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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)