had in properly separating church and state, the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world for those who seek liberty.
I have as much trouble with governments who don't allow citizens to worship a god as I do with governments who force citizens to live their lives in strict accordance with an ancient book written by human beings who claimed a direct pathway to the heavens.
I cherish the fact that I can convert to Judaism on Monday, Christianity on Tuesday, Islam on Wednesday, Buddhism on Thursday, and be back to my old atheist self by the weekend.
I am not a Republican and I am not a Democrat because I inherently distrust those who actively seek control over others.
I would encourage those who reject the notion of a higher power to also reject government officials who do anything other than quietly protect your family and construct the roads on which you drive. Those enthusiastic about governing usually believe they are better at making decisions best left up to the individual.
Much like those high-up in organized religion, politicians thrive on instructing others how to live. Religious leaders pretend to use a holy book as the guide by which they teach, but in reality they encourage you to live what they consider an optimum lifestyle. This is similar to how politicians pretend their proposed rules are constitutional, while the rules proposed by their opponents go against everything our founding fathers had intended by drafting that sacred document.
These politicians use the Constitution to manipulate their constituents as David Koresh used the Bible to control the minds of those who believed in his righteousness. It never matters what the document says; it only matters what those in power say it says.
In other words, human beings that seek control will twist any popular writing to make it seem as if they are not telling you how to live based on their own personal beliefs and prejudices; rather they are simply correctly interpreting the words of a wise man or deity.
So cherish your freedom and be weary of anyone seeking power over others, because they rarely have anything on their mind other than career advancement or manipulation for the sake of twisted pleasure.
Those Who Believe in Evolution Have Helped Society Evolve
One of the longest running debates between religious people and those who believe in a little something called "proof," is whether or not the universe was created by an intelligent force.
But let's not talk about evolution in terms of apes slowly transforming into men, let's talk about evolution in terms of bigoted men slowly transforming into men with scruples.
If all men were stuck believing ancient, man-authored, writings were the word of god; this earth, especially America, would be a very different place.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Fox Network could produce a wonderfully entertaining musical-comedy series set in a Federal prison used to house men convicted of homosexuality, but I still much prefer a United States where it's legal for a man to lie with a man as a man lies with a woman.
Having people not raised in a church has helped us evolve as a nation. Not learning at an early age to categorize people into groups leaves many Americans inherently able to discover for themselves that there is no such thing as, "chosen people."
As a result of our diverse culture; as an overtly religious child grows, he is exposed to peers that the Bible preaches against. When this brain-washed lad discovers that playing basketball against the feminine boy with two moms didn't produce hideous lesions all over his body, he starts to realize that everyone is basically the same, and he may even enjoy spending time with people a sacred book has always told him are disgraceful sinners. This realization is enhanced as it becomes obvious that the "crimes" committed by these "enemies" have no victim.
Because intelligent design is not a requirement for all children in public schools to learn, we have evolved as a nation.
We've evolved into people who understand that witchcraft doesn't exist, and, if, by some nuclear accident, a human was transformed into a witch, it would be wrong to burn them at the stake.
We've evolved enough to know that there is never justification for killing the first born son in every household, no matter how many rotten things the pharaoh has done, or has vowed to do in his State of the Theocracy address.
It's far fetched to think these kinds of things would happen in America today, but religious people around the world still use their holy book to justify horrific sins like the execution of homosexuals. And it wasn't so long ago in America that a man could own another man. And many Christians did.
Admittedly there were Christian abolitionists. But would these abolitionists have felt differently had they not been Christians? Of course not; they inherently knew slavery was a horrific and immoral sin the same way 99% of modern folks don't need to be taught buying and selling individuals is a crime against humanity. And, had they not been Christians, they likely would have spoken out against slavery either earlier or more vehemently than they did were the church elders not pressuring them to hop on board the slavery train while using the Bible, which often calls for the enslavement of others, to justify the abhorrent practice.
Had no one in the world ever purported to hold the word of god in his hand; would large-scale slavery ever have been a problem?
I must admit that a great many Christians and deists are to thank for the evolution of our great nation. These founders realized that even though they believed a higher power woke up one morning and decided to start a civilization; liberty would be the foundation of a successful America. They understood that if government ruled using the Bible as their guide, people would never truly be free to prosper.
It breaks our hearts seeing people in other countries killed by the forces of a ruling religious zealot for simply protesting their lack of fundamental freedom. Thankfully, because people were smart enough to foresee that a fair and just nation desperately needed citizens who believe in earthly evolution to assist in the evolution of freedom, the United States has no such problem.
So keep on believing whatever it is you believe, but please remember how deplorable earth would eventually become were you to achieve a conversion success rate of 100%.
Because you want atheists on that wall between freedom and tyranny... You need us on that wall!
But let's not talk about evolution in terms of apes slowly transforming into men, let's talk about evolution in terms of bigoted men slowly transforming into men with scruples.
If all men were stuck believing ancient, man-authored, writings were the word of god; this earth, especially America, would be a very different place.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Fox Network could produce a wonderfully entertaining musical-comedy series set in a Federal prison used to house men convicted of homosexuality, but I still much prefer a United States where it's legal for a man to lie with a man as a man lies with a woman.
Having people not raised in a church has helped us evolve as a nation. Not learning at an early age to categorize people into groups leaves many Americans inherently able to discover for themselves that there is no such thing as, "chosen people."
As a result of our diverse culture; as an overtly religious child grows, he is exposed to peers that the Bible preaches against. When this brain-washed lad discovers that playing basketball against the feminine boy with two moms didn't produce hideous lesions all over his body, he starts to realize that everyone is basically the same, and he may even enjoy spending time with people a sacred book has always told him are disgraceful sinners. This realization is enhanced as it becomes obvious that the "crimes" committed by these "enemies" have no victim.
Because intelligent design is not a requirement for all children in public schools to learn, we have evolved as a nation.
We've evolved into people who understand that witchcraft doesn't exist, and, if, by some nuclear accident, a human was transformed into a witch, it would be wrong to burn them at the stake.
We've evolved enough to know that there is never justification for killing the first born son in every household, no matter how many rotten things the pharaoh has done, or has vowed to do in his State of the Theocracy address.
It's far fetched to think these kinds of things would happen in America today, but religious people around the world still use their holy book to justify horrific sins like the execution of homosexuals. And it wasn't so long ago in America that a man could own another man. And many Christians did.
Admittedly there were Christian abolitionists. But would these abolitionists have felt differently had they not been Christians? Of course not; they inherently knew slavery was a horrific and immoral sin the same way 99% of modern folks don't need to be taught buying and selling individuals is a crime against humanity. And, had they not been Christians, they likely would have spoken out against slavery either earlier or more vehemently than they did were the church elders not pressuring them to hop on board the slavery train while using the Bible, which often calls for the enslavement of others, to justify the abhorrent practice.
Had no one in the world ever purported to hold the word of god in his hand; would large-scale slavery ever have been a problem?
I must admit that a great many Christians and deists are to thank for the evolution of our great nation. These founders realized that even though they believed a higher power woke up one morning and decided to start a civilization; liberty would be the foundation of a successful America. They understood that if government ruled using the Bible as their guide, people would never truly be free to prosper.
It breaks our hearts seeing people in other countries killed by the forces of a ruling religious zealot for simply protesting their lack of fundamental freedom. Thankfully, because people were smart enough to foresee that a fair and just nation desperately needed citizens who believe in earthly evolution to assist in the evolution of freedom, the United States has no such problem.
So keep on believing whatever it is you believe, but please remember how deplorable earth would eventually become were you to achieve a conversion success rate of 100%.
Because you want atheists on that wall between freedom and tyranny... You need us on that wall!
Are Christians Disloyal for Refusing to Declare Jihad?
Our politically correct society makes it imperative we preface any discussion of jihad by claiming that only a few radical Muslims have perverted the teachings of Islam. Islam is "the religion of peace," the civilized must insist.
However, upon closer look at the Book of Leviticus, it appears that anyone who purports to believe in the Old Testament and is not actively punishing human beings for earthly sins may be perverting their own religion.
I suppose those who still consider the Old Testament a holy book are angered by jihadists because jihadists make them aware of the fact that they are choosing to only read chapters of their holy book that make them feel comfy and cozy. And instead of exchanging the entire book for a warm, marshmallowy cup of cocoa, they must live a lie.
It must be difficult to admit that those who call for the death of persons, who have done nothing other than practice the wrong religion, are far more stringent when it comes to following the strict guidelines set forth by their god.
Instead of claiming that Islamic radicals are perverting their religion, you should be admitting that, because you inherently know right from wrong, you can't abide by every rule in your Bible, and think it should be a given that every religious person ignore verses in their dearly beloved book when those verses contain instructions not acceptable in modern society.
You rightly admonish jihadists, but pretend they are perverting their religion, when it is you who pervert your religion by not acting in a similar manner.
Are you afraid potential converts will be turned off should they learn what's actually in the Bible? Do you only want to show them passages that call for everyone to love their neighbor? Since you're basically removing words from the Bible, why refrain from adding verses? Wouldn't that cute saying that claims little boys are made from puppy dog tails be a great addition to the Book of Zephaniah?
And I suppose it also wouldn't be a great selling point should the prospective converts ever learn that the Bible contains similar instructions to ones listed in the book strictly followed by jihadists.
So keep sweeping the truth under the rug while criticizing jihadists for being truer to their religion than you are to yours.
However, upon closer look at the Book of Leviticus, it appears that anyone who purports to believe in the Old Testament and is not actively punishing human beings for earthly sins may be perverting their own religion.
I suppose those who still consider the Old Testament a holy book are angered by jihadists because jihadists make them aware of the fact that they are choosing to only read chapters of their holy book that make them feel comfy and cozy. And instead of exchanging the entire book for a warm, marshmallowy cup of cocoa, they must live a lie.
It must be difficult to admit that those who call for the death of persons, who have done nothing other than practice the wrong religion, are far more stringent when it comes to following the strict guidelines set forth by their god.
Instead of claiming that Islamic radicals are perverting their religion, you should be admitting that, because you inherently know right from wrong, you can't abide by every rule in your Bible, and think it should be a given that every religious person ignore verses in their dearly beloved book when those verses contain instructions not acceptable in modern society.
You rightly admonish jihadists, but pretend they are perverting their religion, when it is you who pervert your religion by not acting in a similar manner.
Are you afraid potential converts will be turned off should they learn what's actually in the Bible? Do you only want to show them passages that call for everyone to love their neighbor? Since you're basically removing words from the Bible, why refrain from adding verses? Wouldn't that cute saying that claims little boys are made from puppy dog tails be a great addition to the Book of Zephaniah?
And I suppose it also wouldn't be a great selling point should the prospective converts ever learn that the Bible contains similar instructions to ones listed in the book strictly followed by jihadists.
So keep sweeping the truth under the rug while criticizing jihadists for being truer to their religion than you are to yours.
God Hates These Kids!
Whenever a disaster occurs, which kills people of all ages; you have certain Christian evangelists who claim that God is paying the community back for committing sins of an egregious nature.
I find it fascinating that people assert the same God they worship is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent children!
For some reason I choose to differentiate myself from those who harm children, which is why I'm one of the few females who have never looked for true love by corresponding with inmates at my local correctional facility and/or mental health institution.
I can understand people making up an all-powerful deity in order to keep the masses in line, and perhaps, in ancient times, they felt obligated to pretend the deity was capable of unmistakable horror in order to get their point across.
But for Pat Robertson and his ilk to assert such a directive originates from heaven in 2010, and that Mr. Robertson stands behind the ordering of such disasters, is frankly frightening.
Many of their more rational followers, I suppose, insist God will not harm the soul of the innocent child. I suppose that assumption is similar to a parent telling their kid, "If you go to the dentist today without putting up a fight, I promise to take you out for pizza this evening."
"While you will die a brutal earthly death, when you get to heaven I'll let you watch cartoons until 11:30!"
No sane person would suggest that children should be punished for the sins of their family members, or of those in their communities, yet it's a perfect punishment for a supposedly "perfect" God to enact.
Americans condemn countries that refuse to differentiate children from adults when sentencing criminals.
Yet some in America praise God for imposing capital punishment on children for crimes they didn't even commit.
May I suggest you have standards when choosing a deity?
As an open-minded atheist, I have no qualms with someone who, after pondering the universe, arrives at the conclusion that it was created by an intelligent force.
But to follow a deity who doles out the same punishment a human being would be scorned for even suggesting is ludicrous.
I realize that most church going Christians don't believe such nonsense, but wacko evangelists have too large a following to get away with preaching about similar retribution.
Our stomachs get queasy when we think of former methods by which the guilty were killed. Throughout history condemned persons have been burned to death, crushed to death, sawed in half, decapitated, disemboweled, boiled to death, impaled, and dismembered. In some countries, those found guilty of adultery are still stoned to death.
Yet when God punishes innocent children with similar cruelty, He is somehow teaching us all lessons of value.
Sometimes I want to believe differently.
Sometimes I want to believe there is a god; and when he or she meets Pat Robertson for the first time, he or she will ask him, "You told millions of people I went out of my way to do what to whom for what reason? Where did you come up with such a cockamamie notion and why did you feel the need to preach about things of which you obviously had no idea?"
Although, because Pat Robertson believes God currently speaks to him on a regular basis, if a real God were standing in front of Mr. 700 Club, the evangelist likely would be much too ignorant to realize it.
I find it fascinating that people assert the same God they worship is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent children!
For some reason I choose to differentiate myself from those who harm children, which is why I'm one of the few females who have never looked for true love by corresponding with inmates at my local correctional facility and/or mental health institution.
I can understand people making up an all-powerful deity in order to keep the masses in line, and perhaps, in ancient times, they felt obligated to pretend the deity was capable of unmistakable horror in order to get their point across.
But for Pat Robertson and his ilk to assert such a directive originates from heaven in 2010, and that Mr. Robertson stands behind the ordering of such disasters, is frankly frightening.
Many of their more rational followers, I suppose, insist God will not harm the soul of the innocent child. I suppose that assumption is similar to a parent telling their kid, "If you go to the dentist today without putting up a fight, I promise to take you out for pizza this evening."
"While you will die a brutal earthly death, when you get to heaven I'll let you watch cartoons until 11:30!"
No sane person would suggest that children should be punished for the sins of their family members, or of those in their communities, yet it's a perfect punishment for a supposedly "perfect" God to enact.
Americans condemn countries that refuse to differentiate children from adults when sentencing criminals.
Yet some in America praise God for imposing capital punishment on children for crimes they didn't even commit.
May I suggest you have standards when choosing a deity?
As an open-minded atheist, I have no qualms with someone who, after pondering the universe, arrives at the conclusion that it was created by an intelligent force.
But to follow a deity who doles out the same punishment a human being would be scorned for even suggesting is ludicrous.
I realize that most church going Christians don't believe such nonsense, but wacko evangelists have too large a following to get away with preaching about similar retribution.
Our stomachs get queasy when we think of former methods by which the guilty were killed. Throughout history condemned persons have been burned to death, crushed to death, sawed in half, decapitated, disemboweled, boiled to death, impaled, and dismembered. In some countries, those found guilty of adultery are still stoned to death.
Yet when God punishes innocent children with similar cruelty, He is somehow teaching us all lessons of value.
Sometimes I want to believe differently.
Sometimes I want to believe there is a god; and when he or she meets Pat Robertson for the first time, he or she will ask him, "You told millions of people I went out of my way to do what to whom for what reason? Where did you come up with such a cockamamie notion and why did you feel the need to preach about things of which you obviously had no idea?"
Although, because Pat Robertson believes God currently speaks to him on a regular basis, if a real God were standing in front of Mr. 700 Club, the evangelist likely would be much too ignorant to realize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)